Policy Options
for Improving Educational Financing
and Oversight for Children
in Wisconsin Residential Care Centers
Prepared for the
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families
By
Jami Crespo
Nicholas Heckman
Katherine Kruse
Ciara Mentzer
Ryan Schowalter
Workshop in Public Affairs
May 2012
©2012 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
All rights reserved.
For additional copies:
Publications Office
La Follette School of Public Affairs
1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706
www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html
publications@lafollette.wisc.edu
The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a teaching
and research department of the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
The school takes no stand on policy issues; opinions expressed in these pages
reflect the views of the authors.
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... v
Foreword ............................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................. ix
Executive Summary ............................................................................................... xi
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................. 2
Structure .............................................................................................................. 3
Funding ............................................................................................................... 5
RCC Daily Rates ............................................................................................. 6
Educational Component of RCC Daily Rates ................................................. 7
Public School Daily Funding .......................................................................... 8
Educational Oversight ....................................................................................... 10
Legislative History ........................................................................................ 10
Placement Oversight ..................................................................................... 10
Continuing Oversight .................................................................................... 11
Advantages and Limitations ............................................................................. 12
Structure ........................................................................................................ 12
Funding ......................................................................................................... 13
Educational Oversight................................................................................... 13
Transparency and Accountability ................................................................. 13
Comparison States ................................................................................................ 14
Minnesota.......................................................................................................... 14
Structure ........................................................................................................ 15
Funding ......................................................................................................... 15
Educational Oversight................................................................................... 16
Transparency and Accountability ................................................................. 16
Advantages and Limitations ......................................................................... 17
Virginia ............................................................................................................. 17
Structure ........................................................................................................ 17
Funding ......................................................................................................... 19
Educational Oversight................................................................................... 20
Transparency and Accountability ................................................................. 20
Advantages and Limitations ......................................................................... 20
iii
Colorado............................................................................................................ 21
Structure ........................................................................................................ 21
Funding ......................................................................................................... 22
Educational Oversight................................................................................... 22
Transparency and Accountability ................................................................. 23
Advantages and Limitations ......................................................................... 23
Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................... 24
Structure ............................................................................................................ 25
Communication ............................................................................................. 25
Collaboration................................................................................................. 25
Data ............................................................................................................... 26
Funding ............................................................................................................. 26
Educational Oversight ....................................................................................... 28
Statewide Assessments ................................................................................. 28
On-Site RCC Evaluations ............................................................................. 29
Increased Communication and Collaboration ............................................... 30
Recommendation for Political Action .............................................................. 30
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 31
References ............................................................................................................. 32
Appendix A: Wisconsin County Spending on RCCs ........................................... 35
Appendix B: Virginia CSA Website Screenshots ................................................. 37
Virginia’s Comprehensive Service Act for At-Risk Youth and Families
Homepage ......................................................................................................... 37
Statistics Available to the Public ...................................................................... 38
CSA Pool Expenditure Reports ........................................................................ 39
Appendix C: Comparison of Policy Alternatives ................................................. 40
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Children Served by RCCs and Total Days
Children Spent in RCCs, 2008-11 .............................................................3
Table 2: Average RCC Placement and Episode Days, 2008-11 ..............................5
Table 3: Total County Spending on RCCs, 2008-11 ...............................................5
Table 4: Counties Ranked by Highest Average RCC Expenditures
(Number of RCC Placements), 2008-11 ...................................................6
Table 5: RCC Average Daily Rates, 2008-11..........................................................7
Table 6: Average State Funding Allocated to School Districts,
per Child per Day, 2007-08 to 2010-11.....................................................9
Table A-1: Wisconsin County Spending On RCCs by County, 2008-11 ..............35
Table C-1: Comparison of Policy Alternatives ......................................................40
v
vi
Foreword
Students enrolled in the Workshop in Public Affairs at the Robert M. La Follette
School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison prepared this report in
collaboration with the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF). The
workshop provides graduate students in their last semester of the Master of Public
Affairs degree program the opportunity to expand their policy analysis skills while
working with a government agency.
A major responsibility of DCF is oversight of the safety of Wisconsin children.
When deemed to be unsafe in their homes, children may be placed in residential
care centers (RCCs), which provide both the treatment and education of the children
in their facilities. In Wisconsin, children may be placed in RCCs by the counties, by
their local school district, or by their parents, but the vast majority are placed by the
counties. Under current policy, counties are responsible for paying all the costs for
these children, including those for education. Counties do not receive any financial
assistance from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. DCF asked a team
of students to examine the fiscal impact of the current funding structure. The
authors could not fully address this issue, however, in part due to data restrictions
that the authors note in the report. DCF also asked the students to review how
educational oversight could be improved in RCCs. The students describe the current
system as one that divides fiscal and oversight responsibilities among public
agencies that have limited formal coordination with each other. They compare
Wisconsin’s system with those of three other states, each of which provides an
informative contrast.
I am grateful to Sam Harshner, Program and Planning Analyst at DCF, who first
contacted me about this important issue. John Elliott, Deputy Administrator,
Division of Safety and Permanence at DCF, also spent considerable time
developing the initial policy problem statement. In their acknowledgements, the
authors thank many other individuals, and I extend my thanks to them as well.
Although the conclusions are addressed to DCF, other readers may find this report
useful for its overview of how children are placed in RCCs and their care financed
and monitored, its detailed discussion of the challenges faced when different state
agencies have different oversight responsibilities, and its suggestions for
innovative policy action.
The report benefited greatly from the support of La Follette School faculty and
staff, especially that of Publications Director Karen Faster, who edited and
managed production of the report. The conclusions herein are those of the authors
alone and do not represent the views of the La Follette School or the client.
Karen Holden
Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Consumer Science
May 2012
vii
viii
Acknowledgments
We are very appreciative of everyone who shared their time, knowledge and
expertise in the preparation of this report.
First, we would like to thank the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families,
especially Fredi-Ellen Bove (Administrator, Division of Safety and Permanence),
John Elliott (Deputy Administrator, Division of Safety and Permanence), Pat
Lancour (Section Chief, Out-of-Home Care), Kristina Trastek (Performance
Analyst, Foster Care and Adoptions), Nicholas Bubb (Budget and Policy Analyst,
Office of Performance and Quality Assurance), Sam Harshner (Program and
Planning Analyst, Bureau of Performance Management), Steve Errthum (Section
Chief, Finance Bureau), Rick Stephenson (Finance Consultant), Barbara Loescher
(Chief, Financial Integrity and Audit Section), and Mary Morse (Child Welfare
Program Specialist). They provided invaluable background information and the
data required for this report.
Second, we are grateful for the guidance provided to us by the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction, especially Teresa Goodier (School
Administrator Consultant, Special Education Team), Nic Dibble (Consultant,
School Social Work Services), and Jerome Landmark (Director, School Financial
Service Team). The information they shared with us provided an excellent
perspective of the educational aspects of this issue.
Third, we would like to thank the residential care center administrators who
shared their expertise with us, especially Ruth Wiseman (President and Chief
Executive Officer, Chileda), Shari Carlson (Chief Operating Officer, Chileda),
Ann McDonald (Director of Finance and Human Resources, Chileda), Lynn Kay
(Director of Admissions and Family Services, Chileda), Dave Fritsch (President,
Clinicare), Jeff Pease (Director of Residential Services, Lad Lake), and Tom
Casper (Director of Education, Lad Lake). Their insights were invaluable in the
development of our recommendations. A special thank you to Linda Hall,
Executive Director of the Wisconsin Association of Family and Children’s
Agencies for connecting us with the residential care centers.
Fourth, we would like to thank the child welfare and residential care center
experts from Virginia, Minnesota, and Colorado. The information they shared
about residential care funding and oversight in their respective states greatly
informed our recommendations.
Fifth, we would like to thank the Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
especially Julie Lidbury (School Psychologist, Special Education Coordinator)
and Wendy Peterson (Teacher Supervisor, Copper Lake and Lincoln Hills
Schools). They provided us with background information about the educational
system in the juvenile correctional facilities, which is similar to that of residential
care centers.
ix
Finally, we would like to thank the staff and faculty of the La Follette School of
Public Affairs, and in particular, Karen Faster, who provided excellent editing
assistance. We are extremely grateful to Professor Karen Holden, who provided
support throughout the creation of this report. Her guidance, insights, and
feedback allowed us to strengthen our final report.
x
Executive Summary
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF) supports the safety,
permanence, and well-being of children. When children are not safe in their own
homes, they may be placed in out-of-home care settings. Residential care centers
(RCCs) are one type of out-of-home care setting for children with severe mental
health, emotional, and behavioral problems.
Children who reside in Wisconsin RCCs usually receive educational instruction
on site in the RCC. In most cases, the county that placed the child pays the RCC
for the costs of providing the child with educational services. The costs of
providing educational instruction for children in Wisconsin public schools is
partially covered by state education funding; however, this funding is never used
to pay for educational services in RCCs. Additionally, there is limited
collaboration between DCF and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) regarding educational quality in RCCs. This report examines the
consequences of this funding and oversight structure.
After analyzing the effects of Wisconsin’s policies, we explore how other states
fund the educational costs for children in RCCs and how they provide educational
oversight. Based on what we learned from the policies in Minnesota, Virginia,
and Colorado, we suggest possible alternative approaches for educational funding
and improving oversight of education in RCCs. Using the goals of equity,
efficiency, and political feasibility, we make a series of recommendations that
would improve the oversight of educational services for children in RCCs.
We recommend the structure of child RCC placement and oversight be improved
through increased coordination and collaboration among all agencies involved,
but especially DCF and DPI. We further recommend the creation of an
interagency database that better tracks student placement and funding, thereby
providing greater transparency. Greater transparency would heighten
understanding of the system and provide much needed information to fuel ideas
for further improvement.
We also recommend that the funding structure for children residing in RCCs be
changed. DCF and DPI should collaborate to create a funding system in which
counties bill a child’s resident school district for the daily educational rate
charged by the RCC.
Finally, we recommend the following mechanisms be implemented to improve
educational oversight of RCCs: increased communication and collaboration
among DCF, DPI, and other stakeholders throughout the placement process;
statewide assessments of all students residing in RCCs; and on-site evaluation of
RCC educational programs.
xi
xii
Introduction
The mission of the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF) is to
improve the economic and social well-being of Wisconsin’s children, youth, and
families (Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, 2011d). DCF is
committed to protecting children and youth, strengthening families, and
supporting communities. As part of its statutory responsibilities, DCF is
responsible for the state’s child welfare system, which is administered directly by
the state in Milwaukee County through the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare
and is state-supervised and county-administered in the remaining 71 counties
(Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, 2011a). Within DCF, the role
of the Division of Safety and Permanence is to supervise the county programs and
assure the development and implementation of statewide policies and procedures
that support child safety, permanence, and well-being (Wisconsin Department of
Children and Families, 2011e).
