Blue Ribbon Panel Report
On April 25, 2002, the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) revealed that one of its
Miami wards, 5-year-old Rilya Wilson, had disappeared 15 months earlier from her custodial home
and had not been seen since. This revelation, and others subsequently, engulfed DCF in scandal.
In response, Gov. Jeb Bush on May 6 appointed a four-member Governor's Blue-Ribbon Panel on
Child Protection to investigate and report back to him quickly. The governor named David Lawrence
Jr., current chairman of the Florida Partnership for School Readiness and former publisher of The
Miami Herald, to chair the panel, joined by child welfare expert Sara Herald, former regional vice
president of the Children's Home Society and now group chief administrative officer of Union
Planters Bank; Carol Licko, the governor's former counsel and now a partner in the Miami law firm of
Hogan & Hartson LLP; and Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, president of Barry University. (It's worth noting
that Ms. Herald was a foster parent and is an adoptive parent.)
The governor's announcement said in pertinent part:
"These community leaders bring a wealth of experience and wisdom to the task before them. They
can help us all be sure that we are doing everything possible to keep our children safe.
"The recent case of Rilya Wilson has raised very troubling questions about the state's performance
in protecting children in the child welfare system. It is essential that we resolve these issues quickly
and ensure that children in the care and custody of the state are properly supervised and cared for.
In the case of Rilya, the system failed. We must guard against failure in other cases.
"I am asking the Panel to focus its attention on the safety of children in the child welfare system. The
Panel will also specifically focus on the adequacy of oversight and accountability within the
Department of Children and Families."
The governor's announcement concluded by saying that "the critical importance of the task protecting our vulnerable children - demands urgent action.''
Pursuant to the governor's mandate, Chairman Lawrence scheduled four public hearings - later
expanded to eight. Those hearings occurred at Miami-Dade Community College on May 8, 10, 13,
15, 17, 20, 26 and 27. All told, the Panel heard more than 30 hours of testimony from a wide
spectrum of local, state, and national experts on child welfare, law enforcement, Guardians Ad
Litem, foster parents, adoptive parents, Florida legislators, juvenile judges, and academia, as well
as from parents whose children DCF had taken and placed in custody. In addition, the Panel
received and reviewed a three-foot-thick stack of reports, studies, charts, graphs, transcripts of
testimony and e-mails as well as numerous newspaper articles. Moreover, Panel members
individually reviewed, in confidence, Rilya Wilson's records that courts subsequently made public on
May 23 and 24. In addition, several Panel members attended demonstrations of HomeSafenet,
DCF's new web-based computerized system of tracking child welfare cases.
The following report constitutes the Panel's findings and recommendations to the governor.
Daunting though its task was, the Panel undertook it enthusiastically, conscientiously, and with the
fervent hope that its work proves beneficial, now and in years to come, to the children and families
involved in Florida's child welfare system.
Anatomy of a Tragedy
Rilya Wilson has been missing for 16 months. Her caregivers, two Miami sisters who say they are but in fact may not be - her great aunt and grandmother, claim that a woman from DCF took Rilya
from their home in January 2001 for testing. The sisters have said from the outset that they haven't
seen Rilya since. Miami-Dade Police detectives are pursuing a criminal investigation into her
disappearance. They fear that she may be dead. We can only pray that somehow, somewhere,
Rilya will be found alive and well.
Except for her disappearance - which, granted, is a huge "except'' - the route by which Rilya became
a ward of the State of Florida is not at all exceptional. It is, in fact, quite normal. It is a sad route
traveled each year by thousands of children in Florida and by tens, indeed hundreds, of thousands
of children across the United States.
These children - many so tiny, all so vulnerable, each so full of promise if only each could get love
and nurture and opportunity - are the innocent victims of others' flaws. Drug abuse. Deep poverty.
Homelessness. Neglect and cruelty by their parents or caregivers, or physical or sexual abuse. Lack
of timely medical care or mental health services.
And the challenges for children go on: Lack of Guardians Ad Litem to assure their rights in court.
Ineffective, or at worst indifferent, protection from government agencies mandated to safeguard
children - commonly because of these agencies' infighting. Each agency jealously guards its own
turf. Each is suspicious of the others' competence or motives. Cooperation too often is viewed as
capitulation when, in fact, it is vital. This infighting contributes to a malign culture of self-protection
that all but strips meaningful protections from those who need it most: the vulnerable children.
So it long has been. So it was with Rilya. So it will ever be until - unless - Floridians resolve to
guarantee dependent and abused children the protection they deserve. This resolve will require the