The goal of the Division of Safety and Permanence is for children to be safely
maintained in their own homes, families, and communities. When it is necessary to
place a child in out-of-home care to protect the child’s safety, the division seeks to
provide a safe, short, and stable experience that supports the child’s health,
educational, and social well-being (Wisconsin Department of Children and Families,
2011c). Out-of-home care may include placement with relatives or in foster homes,
kinship care, group homes, or residential care centers (RCCs). These centers provide
residential care, treatment, and, in many cases, educational services to children with
complex and varied needs. The number of Wisconsin children in out-of-home care
who are placed in RCCs is small; of all the children in out-of-home care, about 6
percent are in RCCs (Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 2011).
Children may be placed in RCCs by their counties or parents or legal guardians.
School districts1 may also place children with disabilities in RCCs as part of their
Individualized Education Programs. RCCs are typically private entities and set the
prices for most or all of the services they provide. Because children residing in
RCCs usually receive educational instruction on site, a portion of the bill for all
services provided to children typically includes the cost of educational services.
Currently, the institution or individual that places the child is responsible for
paying the RCC for all services provided. In almost all Wisconsin cases, counties
or the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare place children and are therefore
responsible for paying for all RCC costs, including educational services.
School districts are often referred to as “local educational agencies” in state statute. When not
referring directly to state statute, we use “school districts” as it is a more commonly recognized term.
1
1
For purposes of state education aid funding, a membership count2 of the students
in local public schools is taken twice a year. If a child attends a public school on
the day in which the count is taken, that public school receives funds for that
student. If the child is residing in an RCC on the count day, the public school does
not report the child and does not receive any money for that child. Local public
school districts do not pay any of the educational costs for children whom
counties place in RCCs. Districts only pay for the educational services if they
placed the child in the RCC.
DCF requested that graduate students at the La Follette School of Public Affairs
investigate and assess the issues that are presented by this funding model, as well
as the quality of education in RCCs. Specifically, DCF sought feedback regarding
the fiscal effect of the current policy, research on how other states fund the
educational services for children in RCCs, analysis of alternative approaches for
educational funding, and an assessment of the educational quality provided in
RCCs. Limited data availability has prevented a comprehensive analysis of fiscal
effects, but efforts have been made to address DCF’s underlying concerns. The
policy goals of equity, efficiency, and political feasibility shaped our analysis and
the crafting of alternative policy options.
This report has three sections. First, we explain the complex structure that shapes
how Wisconsin RCC placements are made and how they are financed. We also
assess the extent and quality of educational oversight of Wisconsin’s RCCs. Next,
we provide case studies of how three states—Minnesota, Virginia, and Colorado
—oversee and fund RCCs. Finally, we recommend alternative policies and best
practices for Wisconsin.
Background
Wisconsin’s oversight and funding structures for RCCs are complex, involving
multiple agencies and levels of government. It was evident from our interviews with
agency personnel that how the system works is not widely understood between and
within agencies. Without a comprehensive picture of the system, it would be difficult
to make well-reasoned recommendations. This first section aims to serve as a single,
consolidated source of information on Wisconsin’s RCC structure.
In Wisconsin, RCCs for children and youth are typically private child welfare
agencies that provide treatment and custodial services for children, youth, and
young adults up to age 21 (Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 2011; Wis.
Admin. Code DCF § 52.03, 2012).3 DCF licenses RCCs in Wisconsin (Wis. Stat.
2
Wisconsin uses the term “membership count” rather than “attendance count.”
For ease of readability, the term “child(ren),” will be used in the rest of this report to refer to
children, youth, and young adults.
3
2
§ 48.60, 2012). Children who reside in RCCs often have serious behavioral
problems. RCCs are tasked with helping children develop socially acceptable
behavior patterns by providing treatment plans tailored to their needs. RCCs aim
to return children to their families or find permanent placements as quickly as
possible (Wis. Admin. Code. DCF § 52.01, 2012).
Wisconsin licenses 32 RCCs. The average RCC capacity is 40 children, but it
ranges from eight to 135, depending on the facility. Twenty-one RCCs operate as
non-profits, and 11 are for-profit (Wisconsin Department of Children and
Families, 2011b). Table 1 displays the number of children served in RCCs and the
aggregate number of days all children spent in RCCs from 2008-2011. The
number of children served has decreased since 2008. As discussed below, the
decrease in the number of children served is most likely due to the high costs
associated with RCC placement, as well as the centers’ restrictive environments.
Table 1: Number of Children Served by RCCs
and Total Days Children Spent in RCCs, 2008-11
Year
Children Served
Total Days Spent in RCCs
2008
977
137,935
2009
948
133,784
2010
925
127,740
2011
806
113,625
Four-Year Average
914
128,271
Source: Compiled by authors from an unpublished report
by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care
Structure
Children are placed in RCCs by court order, educational placement, or voluntary
placement. County welfare agencies may ask the courts to place a child in an
RCC. School districts may place a child with a disability in an RCC through his or
her Individualized Education Program (IEP), a written plan for a child with a
disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised according to state statutes to
provide for the child’s educational needs. Parents and legal guardians may also
voluntarily place a child in an RCC.
Counties may place a child in an RCC by asking the circuit court for one of three
types of orders. First, a court may order a child into an RCC under a “child in need
of protection or services” order. This situation typically occurs when county child
welfare staff determines that a child cannot remain safely in his or her own home
due to child abuse or neglect. Second, a court may order a child into an RCC under a
“juvenile in need of protection or services” order. This situation occurs when a child
displays certain behaviors, such as having an uncontrollable temperament, running
away, or being truant from school. Third, a court may order a child into an RCC
under a delinquency order. This situation occurs when a child commits a criminal act
(Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 2011).
3
A public school district may place a child with a disability in an RCC through the
IEP process. A team of educators will develop a reviewable, revisable, and
transferable IEP document for each student with a disability in Wisconsin. IEPs are
typically reviewed and revised every three years, and they contain individualized
information regarding the educational needs of students with disabilities. If the IEP
team determines that a child with a disability is not receiving a free and appropriate
public education in a public school setting, the child may be placed in an RCC
based on a determination that the facility will provide a more appropriate setting
for the child’s education (Goodier, 2012).
A parent or legal guardian may place a child in an RCC under a “voluntary
placement agreement” with the county child welfare agency (Wisconsin
Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 2011).
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) is responsible for setting,
assessing, and maintaining educational standards in public schools. DPI’s
responsibility for oversight in RCCs is confined to children with disabilities who
are placed with IEPs. DPI collects data only on these children. According to a DPI
report, approximately 45 percent of children placed in RCCs from 1996-2008 had
documented disabilities.4 From 1996-2008, of all children with disabilities placed
in RCCs, counties placed 98.8 percent. School districts placed 22 children, or
0.44 percent of all children with disabilities in RCCs. Relatives or other legal
guardians placed 39 children, or 0.77 percent of all children with disabilities
in RCCs (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2009).
The DPI report provides a view of general RCC placement trends for all children
in RCCs (Lancour, 2012b). DCF estimates that counties make well over 95
percent of all RCC placements, including children with and without disabilities
(Lancour, 2012b; Trastek, 2012).
Children reside in RCCs for varied periods of time. Table 2 shows the average
lengths of placements and episodes of children spent in RCCs from 2008-2011.
A placement is the amount of time a child spends in an RCC on a continuous
basis. An episode is the entire length of time a child is under the supervision of
the county child welfare system (Trastek, 2012). Consequently, a child may have
more than one placement during his or her episode, as he or she may enter and
exit RCCs multiple times. The average placement stay increased by almost two
months in 2009 but has since declined. The average episode length has remained
relatively consistent over the past four years.
4
The summary report is the most up-to-date accurate RCC membership data available from DPI.
The report contained incomplete data for 2005 and 2006. To ensure the accuracy of data presented
in this report, these years were omitted.
4
Table 2: Average RCC Placement and Episode Days, 2008-11
Year
Average Length of Stay
in Days (Per Placement)
Average Length of Stay
in Days (Per Episode)
2008
113
564
2009
160
571
2010
157
547
2011
141
557
Four-Year Average
143
560
Source: Compiled by authors from an unpublished report
by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care
Funding
The county, school district, or parent or legal guardian who places the child in an
RCC pays all the RCC costs (Lancour, 2012a), including educational expenses.
Because counties place the majority of children in RCCs, counties cover the
majority of the costs for children in Wisconsin RCCs. Table 3 shows the
aggregate amount of money all Wisconsin counties have paid to RCCs since
2008, an amount that has steadily decreased since 2009. Pat Lancour from DCF
hypothesizes that total expenditures on RCCs have decreased because counties are
placing fewer children in RCCs due to the high cost of RCC care and the
restrictive environment. As a general principle, child welfare agencies seek to
place children and youth in the least restrictive setting and only place children in
RCCs when their needs cannot fully be met in another setting. Providers in
Wisconsin and other states have reported that counties are referring more children
to group homes or foster homes because those options are less expensive and less
restrictive than RCCs (Lancour, 2012c).
Table 3: Total County Spending on RCCs, 2008-11
Year
Amount Paid by
All Wisconsin Counties
Percent Change
from Previous Year
2008
$38,735,662
-
2009
$39,471,255
1.90%
2010
$37,519,127
-4.95%
2011
$33,775,024
-9.98%
Source: Compiled by authors from an unpublished report
by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care
The amount each county has paid to RCCs since 2008 varies by county, as
demonstrated in Table 4. Table 4 shows the 10 Wisconsin counties with the
highest expenditures from 2008-2011. See Appendix A for a list of all Wisconsin
county payments. Milwaukee County had the highest amount of RCC
expenditures followed by Dane, Racine, Marathon, and Rock counties. There is a
high correlation between county size and RCC spending in the table as counties
with a larger population place more children. The counties with the highest
5
expenditures also tend to be the counties with the highest average placements.
Rock County is an exception, with the third highest number of average
placements but fifth highest expenditures.
Table 4: Counties Ranked by Highest Average RCC Expenditures
(Number of RCC Placements), 2008-11
2008
2009
2010
2011
Four-Year
Average
2008-11
$5,596,159
(266)
$5,286,346
(220)
$2,851,738
(88)
$1,626,516
(69)
$1,220,355
(100)
$1,192,328
(54)
$1,496,965
(81)
$1,128,376
(76)
$934,220
(21)
$941,942
(22)
$5,635,208
(302)
$4,848,258
(194)
$3,005,345
(91)
$2,042,244
(77)
$1,402,166
(96)
$1,163,059
(47)
$1,156,353
(61)
$1,156,312
(68)
$1,005,118
(25)
$627,890
(20)
$7,035,741
(324)
$4,384,041
(174)
$1,893,959
(73)
$2,936,201
(76)
$2,100,470
(88)
$885,034
(41)
$1,004,661
(62)
$1,022,833
(51)
$653,610
(27)
$730,613
(30)
$7,703,699
(325)
$4,217,221
(195)
$1,710,894
(75)
$1,927,154
(54)
$2,317,026
(123)
$1,380,607
(35)
$743,512
(50)
$750,523
(60)
$486,653
(27)
$733,975
(43)
$6,492,702
(304)
$4,683,967
(196)
$2,365,484
(82)
$2,133,029
(69)
$1,760,005
(102)
$1,155,257
(44)
$1,100,373
(64)
$1,014,511
(64)
$769,900
(25)
$758,613
(29)
County
Milwaukee
Dane
Racine
Marathon
Rock
Fond Du Lac
Eau Claire
Kenosha
Dodge
Waukesha
Source: Compiled by authors from an unpublished report
by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care
RCC Daily Rates
RCCs charge a daily rate per child for the services they provide. DCF determines
the annual maximum per-child rate that RCCs may charge for the costs of caring
for a child, which include room, board, administration, services, oversight, and
education (when provided by the RCC). Every year, each RCC proposes to DCF a
daily rate based on the costs incurred in providing care. Additionally, each RCC
must provide the department with an annual cost and service report that details the
costs, services provided, and the number of children served in the previous year.
DCF uses a variety of factors to determine whether a proposed rate is reasonable,
including what may be reported in the RCC’s cost and service report, changes in
services provided, rates charged by similar RCCs, changes in the consumer price
index, and the RCC accreditation status. In certain circumstances, DCF allows
RCCs to charge rates that exceed the allowed maximum daily rate if an RCC can
demonstrate that a higher rate is, in fact, justified by its service costs. (Wis. Stat. §
49.343, 2012; Wis. Admin. Code DCF § 52.64, 52.66, 52.68, 2012).
6
This system is relatively new. In 2009, the state passed Wisconsin Act 28 and
Wisconsin Act 335, which affected RCC rate regulation. These acts required DCF
to phase in the regulation of rates charged by RCCs and required RCCs to provide
DCF with cost and service reports. Since 2011, DCF has been required to ensure
that RCC rates appropriately reflected the reasonable and necessary costs of
providing services. The acts also established an advisory committee to assist DCF
in implementing the new rate regulation system. Prior to this new legislation, the
rates were not regulated by DCF or any other agency. In 2008, the RCC daily rate
ranged between $204.07 and $688.00 (Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau,
2011). Once the legislation took effect and allowed DCF to regulate rates, the
agency set a maximum daily rate of $351.04 in 2011 and $318.18 in 2012. This
reduction in rates, enabled by the 2009 legislation, is expected to reduce the fiscal
burden on counties. Table 5 shows the average daily rates RCCs charged from
2008-2011. In 2011, the average daily rates were below the maximum allowed,
which, DCF suggested, occurred because RCCs want their rates to be competitive
(Stephenson, 2012).
Table 5: RCC Average Daily Rates, 2008-11
Year
Average Daily Rates of RCCs
2008
$280.83
2009
$295.04
2010
$293.71
2011
$297.25
Source: Compiled by authors from an unpublished report
by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families,
Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care
Educational Component of RCC Daily Rates
DCF is concerned about the fiscal burden placed on counties to educate children
in RCCs. The agency requested that we determine the impact of these educational
costs. As explained above, if an RCC provides educational services on site, its
daily rate includes the costs of education. Because most children receive their
education from the RCC (Lancour, 2012a), the average daily rates in Table 5
reflect these costs. The portion of the daily rate that is associated with education
at each RCC cannot be identified, however, because DCF does not yet have all the
necessary data. DCF first collected this information in 2011 in its new cost and
service reports. The cost report was not designed to specifically break out
education costs. Therefore, determining the educational costs from the current
data is impossible (Errthum, 2012b; Stephenson, 2012). For example, many RCCs
did not report whether they provided education on site, and many listed similar
costs in a variety of categories. The RCCs input their costs into the cost and
service report spreadsheet, which contains DCF formulas that automatically
calculate the daily rate. If different RCCs list similar educational costs in different
categories, determination of the actual components of the daily rate for education
is difficult (Errthum, 2012a).
7
Both Steve Errthum and Rick Stephenson from DCF expect the 2012 cost reports
to provide a more precise account of the educational component of the daily rate,
in part because DCF will audit RCCs and compare that information to the cost
and service reports. Moreover, DCF has made several changes to the reports to try
to better capture the educational costs. The 2012 report includes more cost
categories that RCCs may choose from, which will help further break down
education costs and make it more likely that these costs are correctly categorized.
The new report also distinguishes costs that over time may be fixed, variable, and
semi-variable to better determine actual educational costs. Finally, it contains
additional questions about the educational services that RCCs provide on site.
DCF expects data obtained from these improved reporting forms to provide better
information on the costs to educate children in RCCs. However, some ambiguity
about educational costs may remain. For example, these reports do not address the
fact that some RCC educational staff may split their time between education and
other services. DCF directs RCCs to address this allocation in the spreadsheet, but
there is no designated space to remind RCCs of how to handle this issue.
Additionally, some RCCs have multiple programs on site and may list education
costs for the entire organization instead of by individual program. In these
instances, the daily rate calculations for the educational component may not be
accurate, even though the overall daily rate is accurate (Stephenson, 2012).
Public School Daily Funding
Most children transfer to RCCs from Wisconsin’s public school system.
Each year, public schools in Wisconsin receive state education funding in the
form of equalization aid. The equalization aid funding system is intended to
compensate for variable property tax rates across the state to award aid based
on a district’s fiscal capacity. To equalize education funding across districts,
Wisconsin uses a three-tiered aid formula, which provides extra funding to poorer
school districts based on their local tax rates (Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, 2010).
State equalization aid is distributed based on student membership counts taken
each October and January. Each school year, districts receive state equalization
aid based on the total student membership on the October and January count
dates. If a child is not present for the October count date but returns and is present
for the January count date, the school district can amend its original membership
count to reflect this change. Similarly, if a child is present on the October count
date, but transfers out of the school district prior to the January count date, the
school district must amend its membership count to reflect the child’s departure.
We made several attempts to determine how/if schools districts are retroactively
funded or charged following membership count amendment, but as of the
publication date, this information was not entirely clear.
When a county places a child with a disability in an RCC, state education dollars
are never diverted to the county to fund that child’s education. As noted above,
8
counties place the majority of students and therefore pay the educational costs of
children they place in RCCs. A school district pays the educational costs of RCC
treatment if it places the child. School placements are only made for students with
disabilities. Under these circumstances, school districts fund the child’s RCC costs
through federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds. Counties have no
access to state equalization aid that may have been allocated to schools districts
based on the biannual membership counts.5 Payments to RCCs are a county budget
item, supported by general county revenue dollars and block grants. Table 6
provides an average of the daily amounts allocated by the state to school districts
per child, per day from the 2007-08 through the 2010-11 school years.
Table 6: Average State Funding Allocated to School Districts,
per Child per Day, 2007-08 to 2010-11
School Year
Average Amount Allocated to School
District Per Child Per Day*
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Four-Year Average
$66.72
$69.24
$71.24
$73.33
$70.13
Source: Compiled by authors from a report by the Department of Public Instruction,
Comparative
Revenue Per Member (2012a)
*To obtain the average amount per child per day, the annual amount allocated per child was divided
by 180, which is DPI’s required number of calendar school days (Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, 2012b).
Using the four-year average of $70.13 and the four-year average number of total
days spent in RCCs from Table 1 (128,271), we estimate that up to $9 million per
year may be allocated to school districts for children who are not being educated
in the schools because of later residence in an RCC.6
5
Any child not at school on the count day is not considered in the aid formula. Neither the school
nor the RCC would have access to state aid for that child.
6
The $9 million figure is a very rough estimate of the available school district funds for several
reasons: First, children placed in RCCs are disproportionately children with disabilities and
schools receive extra state funds each child with disabilities that is enrolled. Additionally, due
to the tiered funding structure, school districts receive varying amounts of money per student.
Finally, this estimate assumes that every child placed in an RCC was in school on count day.
If the child was not in school on the count day, the school district would not receive funding
or that child. DCF does have data on this issue.
9
Educational Oversight
DCF wishes to ensure strong educational outcomes for children in RCCs and is
interested in whether its oversight authority might further this goal.
Understanding how oversight is structured and shared among agencies is
necessary to assess areas for improvement. Child placement and oversight
mechanisms differ substantially if the child in question has a disability.
Legislative History
In 1988, the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of
Education issued a monitoring report that found that Wisconsin had no
mechanism for guaranteeing free and appropriate public education to students
with disabilities residing in RCCs. A free and appropriate public education
includes special education and related services that are provided at the public
expense and under public supervision and direction (Wis. Stat. § 115.76, 2012).
Under pressure from the federal government, the Wisconsin Legislature passed
Act 204 in 1989, requiring DPI to review RCC educational programs (Goodier,
2012). This review was completed and presented to the Legislature in 1991. It
recommended establishing education standards for RCCs and increasing oversight
of RCC education practices. The review advised the Legislature to pass a law
requiring that children with documented disabilities be placed in RCCs when they
are deemed the most appropriate settings (Wis. Stat. § 115.81, 2012).
When the Office of Special Education Programs threatened to withhold almost
$50 million in federal special education funds for fiscal year 1994, DPI found
enough support in the Legislature to introduce its bill. Originally introduced as
Assembly Bill 532, the legislation included a compromise between the
Department of Health and Family Services (now DCF) and DPI. Counties would
continue to pay the cost of RCC care for children they placed, while DPI assumed
the responsibility of guaranteeing a free and appropriate education to all students
with disabilities in RCCs. The bill was signed into law as Wisconsin Statute §
115.81 (Goodier, 2012).
Placement Oversight
Children with disabilities whom a county or school district places in RCCs have
designated “responsible local educational agencies” (LEAs). The responsible
LEA is the school district required to provide a free and appropriate public
education to the child prior to the placement of the child in an RCC.7
7
If a child is placed in a facility operated by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services,
a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility, or a Type 1 prison when the RCC placement is made,
the responsible LEA is the school district where the RCC is located (Wis. Stat. § 115.81, 2012).
10
If a county places a child with a disability in an RCC, the county must notify the
responsible LEA. For a child with a disability, the responsible LEA must consult
with the county and, as soon as reasonably possible, appoint an IEP team to
review and revise the child’s IEP for the time the student is in the RCC (Wis. Stat.
§ 115.81, 2012). The county must consider the child’s educational needs when
selecting an RCC8 and participate in the child’s IEP evaluation and development
(Wis. Stat. § 115.81, 2012).
In recommending an RCC placement for a child with a documented disability,
the responsible LEA must consider the child’s treatment and security needs when
determining the least restrictive environment for the child and ensure that the
child receives a free and appropriate public education. The responsible LEA must
appoint an IEP team to conduct reevaluations of the child. The IEP team may
refer the child to another LEA if, after consulting with the RCC and the county,
the responsible LEA determines the special education needs may be appropriately
served in a less restrictive setting (Goodier, 2012).
If a child has not been identified as having a disability, but the responsible LEA
has reasonable cause to believe that the child has a disability, it must appoint an
IEP team to evaluate the child. If the responsible LEA determines the child has a
disability, the IEP team, in consultation with the county, must develop an IEP and
determine the most appropriate learning environment for the child. If a responsible
LEA offers an educational placement in an RCC, it must ensure that the child
receives a free and appropriate public education (Wis. Stat. § 115.81, 2012).