fullest efforts of the governor, the Legislature, DCF, the courts, the schools, the Guardians Ad Litem,
law enforcement, neighborhoods and individual citizens as well as volunteers without whom
agencies working on behalf of children cannot function.
Rilya's case illustrates perfectly why this multi-pronged approach is so crucial.
Rilya was born on Sept. 26, 1996 to a homeless, allegedly crack-addicted mother, Gloria Wilson.
Gloria Wilson's first child, Rilya's older sister, is now 7-1/2. She has lived for seven years with a
Miami pastor and his wife. They want to adopt her. They and their foster daughter remain
anonymous because, the pastor says, the child doesn't know of her connection to Rilya. The pastor
also says his foster child's DCF caseworker, Deborah Muskelly - who also was Rilya's caseworker never visited their home after January 2001. Nor, he told The Miami Herald, has any other DCF
caseworker visited there in all those months. (However, it should be noted that the pastor signed
blank forms acknowledging home visits without such visits occurring.)
Deborah Muskelly and her supervisor, Willie Harris, both have departed DCF. The department says
that Ms. Muskelly falsified records in another case. Her resignation led to DCF going over all her
cases, which is when Rilya's disappearance was discovered. She said she had regularly visited
Rilya Wilson when it turned out that, in fact, she had not. Mr. Harris failed in his duty to supervise
Ms. Muskelly. She resigned in lieu of termination; he retired in lieu of demotion. It should be noted
that Ms. Muskelly was terminated on two previous occasions by DCF; on one of those occasions
she was rehired by a different department, and the second time she was reinstated and demoted.
Moreover, The Miami Herald reported on May 8 that Ms. Muskelly had been a substitute MiamiDade Public Schools teacher on at least 22 days when she supposedly was working at DCF. On at
least 12 of those days, the newspaper said, she collected pay from both DCF and the school
system. On seven days, Ms. Muskelly allegedly called in sick to DCF, collected sick pay, and went
to her teaching job.
Clearly, a central fact in the Rilya Wilson situation is the utter dereliction of duty by Ms. Muskelly and
her supervisor, Mr. Harris. But their terrible performance would have been detected had DCF had in
place a system to assure that caseworkers in fact visit their assigned children at least once every 30
days. The requirement was and is there. The enforcement was lamentably - and for Rilya perhaps
tragically - absent.
Soon after Rilya's birth, DCF - at her mother's urging and with a court order of placement - awarded
custody of the child to Pamela Kendrick, a family friend of Gloria Wilson. DCF made that placement
expeditiously, as it should have. But in April 2000, a Miami-Dade juvenile judge awarded custody of
Rilya to Pamela Graham, who lives with her sister, Geralyn, in West Kendall. Pamela Graham says
she is Rilya's great aunt, and Geralyn Graham claims to be Rilya's grandmother because she says
her son, Kenneth Epson, is the father of both Rilya and her younger sister, Rodericka, now almost 3.
Rodericka had been placed with the Graham sisters before Rilya was.
Whether the Graham sisters are even related to Rilya is itself in doubt. Court records, and his own
assertions, say that Rilya's father is Manville Cash. He's now in the Miami-Dade County Jail. His 15year criminal record includes half a dozen offenses. DCF records and court files list Manville Cash
as Rilya's "prospective father.'' But in terminating his and Gloria Wilson's rights to Rilya, a MiamiDade judge ruled that Mr. Cash had neglected and abandoned the child.
Equally in doubt is Geralyn Graham's credibility. More in doubt is whether, had it discovered her
record beforehand - which, alas, it did not - DCF ever would have placed Rilya or Rodericka in her
home in the first place. (DCF is the first and only social services agency in the country to be granted
access to the database of the National Crime Information Center for the purpose of screening
caregivers for emergency placement. Only since last July has DCF had the legal right to do
background national screenings on relative caregivers, which it has not yet completed due to the
lack of equipment and funding.) Geralyn Graham's record shows that she served prison time in
Tennessee in the 1980s for food stamp fraud. She also served five years' probation in Florida for
grand theft. This record alone should have disqualified her from being a caregiver. And depending
on which newspaper account one accepts, she has used at least 20 aliases, or as many as 38. She
has sued others at least eight times, and been sued at least a dozen times.
DCF records show that since Rilya Wilson's disappearance, Geralyn Graham applied four times for
welfare and food stamp benefits. The applications stated that she was caring for Rilya. The last
application came in March 2002 - or 14 months after Rilya disappeared. DCF records also reflect
that she continued to receive and cash relative-caregiver subsidy checks until March 2002, long
after she claimed Rilya was gone.
One of Geralyn Graham's lawsuits, filed in 1996, sought $2.5 million in damages from the Alamo car
rental company. She claimed to have suffered serious injuries when, she alleged, Pamela Graham
backed a rented Alamo van into her. Coincidentally, Geralyn Graham had said that she was born in
the Bahamas as the daughter of Lynden O. Pindling, the Bahamas' late former prime minister. In