If the responsible LEA offers an educational placement at an RCC, but the IEP
team identifies the child as not having a disability, DPI has no further role in the
child’s RCC placement or educational oversight (Wis. Stat. § 115.81, 2012).
Continuing Oversight
When any child (with or without a disability) enters an RCC, staff must conduct
an initial assessment of the resident’s treatment needs and develop a written
treatment plan. This treatment plan must address a child’s educational and
vocational needs (Wis. Admin. Code § DCF 52.22, 2012). RCCs must coordinate
the child’s education program with the school district from which the child
transferred and the school district to which the child will return after discharge
(Wis. Admin Code DCF § 52.41, 2012). While children with disabilities reside at
an RCC, the responsible LEA must appoint an IEP team to conduct reevaluations
of the child every three years (Wis. Stat. § 115.81, 2012). Educational program
services must comply with applicable parts of Wisconsin Statutes §§ 115.77,
115.81 and 118.65, and cooperate with the DPI in providing regular or
8
Children are not necessarily placed in the RCC based on geographic area; the needs of the child
are also considered.
11
exceptional educational services to residents (Goodier, 2012; Wis. Admin. Code §
52.41, 2012).
The RCC’s educational program must include certain components. It must have
procedures in place that coordinate a child’s treatment plan with the educational
services provided to the child at the RCC. The RCC casework supervisor or case
manager must identify all center staff, schools, and agencies involved in the
child’s education and coordinate efforts to work with these individuals. The RCC
must have procedures and timelines for assessing the child’s educational progress.
These procedures must identify the staff involved in the assessment, as well as
how the assessment will be used to review, revise, and implement a child’s
treatment plan and educational services. RCCs must have arrangements in place
to provide vocational training. The casework supervisor or case manager must
ensure that a report of the child’s educational assessment and progress are
provided to the schools or individuals responsible for educating the child after
discharge (Wis. Admin Code DCF § 52.41, 2012). RCCs must maintain an
educational record for each child that includes results of educational assessments,
educational goals, and progress reports (Wis. Admin Code DCF § 52.43, 2012).
Advantages and Limitations
With a proper understanding of Wisconsin’s complex RCC funding and
oversight systems, the positive and negative attributes of each can be assessed.
The advantages and limitations of Wisconsin policy as it pertains to program
structure, funding, educational oversight, and transparency and accountability
are highlighted below.
Structure
In Wisconsin, two agencies share the responsibility and oversight for children
placed in RCCs. DCF is directly responsible for the well-being of all children
placed by the counties, while DPI is directly responsible for children placed by
the school districts. There is some overlap in the oversight of children with
disabilities. DPI is indirectly involved in the educational issues involved with
children with disabilities in RCCs (regardless of the authority that placed the
child) through oversight of their IEPs. However, unless a child is deemed to have
a disability, DPI has no authority over the child or the education he or she is
offered at the RCC. DPI is required to monitor RCC compliance with state and
federal special education law. To achieve this, RCCs are required to provide DPI
with accurate IEP data, including proof of proper licensure of special education
teachers. DPI has no oversight authority for children without disabilities in RCCs
or of teachers not directly involved in special education because RCCs and their
affiliated educational centers are not public schools.
Although DCF and DPI each have an interest and a responsibility to oversee
the services provided to children in RCCs, there is limited collaboration and
communication between the agencies regarding the placement process. Each
12
agency aims to ensure the best outcomes for the children it oversees; however,
the agencies do not have a formal mechanism for sharing information and best
practices.
Funding
The Wisconsin funding model holds counties fiscally responsible for the majority
of the costs associated with educating children in RCCs. Although some counties
incur small costs because of relatively few placements, others bear a far larger
burden. At the same time, school districts receive state education aid for children
who are present for the membership count but later exit the school district and
enter an RCC. The funding that was allocated to the schools based on that child’s
attendance never follows the child to the RCC, unless the school district makes
the placement, which almost never occurs.
The cost and service reports now required of RCCs will help provide a better
estimate of the educational component of the daily rates. However, as discussed
above, the cost and service reports were not initially designed to distinguish the
educational component of the daily rate. Although the cost and service reports
appear accurate overall, the educational component is difficult to determine.
The required reporting items could be improved upon to ensure that all the
educational costs are accurately measured.
Educational Oversight
In reality, DPI has almost no educational oversight in Wisconsin’s RCCs.
Although DPI provides oversight of students with disabilities through IEP
monitoring and licensure of special education teachers, its involvement with
RCCs is limited beyond that point. RCCs in Wisconsin are not public schools,
and, consequently, they are free from state and federal K-12 accountability
standards. Children with disabilities in RCCs are required to participate in
statewide examinations, but RCCs are not held accountable for the performance
of their students. Some RCCs administer in-house educational assessments and
track educational improvement, but student outcomes are not shared with DPI.
State and county agencies have no direct oversight of educational programs
in RCCs, and have an incomplete understanding of the quality of educational
services in RCCs and the amount of time spent providing those services
(Goodier, 2012).
Transparency and Accountability
DCF collects data on children in out-of-home care, including the number of
children in RCCs and the dates children enter and exit RCCs. DCF also monitors
the length of each child’s episode and total time in out-of-home care. DCF has
documentation on the amount of money each county pays to RCCs for each
child placement. The type of placement (juvenile justice, child welfare, or child
13
protective services) is also recorded for each child. This information is all
contained in a DCF database. This database is not publicly available.
DCF is not collecting some information that is necessary to assess funding and
oversight responsibility. DCF does not have up-to-date information on each
child’s originating local school district, nor whether a child was present in school
on the membership count day. Additionally, the agency does not have any data
on children placed by local school districts or their families.
Comparison States
No federal legislation mandates that states operate out-of-home care or residential
treatment in a single fashion. Consequently, states have developed a variety of
systems for delivering these services to children in need. The following section
investigates systems in three other states: Minnesota, Virginia, and Colorado.9
We selected these states because, like Wisconsin, they have county-administered,
state-supervised child welfare systems. The overview of each state addresses
structure, funding, educational oversight, transparency and accountability, and
advantages and limitations of each system. Comparisons will be drawn with
Wisconsin on coordination of authority across responsible agencies, funding
allocation, and educational oversight.
Minnesota’s system is similar to Wisconsin in many ways, but local school
districts exercise greater educational oversight over RCCs because the school
district in which the RCC is located hires and places teachers. Virginia’s model is
starkly different that of Wisconsin, as it is characterized by intense collaboration
among stakeholders and oversight by an interagency body. Funding for the state’s
interagency body was created by pooling funding streams of a number of child
services; fiscal responsibility is shared by the state and localities, regardless
of referral source. Like Virginia, Colorado has implemented an interagency
approach, but unlike Virginia, Colorado funds education in RCCs through the
same funding mechanism used to allocate resources to public school districts.
Minnesota
In Minnesota, RCCs are referred to as “treatment facilities,” and the type of outof-home care that these facilities provide is classified as “residential treatment.”
While the language used is different, the system shares some structural similarities
to Wisconsin in placement protocol and finance. Education, however, is handled
9
We also reached out to administrators in Ohio, New York, and North Carolina,
but systems in these states were very similar to Wisconsin or administrators were unable
to meet our requests for information by our publishing deadline.
14
very different fashion. Like Wisconsin, placements can be initiated by the parent or
legal guardian, the county or court system, or the school district (Regan, 2012).
Structure
Placement of students and approval of educational programs at treatment facilities
is governed by state statute. Education programs in these facilities must conform
to state and federal education laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. The education provided at treatment facilities is licensed by the
Minnesota Department of Education so that common standards can be maintained
across all facilities (Regan, 2012).
Unlike Wisconsin, the responsibility for education remains with the public
education system. The district in which the treatment facility is located (the
“providing district”) must provide the education, and the child’s home district
(the “resident district”) pays the cost of the child’s education (Minn. Stat. §
125A.515, 2011).
When the child’s treatment and needs allow, education is provided in a regular
public school classroom setting. If it is determined that the least restrictive
environment for the child to receive education is at a treatment facility with
on-site educational services, the facility must notify the providing district, and the
providing district must contact the resident district to determine if the child has an
IEP. The providing district will then request the child’s transcripts, the most recent
IEP, if available, and any evaluation reports (Minn. Stat. §125A.515, 2011).
If the child is identified as having a disability and has an IEP in the resident
district, the providing district must contact the treatment facility to reach an
agreement about continuing or modifying education services in accordance with
the IEP and determine if additional evaluations are necessary. In each of these
cases, a meeting will be set up that includes the person or agency placing the
student; representatives from both resident and providing districts; treatment
facility staff; parents or legal guardians of the child; and, when appropriate,
the child (Hokenson, 2012).
When a child has not been identified as having special needs, the providing
district must conduct a screening to determine the child’s educational and
behavioral needs. These children are placed in the treatment facility, but receive
education from the providing district (Minn. Stat. § 125A.515, 2011).
Funding
The funding for treatment and education services is separate. Reimbursement for
education provided at treatment facilities is handled completely by the education
system. The providing district bills the child’s resident district for those charges,
an arrangement the Department of Education facilitates.
15
The providing school district employs and pays the teachers, not the treatment
facility where the services are delivered. This arrangement is in contrast to
Wisconsin, where RCCs hire and pay teachers directly.
The per-diem charges for the residential treatment services do not include the
education costs. The treatment facility bills the placing county or, if the child has
commercial insurance, the health plan. The providing district must transport
children to and from the treatment facility (Regan, 2012).
Educational Oversight
When children are placed in treatment facilities, the providing district is in charge
of the child’s education. The providing district implements all state and federal
testing that would be conducted were the child to be a full-time student of that
school district. Testing for children with disabilities is conducted based on that
child’s IEP. To ensure that children are receiving free and appropriate public
education, the facility staff and teachers meet on a regular basis regarding all
IEP placements (Regan, 2012).
The Minnesota Department of Education oversees educational quality, a function
that is consistent with the public school being responsible for the child’s
education. Each treatment facility must receive approval to deliver educational
services. If approval is not achieved, the state can revoke the facility’s license.
Students who have been placed in a facility for 15 or more days must receive
an exit report prepared by the providing district. This report summarizes all
educational progress, special education assessments, and IEPs of the student.
This information is shared with the resident district, the next providing district
(when appropriate), the parents or legal guardians of the student, and any
appropriate social service agency (Regan, 2012).
Transparency and Accountability
Like Wisconsin, Minnesota does not have a publicly available database
of information related to residential treatment. Unlike Wisconsin however,
relevant data are readily available from Department of Education staff in
multiple divisions. These staff members seem to have deep understanding
of the funding mechanisms at work in the placement process.
In addition, the Minnesota Department of Education provides data online,
improving the transparency of the quality of educational programming.
The number of children in out-of-home care can be quickly and easily found.
Test results are publicly posted for all Minnesota school districts, and those
of treatment facilities are clearly distinguished (Regan, 2012).
16
Advantages and Limitations
Minnesota’s process of delivering residential treatment is reviewed positively by
individuals at different levels of the system (Regan, 2012; Manke, 2012). Recent
budgetary concerns have led to increasing pressure to reduce educational services
for children in residential treatment facilities. For example, shortening summer
school programs across districts jeopardizes the availability of education for
children with disabilities in treatment facilities who may function below grade
level and need extended school year services.
Another issue that has arisen between treatment facilities and providing school
districts revolves around teacher placement. Teachers are hired by the school
district, with treatment facilities having no authority or formal input on hiring and
firing of individuals who will be working at facility sites.
A proposal was introduced to the Minnesota Senate in April 2012 to address some
of these issues through development of a separate funding process for treatment
facilities. Under this proposal, the state would centralize funds and provide the
funding for year-round education for any child placed in residential treatment.
Providing districts would bill the state for reimbursement of incurred costs.
Students in need of extended school year services could be covered, and treatment
facilities would be better integrated into the hiring of teachers who would be
working at their facilities (Regan, 2012).
Virginia
The Commonwealth of Virginia’s system for providing children with out-of-home
care is similar to that of Wisconsin in that it serves a variety of child populations
—those with severe emotional and behavioral needs, children with disabilities,
and foster children—yet the way Virginia structures services and funding differs
greatly from Wisconsin’s approach.
The foundation of Virginia’s system is the Comprehensive Services Act for AtRisk Youth and Their Families (CSA), which was enacted in 1993 with the aim of
“creat[ing] and maintain[ing] a collaborative system of service and funding that is
child centered, family focused, community based and cost effective when
addressing the strengths and needs of troubled and at-risk youths and their
families…” (Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services, 2011a).
Structure
Virginia’s CSA created a two-tier management and service structure at both the
state and local levels. The State Executive Council, Office of Comprehensive
Services, and State and Local Advisory Team provide state-level leadership and
oversight. Community policy and management teams, family planning and
assessment teams, and CSA coordinators aid implementation and provide
management on a local level.
17
State
The State Executive Council is chaired by the secretary of Health and Human
Resources. It provides leadership and oversees the development and
implementation of state interagency program and fiscal policies (Virginia Office
of Comprehensive Services At-Risk Youth & Families, 2007). In this way,
Virginia provides for coordination of child placement across responsible state
agencies. The council comprises two General Assembly members, five Virginia
child-serving agency heads, the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance
Services director, the Virginia executive secretary of the Supreme Court, two
local government officials, the state and local advisory team chair, parental
representatives, and private provider association representatives (Ledden, 2012).
The Office of Comprehensive Services is tasked with implementation of the State
Executive Council’s decisions and Comprehensive Services Act stakeholder
coordination to increase capacity of communities across the Commonwealth and
implement the act (Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services At-Risk Youth &
Families, 2007).
Finally, the state and local advisory team serves as a supervisory council,
providing leadership and overseeing the development and implementation of state
agency program and fiscal policies. It comprises all stakeholder state agency
representatives, local government representatives, and parent representatives
(Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services, 2011a).
Local
The local CSA structure largely mirrors the state structure and assures coordination
across responsible parties. Community policy and management teams:
have the statutory authority and accountability for managing the
cooperative effort and developing interagency policies that govern
CSA in the community. They coordinate the locality’s long-range,
community-wide planning that ensures the development of needed
resources and services (Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services
At-Risk Youth & Families, 2007).
Each team comprises a parent, a local government official, agency heads from
local child-serving agencies (community services boards, court service units,
health, social services, public schools), and private provider representatives. They
are “authorized to make policy and funding decisions for their agencies” (Virginia
Office of Comprehensive Services At-Risk Youth & Families, 2007, p. 4).
Family planning and assessment teams allow for family participation, assess the
strengths and needs of children and their families, develop individual family
services plans, and make recommendations to the community policy and
management teams”(Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services At-Risk Youth
& Families, 2007). A team comprises a parent and representatives from local
18
child-serving agencies (community service boards, court service units, social
services, public schools). In some cases, local health department and private
provider representatives may participate (Virginia Office of Comprehensive
Services At-Risk Youth & Families, 2007).
Finally, communities may hire CSA coordinators to manage CSA implementation
(Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services At-Risk Youth & Families, 2007).
The CSA thus created a state and local infrastructure that encourages
collaboration and communication among all relevant state and local agencies and
stakeholders. Moreover, this integrative approach allows all stakeholders to share
their perspectives and to aid in shaping future policy.
Funding
Virginia’s collaborative agency approach carries over into its funding structure.
Although any agency, and in some communities, parents, may initiate the process,
a local family planning and assessment team determines the specific combination
of services that will best address the needs of the child and family in question
(Clare, 2012; Ledden, 2012). The initiating source of the referral is not responsible
for providing funding for services the child and family may receive (Clare, 2012;
Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services, 2011b). The Comprehensive Services
Act combined what had been eight separate state funding streams for child services.
The “match-rate” system in Virginia combines CSA funding with a locality-specific
match to encourage locally directed funding to best meet a child’s needs (Virginia
Office of Comprehensive Services, 2011a).
The Virginia Legislative Audit and Review Committee “identified that
community based service gaps are the primary obstacle to serving children
in the most appropriate, least restrictive setting,” (Virginia Office of
Comprehensive Services, 2011c), so whenever possible, efforts are made
to provide the child and family with community-based services.
The funding structure under the CSA has incentivized the transition toward more
community-based services. The goal of the match rate system is to reduce the
number of youth served in restrictive settings, congregate care, or residential
programs. Consequently, a key CSA performance measure is the ratio of
community-based services to residential services (Virginia Office of
Comprehensive Services, 2011c).
Although Virginia has yet to serve more than 50 percent of its children in
community-based settings, the Office of Comprehensive Services reported
that the match rate system has “contributed positively” to reducing congregate
care placements and increasing the use of community-based services. Although
implementation of the match rate system has increased the state’s share of service
costs, the change in practices it precipitated has saved the state money by reducing
total expenditures overall (Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services, 2011c).
19
In the last decade, Virginia has closed all but a few state-run institutions providing
residential care to children. RCCs are state-licensed, but privately operated.
Virginia initially set rates for RCCs but has since abandoned this practice in favor
of a market-based system that encourages wider participation by RCCs and more
competitive pricing (Clare, 2012).
Educational Oversight
Children who reside in RCCs may receive education services at the RCC itself or
in the local school system (Clare, 2012). The Virginia Department of Education
and the Office of Comprehensive Services train family assessment and planning
teams, as well as community policy and management teams on federal and state
requirements on the provision of special education services as well as guidance on
federal, state and local funding responsibilities (Virginia Office of Comprehensive
Services, 2011a). The local school district retains responsibility for a child’s IEP.
Because RCCs are private institutions, students residing in RCCs do not
participate in state standardized testing (Clare, 2012).
Transparency and Accountability
A signature feature of Virginia’s CSA system is the availability and accessibility
of explicit information about how its system operates, where responsibility lies,
and how funding is allocated. All of the information reported thus far is available
on Virginia’s CSA website (www.csa.virginia.gov). See Appendix B for the
layout of its home, “Statewide Statistics” and “CSA Reports and Publications”
pages. With a few quick clicks, one can discover how social services are
administered and how they are financed. One can read reports in which
expenditure trends and the quality of services have been analyzed, and may even
access annual expenditure data from previous years, in many cases going back 10
years.
Advantages and Limitations
A collaborative, interagency approach has a number of advantages. In speaking
with representatives of various Virginia agencies, it was immediately clear that
staffers of each agency were well-acquainted with each other and were wellversed in how the system operates and is funded. Creating state and local teams
staffed with governmental, community, and parental representatives ensures a
more comprehensive and coordinated approach to the provision, oversight, and
assessment of services. When communication among all stakeholders is fostered,
children are less likely to be “lost” in the system, and when the referral source is
not burdened with financial responsibility, incentives seem better aligned to
ensure that children are placed in the most appropriate setting and receive the
proper services.
One disadvantage to this system might be with regard to educational oversight. As
in Wisconsin, the state’s RCC responsibility starts and ends with licensure, and
20
state standardized testing is not required of private schools. Assessing educational
quality is difficult in both states.
Colorado
Facility schools, the Colorado equivalent of RCCs, were first established in the
1980s. At that time, school districts would place children in residential care with
facility schools. The school district in which the facility school was located
provided teachers to the facilities; facilities were not able to select their teachers.
Additionally, some school districts contained relatively more facilities, and these
districts carried a greater share of the burden for educating children in RCCs. To
address these concerns, the Colorado departments of Education and Human
Services developed a new process in 2008 to ensure that all students at facility
schools receive free and appropriate education, while providing administrative
flexibility.
Structure
Colorado’s delivery of educational services to children in facility schools is
predicated on institutional values around the quality of education provided to all
children in Colorado. The following passage provides insight into why Colorado
shifted to the facility school model:
Because of the uniqueness of the population served by each
facility, it is important for each facility to maintain a significant
degree of control over the educational program provided by the
facility. However, by partnering with the department of education
to provide an educational program that, as much as practicable, is
consistent among the facilities, each facility can vastly improve the
quality of each student’s overall academic experience while the
student receives educational services from the facility and when
the student transfers to another facility or to a school district or an
institute charter school (Colo. Stat. § 22.2.401, 2008).
Previous legislative efforts to shift educational oversight from the Department of
Education to an inter-agency school board encountered challenges. State statutes
mandated that school districts were entitled to develop their own curricula. To
ensure the quality of education at facility schools, the Legislature established a
facility school board to standardize and monitor curricula across all facility
schools. According to the statute,
the general assembly finds that creating a unit within the
department of education to work with facilities to create
consistency with regard to curriculum, standards, and tracking of
student performance within facility education programs will raise
the overall quality of the education provided to these students,
thereby helping these students meet their full potential both
21
academically and as fully contributing adults within the
community (Colo. Stat. § 22.2.401, 2008).
Unlike Wisconsin, Colorado has a specific statutory designation for facility
schools. Colorado Statute § 22.2.401 classifies facility schools as a type of
educational entity neither entirely public nor private. Facility schools are not
considered private schools because the Colorado Department of Education
conducts approval and monitoring of teachers and educational programs. At the
same time, facility schools are not considered public because they have no
administrative attachment to the state and are operated by private agencies.
Like Wisconsin, Colorado places children in facility schools based on behavioral
or special education needs. Placement is initiated by school districts, courts,
human services, youth services, and parents.
Funding
Educational costs at facility schools are covered by the Colorado Department of
Education, based on an established per-pupil rate, the general school finance
funding stream for all students in Colorado. In contrast to Wisconsin, this
provides a single statewide funding source. The per-pupil rate formula is
determined by a number of factors, but most notably varies across school districts
based on district size. Larger districts receive smaller per-pupil rates. The perpupil rate for facility schools is the average per-pupil rate of all 178 school
districts in Colorado (Linscome, 2012).
Colorado has a well-defined reporting system for facility attendance and costs.
Facility schools turn in monthly attendance data to the Department of Education
Facility Schools Unit, which then submits the information to the Public School
Finance Division. Reimbursements are delivered according to the funding
formula. For example, if a facility housed three students for 20 days in a month,
the facility would be reimbursed the per-pupil rate for 60 days (Linscome, 2012).