discovery proceedings in her lawsuit, Alamo's defense lawyers found and introduced in court her
birth certificate. She was born, it says, in Mississippi.
On May 1, 2002, given Rilya's disappearance, DCF removed Rodericka from the Grahams' home
and placed her elsewhere. This occurred even as DCF and Miami-Dade Circuit Court's chief juvenile
judge, Cindy Lederman, were struggling over who had the right to place the child where.
Judge Lederman had insisted that the court has ultimate authority to decide a dependent child's
placement even if that child is in DCF's custody. DCF said absolutely not, that it alone had sole
authority when parental rights have been terminated and the court has given custody to DCF. The
immediate dispute revolved around whom - DCF or the judge - ultimately could decide where
Rodericka would be placed after DCF, citing fears for Rodericka's safety, removed her from the
Grahams' custody on May 1. The matter went before the Third District Court of Appeal, which
quickly ruled in Judge Lederman's favor.
Meantime, the Miami-Dade Police Department gave polygraph tests to both Geralyn and Pamela
Graham. On May 10, Miami-Dade Police Chief Carlos Alvarez said both women "showed deception''
on those tests. "What they tell us, we have to take with a grain of salt,'' Chief Alvarez said. He
added: "The people we talk to who supposedly saw this child alive, they're not telling the truth.'' One
of the Grahams' attorneys, Ed Shohat, said the women's polygraph responses were skewed
because of their anxiety over news reports suggesting that Rilya might be a dead child called
"Precious Doe,'' who had been found decapitated in Kansas City, Mo. Subsequent fingerprint and
DNA tests disproved any connection between the two children.
At a hearing on May 14, Judge Lederman found that Rodericka had been neglected because the
Grahams had not arranged proper medical care for her, nor had DCF carried out its responsibilities.
In fact, Judge Lederman had ordered in February 2000 - more than two years earlier - that
Rodericka have a complete medical and developmental assessment. DCF failed to do that because
caseworker Deborah Muskelly never followed up, and her supervisor failed his obligations.
Judge Lederman said of Rodericka: "This child cannot draw a circle. This child cannot name the
colors. This child is so delayed, she cannot lace beads on a string.'' Every normal 3-year-old should
be able to do these things. In addition, Judge Lederman said, Rodericka's "language skills are a
year behind,'' and the child also has "wandering eye syndrome'' that requires corrective treatment.
The story took another turn when The Miami Herald reported on May 22 that a "medical
professional,'' whom Miami-Dade Police would not identify further, had treated Rodericka in
February 2001 and that Geralyn Graham brought Rilya along on that visit. Not so, says Geralyn
Graham.
Despite all this, little Rodericka finally will get, at age 3, the medical attention that Judge Lederman
ordered for her at age 1. As voluminous evidence shows, the ages from 1 through 3 are crucial for
development of a child's brain. On that development hinges the child's cognitive, social, emotional
and physical growth and, in many demonstrable respects, the child's progression through the teen
years and into adulthood.
Rodericka's development may be - or may not be: we cannot yet know - stunted by DCF's lapses.
But Rodericka is luckier than her sister Rilya: DCF and Judge Lederman at least know where
Rodericka is.
Nobody can say the same for Rilya.
Findings and Recommendations
Fifteen months after the fact, Florida's child welfare agency, DCF reveals that a 5-year-old child has
been missing since January 2001. Worse, DCF waits six days before reporting Rilya Wilson missing
instead of calling the Miami-Dade Police Department immediately. As police launch a criminal
investigation, the DCF is mired in a swamp of scandal.
Again.
Sixteen times since 1985, other scandals have prompted governors to appoint 11 special panels,
and state's attorneys to convene five separate grand juries, to investigate DCF or its predecessor
agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Now this gubernatorial panel, the
12th, has answered a governor's call to do the same.
Again.
Twenty-two times in the past 33 years, the Florida Legislature has mandated that DCF or its
predecessor reorganize in ways great or small. Please ponder that fact, even if just momentarily. It
means that Florida's child welfare system has undergone some form of reorganization - a nip here, a
tuck there, a turn-inside-out-and-shake-upside-down over yonder - on average every 18 months!
How many private businesses, much less sprawling governmental agencies, could flourish amidst
such organizational tumult? There are only two credible answers, both self-evident: None, and Not
Many.
Now looms the Legislature's greatest mandate of all. It's for DCF to switch to a system of
community-based care by the end of 2004. By then DCF must hand off to nonprofit agencies (which
must be at least in the process of obtaining national accreditation) the great bulk of its funding and
responsibilities except those of investigations and keeping tabs on the agencies.
While laudable in concept, community-based care is yet to be fully proven in practice in a state as
large, as ethnically and culturally and geographically complex, as Florida. Those familiar with it say