Each facility submits a calculation of its education costs split by general education
and special education. Where special education costs exceed the per-pupil rate for
that student, facilities negotiate excess costs with the resident district (Linscome,
2012).
Educational Oversight
Many facilities are small, with one or two teachers on staff. Because the facility
schools are not connected with a particular school district, occasionally the
Colorado Department of Education provides the functions of central
administration, such as district assessment coordination, and teacher training and
monitoring (Linscome, 2012).
22
Additionally, the Department of Education collects October and December count
data of facility students and manages the student data system regarding
attendance, grades, and transcripts (Linscome, 2012).
The Department of Education places teachers at facility schools. Licensure
requirements differ due to the different statutory position of facility schools as
compared to public schools. As such, teachers at facility schools may not be
required to meet the same standards of accreditation as teachers in Colorado’s
public school system (Linscome, 2012).
The Department of Education monitors most facilities annually, while high
performing facilities may be assessed on a biennial basis. Assessment includes an
on-site visit and review, and interviews with children, teachers, and administrators
(Linscome, 2012).
All facility school students who have received educational services participate in
the Colorado student assessment program. Scores are not used to calculate school
attainment or performance but rather to monitor students’ academic growth. It is
understood in statute that the transitory nature of disrupted schooling at a facility
school impedes the facility school’s ability to demonstrate causal improvements
with short-term placements (Colo. Stat. § 22.2.401, 2008).
Transparency and Accountability
During the 2008 transition to the facility school system and the facility school
board, a data system was developed to maintain the records of children who
receive educational services from facility schools. This database enables facility
schools to provide more consistent education that meets students’ individual
needs, which, in turn, improves each student’s likelihood of achieving state
academic standards.
Some of the data publicly available include information about the October and
December count date results and regularly updated funding of school finance and
excess costs.
Advantages and Limitations
The Colorado system provides for oversight of the quality of education in
facility schools. Colorado’s data system has enabled the state to ensure that its
Department of Education is held accountable for meeting students’ individualized
needs. Wisconsin does not have the same ability to ensure RCCs maintain
educational quality.
One challenge with the Colorado system is highlighted in its funding mechanism.
The daily per-pupil rate for facility schools is based on average of the 178 school
district rates. While the largest school district has approximately 85,000 students,
the smallest have fewer than 100 (Linscome, 2012). Facility schools are closer in
23
size to the smallest districts, but the practice of basing their rate on an average
skews the rate significantly toward what is paid to large districts. By using a
single rate, Colorado may not be allocating sufficient resources to facility schools
that serve a relatively small number of students.
The strength of the Colorado model lies in the development of an interagency
approach to funding and placement of students in need of residential care. Facility
schools enjoy an independent status that acknowledges the varied and specific
student educational needs that may be vastly different from those of the general
student population. Although this independent status elevates the ability of the
Colorado Department of Education to ensure quality education, less stringent
licensure requirements in RCCs have led to less generous benefits and salaries for
teachers in RCCs compared to teachers in Colorado’s public schools. This process
has caused facility schools to suffer staff constraints and limitations. As teachers
gain full accreditation, they tend to leave facility schools for higher-paying jobs in
public or private school districts. A high rate of turnover among facility school
teachers corresponds with higher costs for training new teachers at these schools
and the loss of continuity for students (Linscome, 2012). Some aspects, such as
the ability to conduct greater oversight of education would be valuable additions
to the Wisconsin system. On the other hand, Colorado’s funding mechanism has
caused certain unintended consequences that Wisconsin should avoid.
Analysis and Recommendations
To determine the best way to structure Wisconsin’s residential care system for
success, we turn to the specific goals by which we can measure policy alternatives
in terms of structure, funding, and educational quality. Although the number of
students who receive educational services in RCCs represents a very small
percentage of the total public education population in the state, the resources
dedicated for this purpose are nonetheless significant. In light of these facts, it is
crucial to assess whether resources are used equitably and efficiently to guarantee
that children residing in RCCs receive quality education.
Funding and accountability mechanisms represent leverage points for potential
improvement in the quality of education children receive in RCCs. Fairness and
equity in funding are important goals that clearly resonate with all state agencies
that interact with children in RCCs. These centers, in addition to state agencies,
must be held accountable for the quality of education delivered to children under
their supervision.
When operating within the framework of established state agencies, policies, and
procedures, it is important to understand the greater political nature of the subject
matter. In this case, educational quality and the use of public resources are
potential sources of political disagreement. For this reason, the political feasibility
of various options must be assessed when making recommendations. The nature
of policy interventions will vary widely depending on the political will and
24
priorities espoused by policymakers. We recognize this need and therefore present
the most viable options for implementation.
A matrix using the policy goals of efficiency, equity, and political feasibility to
evaluate the following recommendations is available in Appendix C.
Structure
Assessing education quality and determining the most equitable and efficient
method of funding education services for children in Wisconsin RCCs is, at
present, difficult. Bureaucratic structures in Wisconsin compartmentalize
responsibilities for child welfare and education. These departmental “silos” have
limited interaction. Consequently, the funding processes and precise agency roles
and responsibilities are not widely understood.
Communication
Understanding the bureaucratic structure that governs child placement in RCCs is
crucial to identifying service deficiencies and funding inequities. The simplest
step toward resolving departmental disconnects would be to encourage
communication among departments through quarterly or monthly
interdepartmental meetings, similar to what is done in Minnesota and Virginia.
Select employees of DCF and DPI would attend these meetings, but invitations
could be extended to other child welfare and education stakeholders, including
other state and local agency employees, RCC and community organization
representatives, parents, and educators. These meetings could open lines of
communication and allow a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to
ensuring that all children in Wisconsin receive a high quality education,
regardless of their educational setting.
Collaboration
Although regular meetings would improve communication, they would not
necessarily ensure a truly comprehensive, integrative, and collaborative approach.
We believe that the systems in Virginia and Colorado showcase the advantages of
using bureaucratic structures to cultivate and guarantee interdepartmental
collaboration. Creating a formal interagency body would clarify accountability by
structuring more seamless oversight and reducing the likelihood that children get
lost in the system. An interagency body would serve as a coordination hub,
providing a platform for all stakeholders to share their perspectives and thereby
making it less likely that new policies would have unexpected or negative
consequences. We believe such an environment would also be conducive to
eliminating inefficiencies and redundancies. Other states have had success by
implementing this strategy.
25
Data
Additional data are needed to ensure more equitable and efficient educational
funding and quality. The cost reports introduced in 2011 provide a great deal of
helpful information, but more information is required. Our suggestions regarding
enhanced communication and collaboration would greatly simplify data gathering
and analysis. An interagency approach would allow shared data to be consolidated
and analyzed comprehensively.
Even if no interagency body is created to oversee the welfare and education of
children in RCCs, we suggest creating an interagency database accessible to DCF
and DPI employees. In this era of accountability, much of the data available might,
and arguably should, be shared with the general public as well as government
agencies. Virginia’s Comprehensive Services Act website’s (www.csa.virginia.gov)
statewide statistics section (www.csa.virginia.gov/publicstats/index.cfm) provides
the public with information about state and locality expenditure trends, as well as an
astounding array of service expenditure breakdowns per region and RCC, all of
which are available on an annual basis and go back a number of years.
Even if data are not shared with the general public to the same degree as seen in
Virginia, there is value in consolidating information on how the child welfare and
educational services are organized in Wisconsin and making this information
available in plain language at a single web location. Such a website might explain
how RCCs are licensed, how the RCC referral process for children works, how
IEPs are maintained throughout a child’s RCC placement, how RCC placements
are funded under different circumstances, and who might be contacted to clarify
information or address concerns.
Funding
A number of policy options for funding educational services children receive
in Wisconsin RCCs might more equitably distribute costs. Instead of having
counties continue to pay all RCC costs for the children they place, counties
could instead charge the school district that placed the child for the educational
component of the RCC daily rate, as Minnesota does. Another option would be
to follow the Colorado method of charging the school district a set per-pupil rate.
Finally, Wisconsin could work to create a separate fund to finance all RCC costs,
as Virginia does. Funding streams would likely come from counties and schools,
but they might also include private institutions or other government agencies.
We believe it is inequitable to continue Wisconsin’s policy of holding counties
fiscally responsible for the educational costs of children in RCCs. Since schools
receive funding for educating children, we believe that counties should be able to
recoup money from the school district that placed the child. We believe the most
equitable solution is for the school district to fund the actual RCC educational
component of the RCC daily rate, as is done in Minnesota. Having one set
educational rate would fail to account for the differing educational programs
26
and costs across students and RCCs. We believe creating an entirely new funding
stream for all RCC costs is likely politically infeasible and ultimately unnecessary
to achieve a more equitable funding system.
For our recommendations to succeed, the educational component of the daily
rate must be accurately identified. DCF began collecting rate information from
RCCs in 2011 but did not design the report to accurately account for the specific
educational costs. Therefore, the data regarding the educational component of the
daily rate for this first reporting year are unreliable. Although DCF has modified
the 2012 report and will audit RCCs to ensure that the educational costs are more
accurate and reliable, the cost reports are not yet comprehensive enough to account
for the entire educational component of the daily rate. RCC administrators did
note, however, that the cost and service reports, as structured, do not fully capture
the daily educational costs RCCs incur. To obtain an equitable and fair educational
daily rate, we believe that DCF, DPI, and all Wisconsin RCCs must work together.
Each stakeholder has an interest in the daily rate and all must agree on that rate
for our recommendation to be useful.
RCC administrators shared with us a variety of important issues to be aware of
when determining the educational daily rate in addition to the factors that DCF
already accounts for when determining daily rates. One factor is how many days
per year and hours per day the children are being educated. The more education
RCCs provide children, the greater the costs. Also, if a child has a disability,
additional educational resources will be needed. Therefore, the average number
of children with disabilities in each RCC must be taken into account. RCC
administrators noted that many children are transient, and, therefore, determining
the resident school may be difficult. Even if the resident school district can be
identified, the child may have been enrolled for only a short period of time,
causing the school district to resist paying for education costs. If the county
placed the child, the district may argue that it is better equipped to educate the
child and it should not pay the educational costs. All of these issues need to be
addressed in the rate setting discussions with DCF, DPI, and the RCCs.
We recognize that our recommendation will face political hurdles. We believe
that DPI and schools may resist these changes, as doing so may decrease their
budgets. We recognize that we are asking school districts to pay for children for
whom they may not have received state education funding. However, we believe
our recommendation is politically feasible given that we are also suggesting
increased involvement by DPI in rate setting and oversight of educational
services. DPI must be able to ensure that school district funds provided to RCCs
are used to improve the child’s educational outcomes. Changing the funding
structure without providing accountability and oversight would fail to ensure that
children are receiving a proper education while residing in RCCs. We believe this
would be a fair tradeoff between the counties and DPI. In the next section, we
describe the new oversight measures we recommend for educational oversight.