that community-based care, by deeply involving the local community agencies, holds immense
promise for enhancing child welfare. Yet no matter what results from the Rilya Wilson case, the
switch to community-based care means that Florida's child welfare system now faces significant
change.
Again.
It was against this background that Gov. Jeb Bush appointed us, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel
on Child Protection. It was against this background that we held our hearings and submit herewith
our findings and recommendations.
First, though, elemental fairness requires that we say this:
From the moment that her agency revealed Rilya Wilson's disappearance, DCF Secretary Kathleen
Kearney has been under sustained, sometimes vehement, criticism from near and far. So has
Charles Auslander, the director of DCF's District 11, which serves Miami-Dade and Monroe
counties. (It is worth noting that the local Community-Based Care Alliance expressed strong support
for Mr. Auslander and urged the Panel not to recommend a change in the top District 11
administrator.) Those calling for Secretary Kearney's resignation or dismissal include former U.S.
Attorney General Janet Reno. Secretary Kearney insists that she has no intention of resigning, and
Governor Bush has expressed his steadfast support for her. We come away from the public
hearings with the impression of fine people throughout the ranks of the department - from top
administrators to people in the field. This is not a department populated by stodgy, uncreative
human beings; we heard and saw considerable examples of innovation - most especially
community-based care. We also come away with an impression that this is, at its heart, a case of
human failure - which, of course, cannot be excused. The department could not answer, to our
satisfaction: How do you really know what is happening in the field, and how do you know when it
happens? Many of our recommendations speak directly to areas of quality assurance.
Fairness also demands that we say this: This "system" has no real way of working unless children
and families are seen as a community responsibility - that is, everyone. This means, yes, that DCF
plays a lead role, but there is no chance of sustained and lasting progress unless this is also the
mission of the Department of Juvenile Justice, the courts, law enforcement, providers,
neighborhoods, Guardians Ad Litem, the school system, the civic and business community, the faith
community, government, the Legislature and, yes, parents.
We saw, at times, some defensiveness at the Secretary's level. There is no question of Judge
Kearney's knowledge, vision and her commitment to children. She does, in fact, fight for children,
with a constant juggling act of how best to spend the resources in prevention vis-à-vis other areas.
Perhaps, as Judge Kearney repeatedly insisted, the Rilya Wilson case is "isolated." But none of us
felt the department was doing yet enough to make the possibilities of tragedy as slim as humanly
possible. Acknowledging that, and moving to take steps to do something about that, would be the
healthiest course possible for the Secretary and all in the department. Judge Kearney seems to
have a problem greater than she acknowledges in communicating with provider agencies in a spirit
of partnership. She can fix this, if both she and provider agencies proceed in full good faith.
We are acutely aware of the supercharged political atmosphere in which we were appointed, in
which we served, and in which we present our report. Despite the political thunder and lightning
crashing around the Rilya Wilson case, we undertook this challenge simply and solely to serve and
protect Florida's most vulnerable people: Its children.
We see no constructive purpose in changing DCF's leadership at this juncture, either in Tallahassee
or in Miami, despite this awful, and still potentially tragic, lapse in its performance. Rilya Wilson did
not disappear because of top-level misfeasance by either Secretary Kearney or District 11
Administrator Auslander. Rilya Wilson disappeared because of in-the-trenches malfeasance by her
DCF caseworker, misfeasance by that caseworker's supervisor, and the malfeasance by the
caregivers. These two employees, especially caseworker Deborah Muskelly, thwarted longestablished policies and mechanisms - built from the lessons learned from previous tragedies
involving children - designed to prevent exactly what these two allowed to happen. And while
Secretary Kearney and Mr. Auslander accept responsibility for this breach of regulations, they didn't
cause it. That is an important distinction. It deserves not to be forgotten.
Throughout this process, Secretary Kearney and her Tallahassee staff, and Mr. Auslander and his
staff in Miami, have been wholly forthcoming and cooperative. All that we have asked them to do or
provide, they have done or provided. To the soundest advice that our parade of witnesses offered,
they have been receptive. Indeed, in her opening testimony at our very first meeting on May 8,
Secretary Kearney vowed:
"We pledge you our full cooperation. We pledge you our full accountability.''
We expect Secretary Kearney to keep that pledge. We expect Governor Bush to see that she does.
In further fairness to DCF and its predecessor agency, we need to dispel a long-standing myth that
really amounts to a libel upon those agencies' dedicated employees and administrators - which, we
believe, includes most of DCF's 26,000 employees. This myth is widely spouted, hence widely
believed, and yet it is demonstrably false. It holds that the findings of this Panel's 16 predecessor
investigations have been largely shelved, ignored, dismissed without effect or action.
This is simply not so. Amidst our hearings, and at our request, DCF produced a 91-page report that
examined and detailed, one by one, actions taken (or not taken) on the recommendations of those
previous 16 panels dating back to 1985. The report shows that DCF or its predecessor have
implemented the great majority of those recommendations. Of many of the recommendations not
implemented, the report notes that DCF concurs with the goal but that the Legislature either did not
pass the required implementing law or did not provide the necessary funding. Other unimplemented
recommendations were outside DCF's authority - as, for example, those requiring action by Florida's
judicial system.
In noting this report's findings, we by no means intend to downplay, much less to whitewash, DCF's
shortcomings. They are manifest, especially in the Rilya Wilson case. Basic things do need to be
fixed, and we outline those below. But if a record is to have genuine probative value, it must be true,
credible, and generally viewed as such. If it achieves nothing else, we hope that this report at least
puts to rest allegations that DCF has ignored recommended reforms. Those allegations, simply put,
are manifestly untrue. The record proves it.
That said, the record also proves that throughout its history, Florida's child welfare agency has
borne the stigmata that stains it today. DCF is underfunded, understaffed, underappreciated and
overworked. So it ever has been. So it remains.
The search for the culprit, however, rightly should not point only toward DCF. It should also point
toward the Florida Legislature, which does not give - and never has given - DCF the resources
needed to cope with the enormous burdens that it faces.
Our state continues to develop funding formulas and services based on cases, not children. (The
OPPAGA Justification Review report on DCF's child protection program analyzes worker caseload
in numbers of cases rather than the number of children per counselor.) "Cases" in the national
definition of the Child Welfare League of America and the Council on Accreditation refer to a single
child as a case. In Florida, DCF and the Legislature refer to a case as a dependency petition, which
could have any number of children. Hence, comparison of "caseloads" and "investigations" in
Florida vis-à-vis elsewhere tend to be inaccurate and unhelpful because of the wide variation in the
number of children served.
In its eight hearings, the Panel heard from 61 witnesses (including the perspectives of foster
parents, caseworkers and supervisors) and received hundreds upon hundreds of documents that
stand more than three feet tall. As with DCF, the Panel had the fullest cooperation of those
witnesses, including courtesy from those hostile to DCF because it had taken their children and
placed them elsewhere. We tried to invite the broadest possible spectrum of opinions that our
compressed, crisis-driven deadline would allow. We were heartened to hear one major witness Shay Bilchik, president of the Child Welfare League of America - which with 1,175 agency and
governmental members (including DCF) is the nation's largest child welfare organization - say: "I am
encouraged by the breadth of presentations that you have called in.''
Our recommendations to DCF and Governor Bush follow.
Part I presents our Immediate Priorities, to be achieved or at least begun within 90 days. Some,
though not all, can be implemented quickly, and at negligible cost.
Part II presents our Longer-Range Priorities, those extending beyond 90 days. Some of those will
require new legislative action and/or funding.
Part III focuses on our thoughts for the Florida Legislature.
Part IV presents our Rationale for Our Recommendations. This rationale is based on testimony
presented to us and on individual Panel members' personal knowledge of or experience with the
tortured, tattered, and all too frequently tarred-and-feathered history of Florida's child welfare
system.
Readers will note that our Findings and Recommendations are long on narrative and short on
numbers, charts, graphs, and other statistics. Those are included in abundance in our report's
Appendix. Taken together, the documents in the Appendix illumine the scope of DCF's
responsibilities, challenges and funding. The Appendix also includes excerpts of selected witnesses'
testimony.
Therefore, we chose in our Findings and Recommendations not to serve up a stew of statistics that
many, perhaps most, readers might well find indigestible. We chose instead to try to focus, in clear,
straightforward prose, on the pre-eminent issues facing Florida's child welfare system.
The chief issue is - and always has been - the same: Florida's child welfare system is overburdened,
overwhelmed, understaffed and underfunded. It always has been. And it always will be until the
citizens of Florida and their elected representatives, the Legislature, give deserved priority to
Florida's dependent children and families. If there is anything almost as fraught with fear and
uncertainties as to be a child in the custody of Florida's government, it must be - as those children's
protectors always have been - to be a mere stepchild of that same government.
Part I: Immediate Priorities