27
Educational Oversight
At present, there is no DPI oversight of RCC educational quality for children
without disabilities and only limited oversight of educational quality for children
with disabilities. While special education law and free and appropriate public
education provisions exist to ensure equity for Wisconsin’s children with
disabilities, these laws fall far short of ensuring equity for children without
disabilities in RCCs. Children with disabilities have IEPs and are instructed by
state licensed special education teachers, but DPI has no authority over the daily
educational programming in RCCs. DPI has limited authority over the educational
quality provided to students with disabilities, but it lacks authority over
educational quality for students without disabilities who reside in RCCs. DCF and
DPI should collaborate to reform the RCC placement and referral processes,
creating a system in which all children can receive mental health treatment and
verifiably equitable education services while residing in RCCs.
The agencies should consider developing accountability measures for Wisconsin’s
RCCs. With legislative change, several accountability measures used in the public
school system could be easily employed in RCCs. In addition, because RCCs
service a small population of students relative to public schools, certain
accountability measures that often cannot be employed in public schools, such as
regular on-site evaluations, could be introduced in Wisconsin’s RCCs.
New accountability measures that should be considered for Wisconsin’s RCCs
include: statewide assessments, on-site RCC evaluations, and consistent
communication and collaboration among DCF, DPI, and other stakeholders
throughout the placement process.
Statewide Assessments
Children with disabilities residing in RCCs are required to participate in statewide
and local agency-wide academic assessment. Resident school districts must
coordinate testing sessions and provide children with any special accommodations
or alternate assessments. Although children with disabilities participate in
statewide testing while residing in RCCs, the results of their assessments are not
used to hold RCCs accountable for educational services. Furthermore, children
without disabilities are not required to participate in state administered testing
while residing in RCCs, so DPI does not collect achievement or growth data for
these students.
Administering statewide assessments to all children in RCCs would lead to a
more equitable and efficient system for measuring educational quality. By
collecting achievement data for all students residing in RCCs, DPI would improve
its ability to accurately track student achievement and growth in Wisconsin.
Student achievement scores should not be used to measure educational quality in
RCCs due to frequent resident turnover, diverse programming, and small student
28
populations. However, we recommend using this achievement data to improve
Wisconsin’s data and tracking systems for K-12 students in RCCs.
Extending statewide testing to all students in RCCs would likely face political
resistance. DPI has no jurisdiction over children without disabilities who are not
attending a public school, so extending testing services to these students requires
legislative change. Colorado has tackled this issue by statutorily defining its
version of RCCs as non-public and non-private entities that operate below an
independent school board charged with standardizing curricula and testing. While
such a change may not be politically feasible in Wisconsin at this time, it is a
change we recommend.
On-Site RCC Evaluations
On-site evaluations would lead to increased accountability for Wisconsin’s RCCs
and illuminate best practices of the industry. The effectiveness of school visits as
educational accountability measures is hotly debated in the education policy field
(Rothstein, 2008). Some critics of on-site school evaluations argue that the size of
modern public schools makes evaluations expensive and incomprehensive;
however, this argument does not apply to RCCs. Given the small student
populations and low number of classrooms at RCCs, cost-efficient and
comprehensive evaluations of the facilities are possible. Colorado has shown that
evaluators can visit most statewide facilities in a single year to ensure that
educational standards are being met.
RCCs do not provide ideal environments for collecting and analyzing quantitative
educational quality data. Establishing statistical significance with such small
sample populations is challenging. However, on-site evaluations are often most
useful for collecting interview and observation-based qualitative data, which are
easiest to collect in small facilities. On-site visits to RCCs should evaluate the
quality, structure, and proper licensure of all education services. Evaluators must
interact directly with teachers, administrators, and students to ensure that
students’ educational needs are being met. RCC evaluations must measure the
extent of communication between RCCs and school districts, and ensure that IEPs
are properly transferred and up to date.
These evaluations have the potential to be inequitable if evaluators are not
consistent in their assessments and interview techniques. To ensure that each RCC
receives equal treatment and analysis, training and evaluation rubrics for on-site
visits should be consistent. Unlike statewide assessment data, which provide
measures of student achievement and growth in certain subjects, on-site
evaluations can provide a much more tailored analysis of a facility and its
programs, and lead to the quick identification of major issues or failures facing an
educational organization.
On-site evaluations are not an efficient method of measuring educational quality.
Site visits are expensive, requiring the recruitment and training of regional
29
evaluation teams, and are time-consuming if properly executed. Nonetheless, the
benefits of on-site evaluations, particularly identifying and sharing best practices,
would help balance the potential inefficiencies associated with this accountability
measure.
Implementing an on-site evaluation system for Wisconsin’s RCCs would not face
as many political obstacles as extending statewide assessments to the facilities,
but it would require buy-in from RCCs across the state. Administrators from
several Wisconsin RCCs expressed willingness to take part in some form of
evaluation process and are confident in the quality of their educational services.
DCF and DPI should consider piloting an evaluation program in select RCCs
before implementing it statewide.
Increased Communication and Collaboration
Ensuring collaboration among agencies prior to a child’s placement in an RCC is
crucial. However continuing this collaboration throughout a child’s stay in the
RCC is equally important. DCF must create a standardized procedure for the
placement of all children in RCCs and the transfer of children from RCCs back
into the public school system. DPI and DCF should build upon procedures for the
transfer of children with disabilities and create a mandatory review process for
each student entering an RCC. This review should include representatives from
DPI, DCF, the student’s former and future school, the RCC of choice, the placing
agency, and each student’s parent or legal guardian. Review teams could then
develop individualized academic plans for every student entering an RCC to
ensure that every child receives a valuable education in the least restrictive
environment. Although many RCCs have systems in place to evaluate and assess
the children’s educational needs, we believe more oversight from outside actors is
needed to ensure the children are receiving high-quality education.
Increasing communication and collaboration among DCF, DPI, and other
stakeholders is the simplest way to improve equity in the RCC placement process
in Wisconsin. The fiscal cost of increased collaboration would become substantial
if collaboration requires new employees or shared databases. Agencies may
experience a decrease in efficiency if they fail to properly adjust for added RCCrelated responsibilities. There are no political barriers to increasing
communication and collaboration among participating agencies, and doing so
would have significant impacts on the quality of services provided to children in
Wisconsin’s RCCs.
Recommendation for Political Action
State education officials in Wisconsin are in the midst of a publicized effort to
increase DPI’s authority for the oversight of educational outcomes in Wisconsin’s
schools. In 2011, DPI applied for a waiver from federal education accountability
regulations set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). In its waiver request,
DPI stated its strong desire to include all schools that receive public school funds
30
under the new system, focusing specifically on private schools participating in the
state parental choice program.
DCF and DPI could work to extend educational accountability to Wisconsin’s
RCCs before statewide accountability legislation is reintroduced in the Legislature.
DPI is unlikely to allocate state equalization aid for RCC educational costs without
the promise of increased educational accountability in those facilities. However,
if the aforementioned accountability legislation passes, DPI can build on its
momentum and propose an educational accountability system for Wisconsin’s
RCCs. By helping DPI gain increased oversight of educational quality in
Wisconsin’s RCCs, DCF would have a well-founded argument for requesting
access to state equalization aid via the funding scheme proposed earlier.
Although this solution provides potential benefits to DCF, DPI, and county
agencies, Wisconsin’s RCCs may express opposition to the idea. RCC
administrators may resist a plan that requires them to forgo some of their
autonomy and privacy in the name of increased educational accountability. Even
so, RCCs’ dependence on government funding, referrals, and licensing would
facilitate the adoption of and transition to new funding and accountability
systems. Moreover, some RCC administrators told us that they are open to greater
scrutiny of their educational programs as they are very confident about the quality
of education they provide.
Conclusion
After consideration of our goals of efficiency, equity, and political feasibility
(Appendix C), we recommend the following changes be implemented: First, we
recommend increased coordination and collaboration among DCF and DPI staff
in the form of interdepartmental meetings or an interagency body. An interagency
database would also facilitate increased communication between RCC
stakeholders. Second, we recommend that the resident school districts pay the
cost of educating students in RCCs. This process would require more accurate
data on the educational rate charged by RCCs, a legislative change, and an
improved system for tracking student placement. Third, we recommend new
accountability measures for Wisconsin RCCs, including statewide assessments of
all children residing in RCCs, on-site evaluations of RCC education programs,
and consistent communication and collaboration among DCF, DPI, and other
stakeholders throughout the placement process. We firmly believe these
recommendations will improve educational financing and oversight for children
in RCCs.
31
References
Clare, S. (2012, March 12). Executive Director, Office of Comprehensive
Services, Virginia Department of Education. (C. Mentzer, Interviewer)
Colorado Statute § 22.2401. (2008). Legislative Declaration.
http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/22-2-401.html
Errthum, S. (2012a, March 30). Section Chief, Finance Bureau, Wisconsin
Department of Children and Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Errthum, S. (2012b, April 2). Section Chief, Finance Bureau, Wisconsin
Department of Children and Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Goodier, T. (2012, February 21). School Administrator Consultant, Special
Education Team, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (R. Schowalter,
Interviewer)
Hokenson, C. (2012, March 8). Manager, Education Funding and Data, Minnesota
Department of Education. (N. Heckman, Interviewer)
Lancour, P. (2012a, February 8). Section Chief, Out-of-Home Care, Division of
Permanence and Out-of-Home Care, Wisconsin Department of Children and
Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Lancour, P. (2012b, April 2). Section Chief, Out-of-Home Care, Division of
Permanence and Out-of-Home Care, Wisconsin Department of Children and
Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Lancour, P. (2012c, March 21). Section Chief, Out-of-Home Care, Division of
Permanence and Out-of-Home Care, Wisconsin Department of Children and
Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Ledden, J. (2012, March 13). Director, Division of Family Services, Virginia
Department of Social Services. (C. Mentzer, Interviewer)
Linscome, K. (2012, February 29). Eligible Facility Schools Specialist, Colorado
Department of Education. (N. Heckman, Interviewer)
Manke, S. (2012, March 8). Intake Coordinator, Bar-None Residential Treatment
Service, Minnesota. (N. Heckman, Interviewer)
Minnesota Statute § 125A.515. (2011). 125A.515 Placement of Students;
Approval of Education Program. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=125A.515
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008)
Regan, M. (2012, March 8). Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Child
Caring Agencies. (N. Heckman, Interviewer)
32
Rothstein, Richard. (2008). Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right.
Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press.
Stephenson, R. (2012, April 16). Finance Consultant, Wisconsin Department of
Children and Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Trastek, K. (2012, March 19). Performance Analyst, Foster Care and Adoptions,
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (J. Crespo, Interviewer)
Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services. (2011a). Annual Report to the
General Assembly: Regional and Statewide Training Regarding the
Comprehensive Services Act. Richmond: Office of Comprehensive Services
Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services. (2011b). Annual Report to the
General Assembly: Treatment Foster Care Services Funded Through the
Comprehensive Services Act. Richmond: Virginia Office of Comprehensive
Services
Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services. (2011c). Annual Report to the
General Assembly: Implementation of the Match Rate System Under the
Comprehensive Services Act. Richmond: Virginia Office of Comprehensive
Services
Virginia Office of Comprehensive Services At-Risk Youth & Families. (2007).