Beginning immediately: DCF personnel, community providers and caregivers must notify
law enforcement's missing-persons division when they have any reason to believe a child is
missing and before they check other locations. Law enforcement's missing-persons division
must immediately enter that information into the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's
Missing Child Information Center system.

By June 15: Foster parents should be notified that they can lose their license if they sign
visitation forms in blank or falsify records on which DCF relies.

By July 1: Ensure that DCF caseworkers and community providers personally visit each
child under DCF supervision every month (with the obvious exception of runaways,
absconders and out-of-state placements). District 11 now says it meets this goal 91% of the
time; only 100% ought to be acceptable. DCF needs to develop, and report on, a credible
verification system that goes into effect at the same time.

By July 1: The guidelines governing handling of runaways should be revised to require
immediate notification of law enforcement, followed by issuance of a pickup order and a
further diligent search by DCF.

By July 1: District 11 and its community-based providers, in consultation with
representatives from foster-adoptive parent organizations, should implement a foster care
mediation board to resolve conflicts arising between foster parents and DCF and/or
providers' caseworkers.

Beginning July 1: DCF will conduct local, state and federal criminal-history checks on all
new relative, non-relative and foster care placements.

By July 1: The local Guardian Ad Litem office will report on what would be necessary to
have a Guardian available to represent every child in every dependency case in District 11.
It also will determine what resources are necessary to support administrative, supervisory,
space and other infrastructure requirements.

By July 15: DCF headquarters will determine the cost of equipping every caseworker with a
laptop computer and prepare a legislative budget request for same.

By July 15: District 11 should conduct a half-day Guardian Ad Litem-District retreat of
volunteer, counselor, supervisory and administrative staff. The retreat should be
professionally facilitated to identify issues and establish a mechanism for conflict resolution.

By Aug. 1: Buy and install Live Scan machines here and throughout Florida -- with DCF
potential users trained by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. These machines, at
$21,000 each, would enable DCF to transmit fingerprints to the FBI and receive a report
back within 48 hours rather than today's norm of up to two months or so. To do this, the
Legislative Budget Commission needs to approve the department's budget amendment
request. Moreover, DCF needs to obtain legislative funding to maintain the equipment and
make sure each district has enough machines.

By Aug. 1: DCF headquarters should initiate an independent system of care review in
District 11, facilitated by national consultant Paul Vincent, as already performed in seven
other Florida DCF districts. This should include full involvement by the local CommunityBased Care Alliance.

By Aug. 1: The Miami-Dade Community-Based Care Alliance should expand its
membership to include significant representation from the business and civic communities,
with a goal of enhancing the visibility of and commitment to community-based care. We
would hope that United Way and the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce would take the
lead in helping the Alliance to achieve this. Building a stronger Community-Based Care
Alliance will necessitate full consultation and cooperation with the Alliance for Human
Services work groups.

By Sept 1: Current placement and home visitation information for all children must be
completely up to date in HomeSafenet.

By Sept. 1: All foster parents as well as relative and non-relative caregivers should be
provided with a hotline number to call if they do not receive a home visit for every child in
their care every 30 days.

By Sept. 1: Require that DCF and provider files contain a current photograph, fingerprints
and birth verification (or evidence of a diligent effort to obtain) of every dependent child. By
that same date, make recommendations about the feasibility of a DNA swab for every
dependent child.

By Sept. 1: District 11 should complete a plan with local law enforcement and the juvenile
court to streamline the process of pickup orders and ensure that law enforcement's missingpersons divisions know of all children for whom pickup orders are issued - and that staffs
are trained on the same.

By Sept. 1: The Miami-Dade Public Schools will work with the Miami-Dade School
Readiness Coalition and DCF to arrive at shared recommendations to notify DCF whenever
a child under the department's supervision misses three consecutive days or is otherwise
not regularly attending school. Moreover, Miami-Dade Public Schools will need to work with
the Department of Juvenile Justice and DCF to develop an electronic method for sharing
school information, including attendance data, with DCF - and a way to do so consistent
with legal requirements.

By Sept. 1: All caseworkers should have access to cameras with date-stamp capability.
Every child needs to be photographed quarterly, thus keeping each child's file current (with
the only potential exceptions being runaways or absconders).

By Sept. 1: The District 11 administrator should prepare recommendations on how to
expand "family case conferencing" now taking place in one court division and one
neighborhood in Miami-Dade County.

By Sept. 1: The district administrator will have conducted a study to understand why District
11 has a significantly lower rate of employee dismissals than other DCF districts and what, if
anything, should be done about that. The aim is to make sure by this date that personnel
policies reflect swift and fair action vis-a-vis employees who are not fulfilling their obligations
for first-rate, caring service.
One further suggestion: This Panel would be willing, if so asked, to convene again in September in
public session to listen to a District 11 and state DCF progress report on these recommendations.
We would suggest the governor add two or three people to the Panel to reflect more fully the
diversity of our community.
Part II: Longer-Term Priorities
Put together a Children and Families Summit in Miami-Dade, called by the Department of Children
and Families and the Community-Based Care Alliance. It should have full representation from the
courts, law enforcement, schools, care providers (foster parents, relative and non-relative caregivers
and biological), the Department of Juvenile Justice, the medical and health community, the
Guardians Ad Litem, the Foster Care Review board, the School Readiness Coalition, various
chambers of commerce and the business community generally, the Alliance for Human Services,
United Way, the philanthropic community, the faith community, local governments, the legislative
delegation and others. Perhaps the summit would focus on two major issues: (1) Building
relationships and developing shared commitment among all involved, and (2) building a long-term
plan for issues involving adolescents. (By Nov. 1.)
DCF headquarters should develop a detailed plan to achieve accreditation in its core functions by
national organizations. That plan needs to include the necessary budget request for appropriate
funding. Accreditation is the "gold standard" that certifies compliance with rigorous, national
qualitative measures. The plan should consider having DCF certified as to administrative functions,
and on an expedited basis. (By Nov. 1.)
The department will compare the performance and longevity of child welfare staff with degrees in
social work or other behavioral sciences vis-à-vis other degreed staff. DCF also ought to review
caseworker job descriptions vis-à-vis actual practice to determine if these are in keeping with
national standards for social and child-welfare work. The Panel has heard testimony suggesting that
employees with social work degrees are frequently better prepared to work with, and more attuned
to the needs of, children and their families. (By Jan. 1.) We also suggest that DCF work with all
Florida universities toward a program where graduates could receive certification as a child welfare
specialist.
Statewide implementation of HomeSafenet, DCF's new web-based system for tracking its thousands
of cases. Partially implemented in 2001, HomeSafenet, being rolled out in phases, is scheduled to
be fully operational in 2005 at a cost of $230 million. Its DCF champions herald HomeSafenet as a
vast improvement over the paper-clogged present system of record-keeping. They made a strong
case. Yet we heard testimony from others complaining that HomeSafenet is not "user-friendly'' and
that it only adds to caseworkers' record-keeping burdens. We cannot, for sure, know the answer for
that now, particularly with the system only going up. We wonder: Are concerns of "user-friendliness"
matters of reality or perception -- or are they, more likely, both? At the very least, DCF should
convene this summer a series of local conferences of HomeSafenet's authors, DCF's information
technology experts and the many private providers who must learn how to use the system. (We
would suggest that at least a handful of legislators be there, too.) The Panel supports DCF's efforts
to deploy computerized information systems that cross agency lines so that pertinent information
can be shared appropriately by schools, law enforcement, provider agencies, the courts and the
Guardian Ad Litem program. Technology is not the answer to the future - human beings are. Yet
technology, done well, can be a most vital tool for progress.
District 11 needs to take a close look at the effectiveness of its human resources operations,
including its performance in hiring first-rate people, terminating inadequate performers, training for
knowledge and sensitivity, coaching, interviewing, ethical standards, recruiting and retention. (By
Dec. 1.) We sense that training is still too steeped in regulatory and statutory compliance, and more