CSA Overview: Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth & Families: A
Systems Approach for “Our” Children. Richmond: Virginia Office of
Comprehensive Services
Wisconsin Administrative Code DCF Chapter 52. (2012). 52 Residential Care
Centers for Children and Youth. Retrieved from
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code.htm
Wisconsin Administrative Code DCF § 52.01. (2012). 52.01 Authority and
Purpose. Retrieved from http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code.htm
Wisconsin Administrative Code DCF § 52.03. (2012). 52.03 Definitions.
Retrieved from http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code.htm
Wisconsin Administrative Code DCF § 52.64. (2012). 52.64 Rate Determination.
Retrieved from http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code.htm
Wisconsin Administrative Code DCF § 52.66. (2012). 52.66 Rate Methodology.
Retrieved from http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code.htm
Wisconsin Administrative Code DCF § 52.68. (2012). 52.68 Extraordinary
Payments. Retrieved from http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code.htm
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (2011a). Child Abuse and
Neglect Program (Child Protective Services): Structure of CPS. Retrieved
from http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/children/CPS/progserv/structure.HTM
33
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (2011b). Children’s Residential
Facility and Child Placing Agency Directories. Retrieved from
http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/childrenresidential/directories/CW-Directories.HTM
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (2011c). Division of Safety and
Permanence Fiscal and Contracting. Retrieved from
http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/children/fiscal/default.htm
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (2011d). Mission and Goals.
Retrieved from http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/mission_and_goals.htm
Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. (2011e). Wisconsin Children in
Out-of-Home Care Annual and Historical Reports and Statistics. Retrieved
from http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/cwreview/reports/OOHC-Y.htm
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2009). Summary Report of Children
Placed in Residential Care Centers from 1996-2008.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2010). Equalization Aid FormulaA Three Tiered Formula. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sfs/tier.html
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2012a). Comparative Revenue Per
Member. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sfs/cmprv.html
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2012b). Days/Hours/Waivers–
Questions and Answers. Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/cal/daysq&a.html
Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. (2011). Child Welfare Services in
Wisconsin. Retrieved from
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/publications/InformationalPapers/Documents/2011/52_child%20welfare%20services%20in%20wisconsi
n.pdf
Wisconsin Statute § 48.60. (2012). 48.60 Child Welfare Agencies Licensed.
Retrieved from Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/stats.html
Wisconsin Statute § 49.343. (2012). 49.343 Rates for Residential Care Centers,
Group Homes, and Child Welfare Agencies. Retrieved from Wisconsin
Legislative Reference Bureau: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/stats.html
Wisconsin Statute § 115.81. (2012). 115.81 Children in Residential Care Centers.
Retrieved from Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/stats.html
Wisconsin Statute § 115.76. (2012). 115.76 Definitions. Retrieved from
Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/stats.html
34
Appendix A: Wisconsin County Spending on RCCs
The following table highlights the amount Wisconsin counties paid to RCCs.
Note variations among counties in any single year and across years for any single
county.
Table A-1: Wisconsin County Spending On RCCs by County, 2008-11
County
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total Costs
Adams
Ashland
Barron
Bayfield
Brown
Buffalo
Burnett
Calumet
Chippewa
Clark
Colombia
Crawford
Dane
Dodge
Door
Douglas
Dunn
Eau Claire
Florence
Fond Du Lac
Forest
Grant
Green
Green Lake
Iowa
Iron
Jackson
Jefferson
Juneau
Kenosha
La Crosse
Lafayette
Langlade
Lincoln
Manitowoc
Marathon
Marinette
Marquette
Menominee
Milwaukee
$243,615
$133,139
$367,566
$163,752
$521,303
$29,407
$40,898
$99,341
$478,571
$438,271
$407,438
$49,868
$5,286,346
$934,220
$126,190
$330,570
$237,643
$1,496,965
$28,051
$1,192,328
$32,034
$493,121
$840,529
$100,284
$56,230
$127,536
$125,402
$383,618
$170,227
$1,128,376
$364,454
$253,194
$250,350
$62,198
$122,879
$1,626,516
$14,036
$0
$97,090
$5,596,159
$220,040
$124,172
$301,810
$370,740
$412,768
$0
$51,791
$71,100
$149,351
$262,873
$346,532
$68,904
$4,848,258
$1,005,118
$203,029
$427,902
$262,156
$1,156,353
$219,867
$1,163,059
$85,084
$452,796
$567,774
$6,302
$104,684
$22,000
$111,958
$577,522
$316,338
$1,156,312
$629,327
$239,369
$187,751
$183,765
$216,694
$2,042,244
$36,575
$203,390
$95,117
$5,635,208
$122,557
$372,824
$123,415
$137,569
$408,223
$14,075
$40,170
$44,530
$26,276
$222,029
$200,562
$25,168
$4,384,041
$653,610
$104,490
$527,667
$119,424
$1,004,661
$206,551
$885,034
$72,395
$226,746
$309,920
$0
$89,165
$86,875
$321,339
$502,482
$95,494
$1,022,833
$1,057,326
$0
$156,020
$126,495
$0
$2,936,201
$49,165
$10,485
$218,682
$7,035,741
$103,920
$193,372
$74,892
$171,382
$233,756
$111,366
$101,570
$0
$7,328
$168,767
$230,285
$41,842
$4,217,221
$486,653
$138,076
$434,202
$444,425
$743,512
$38,110
$1,380,607
$0
$107,594
$180,688
$0
$41,828
$92,618
$163,793
$165,621
$2,072
$750,523
$484,282
$28,542
$103,251
$0
$0
$1,927,154
$26,370
$0
$337,695
$7,703,699
$690,132
$823,506
$867,683
$843,443
$1,576,049
$154,848
$234,429
$214,971
$661,527
$1,091,940
$1,184,817
$185,782
$18,735,866
$3,079,600
$571,785
$1,720,341
$1,063,647
$4,401,491
$492,579
$4,621,028
$189,513
$1,280,257
$1,898,910
$106,586
$291,907
$329,028
$722,492
$1,629,243
$584,132
$4,058,045
$2,535,388
$521,105
$697,372
$372,458
$339,573
$8,532,115
$126,146
$213,875
$748,583
$25,970,807
35
County
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total Costs
Monroe
Oconto
Oneida
Outagamie
Ozaukee
Pepin
Pierce
Polk
Portage
Price
Racine
Richland
Rock
Rusk
Saint Croix
Sauk
Sawyer
Shawano
Sheboygan
State
Taylor
Trempealeau
Vernon
Vilas
Walworth
Washburn
Washington
Waukesha
Waupaca
Waushara
Winnebago
Wood
Total
$349,595
$114,789
$628,994
$531,171
$598,519
$0
$94,983
$480,295
$795,228
$40,359
$2,851,738
$0
$1,220,355
$86,761
$218,451
$701,039
$153,527
$0
$957,467
$744,071
$0
$164,054
$107,964
$260,444
$342,663
$162,489
$578,264
$941,942
$309,998
$44,870
$713,831
$92,089
$38,735,662
$463,177
$190,421
$786,929
$803,145
$859,610
$0
$0
$558,800
$759,625
$8,410
$3,005,345
$27,232
$1,402,166
$115,513
$126,195
$500,687
$413,261
$52,155
$752,750
$428,682
$0
$238,618
$93,545
$250,168
$130,394
$110,760
$943,541
$627,890
$332,855
$0
$672,677
$280,673
$39,471,255
$339,504
$225,255
$315,918
$723,522
$944,642
$8,835
$60,861
$473,602
$973,460
$118,963
$1,893,959
$0
$2,100,470
$99,808
$99,152
$573,075
$394,617
$0
$316,089
$283,143
$56,757
$283,181
$186,005
$209,993
$328,689
$157,070
$438,320
$730,613
$238,727
$44,800
$498,700
$461,159
$37,519,127
$520,079
$25,025
$419,193
$686,015
$335,830
$0
$0
$276,467
$331,615
$83,601
$1,710,894
$43,034
$2,317,026
$112,856
$171,930
$483,696
$584,487
$0
$344,121
$544,892
$71,727
$143,979
$90,588
$199,924
$177,490
$192,970
$583,268
$733,975
$145,784
$34,177
$356,264
$617,102
$33,775,024
$1,672,354
$555,490
$2,151,033
$2,743,853
$2,738,601
$8,835
$155,844
$1,789,164
$2,859,927
$251,333
$9,461,936
$70,266
$7,040,018
$414,938
$615,728
$2,258,497
$1,545,891
$52,155
$2,370,427
$2,000,787
$128,484
$829,832
$478,103
$920,530
$979,236
$623,289
$2,543,393
$3,034,420
$1,027,363
$123,846
$2,241,472
$1,451,023
$149,501,069
Source: Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, Bureau of Permanence and Out-of-Home Care
36
Appendix B: Virginia CSA Website Screenshots
Virginia’s use of technology and online resources to display data provides a highly transparent and publicly accessible method for
learning how the state delivers these services. This appendix includes screenshots from the Virginia Comprehensive Services Act
website.
Virginia’s Comprehensive Service Act for At-Risk Youth and Families Homepage
37
Statistics Available to the Public
38
CSA Pool Expenditure Reports
39
Appendix C: Comparison of Policy Alternatives
The following matrix details the policy goals used as evaluative criteria for
selecting recommendations and compares these goals across structure, funding,
and educational oversight. For each goal, the current policy is compared to
recommended alternatives.
Table C-1: Comparison of Policy Alternatives
Goals
Type of
Impact
Recommended Changes
Structure
Low: Data collection and
collaboration between DCF and
DPI could be improved
Increased collaboration
between DPI and DCF
High: both agencies would have a more
complete understanding of how entire system
operates; decisions could be made jointly
Funding
Medium: Wisconsin’s system has
advantages and disadvantages
compared to other states
Resident school district pays for
educational component
Improved efficiency over status quo
Educational
Oversight
Low: Wisconsin’s system does not
account for oversight of education
at RCCs
New accountability measures
High
Structure
Medium
Interagency database
High: transparency and accountability would
be improved
Efficiency
Equity
Political
Feasibility of
Implementation
Policy Alternatives
Current Policy
Funding
Low: counties pay when schools
may be receiving money
Educational
Oversight
Low: lack of oversight creates
potential for education to be
provided differently at different
RCCs.
Structure
Funding
Educational
Oversight
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
40
Resident school district pays for
educational component
Improved equity over status quo
Use improved rate metrics:
High: data collection surveys are already in
use and data quality will improve over time
New accountability measures
High
Increased collaboration
between DPI and DCF
Medium
Interagency database
High: infrastructure investment could lead to
potential future cost savings
Resident school district pays for
educational component
Medium
Use improved rate metrics
High: data collection surveys are already in
use and data quality will improve over time
New accountability measures
Medium: legislation would need to be
changed, but incentives exist to improve
oversight even in challenging political climate