emphasis needs to be on "best practices." We also clearly state that employees terminated for
cause ought never be rehired within DCF. DCF needs to ensure that employees who resign in lieu
of termination are so indicated in the system so as not to be eligible for rehire. (Also: The state DCF
staff ought to be accredited by the Society for Human Resource Management.)
DCF will develop a plan to arrange almost-instant hotline access for calling in English, Spanish and
Creole. That is a fundamental need in District 11. (By Dec. 1.)
Relevant medical information will be supplied and updated for foster parent, relative and non-relative
caregiver placements. Supervisors must be required to contact caregivers to confirm that they have
received this information. (By Jan. 1.)
A task force should review DCF policies and procedures with a goal of streamlining, condensing and
consolidating all policies so as to assure a focus on prevention of abuse and neglect on behalf of
ongoing child safety, well-being and permanency. (By March 1.)
A task force needs to develop policies around the issue of placements with relatives and nonrelatives who have a "positive" criminal background check. (By Jan. 1.)
Within six months after legislative clarification and appropriation on this issue of relative and nonrelative caregiver background checks, DCF shall complete background checks on all existing
relative and non-relative caregivers.
The Legislature should recognize that child protection, both investigation and services, depends
greatly on the active involvement and practices of local law enforcement, the judiciary and other
agencies. Therefore, DCF and the Legislature should develop performance measures that
accurately reflect those outcomes that are reasonably within the control of DCF. While examples
abound of such, three are worth mentioning here: (1) Investigations that exceed 60 days because of
judicial proceedings or criminal investigation should not be counted as "untimely" investigations. (2)
If median length of stay of children under supervision is to be measured, then legally appropriate
and court-ordered long-term relative and non-relative placements should not aggravate the lengthof-stay measure. (3) Children who came under supervision under major policy changes, such as the
1997 federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, which was not incorporated into Florida law until late
1998 or implemented until the appointment of Secretary Kearney, should be considered when
evaluating the performance of the child- protection system.
We suggest the governor use his White House connections to urge Washington to make DCF's
District 11 a national model program in which federal-state funding restrictions can be waived to
pursue innovative approaches to child welfare. At present, these restrictions often make such
innovation far more difficult and sometimes impossible.
Fully support Foster Care Review panels. (Moreover, building on the positive experience in such
places as Volusia County, we urge judges to ensure that a child and caregiver appear together at
least every six months.)
We urge the governor to use his moral suasion with the Florida Bar to recruit more pro bono
attorneys for children in DCF's custody. The Miami-Dade County Bar Association already has an
exemplary pro bono program. But the need is statewide. Why? Because while a nonlawyer
Guardian Ad Litem may represent many children perfectly well, other children may have needs that
conflict with those of his or her parents (foster, biological, or both) and/or DCF. A child may well
require an attorney to protect his or her interests in court.
Both District 11 and law enforcement should jointly review current lease obligations, space needs
and staffing to determine how to expand additional co-location and shared responsibilities of child
welfare staff and law enforcement officers. DCF caseworkers already are based at police offices in
Miami Beach and Homestead. (By Oct. 1.)
Part III: Priorities for the Legislature
We realize full well that some priorities will require legislative action, and the Legislature's next
regular session is 10 months away - in March 2003. Even so, these priorities must be addressed if
Florida's children ever are to have the protection, the help, and the hope that they deserve. The
Legislature needs to find the dollars that DCF needs to fulfill the overwhelming demands placed
upon it. Never has DCF had adequate funding. Never have the demands on DCF been greater. We
think it worth the governor considering a special session of the Legislature focused on these issues.
Among some of the most important areas:

Fully fund the Guardian Ad Litem program to ensure that every child has a Guardian Ad
Litem.

Florida shortchanges preventive care even though evidence shows clearly that it can help
keep troubled families together rather than removing their children and placing them
elsewhere. The state already has workable preventive programs, among them Healthy
Families of Florida, Healthy Start and Neighborhood Partnership Projects. The Legislature
should fully fund Healthy Families - a proven prevention initiative -- within Miami-Dade
County (and other major urban areas with high numbers of children in care). Worthy
preventive programs are starved for funds even though money devoted to them now would
save infinitely more money in years to come. Unless the Legislature devotes more money to
prevention, to keeping families together, it inevitably will have to face far larger bills for
caring for children displaced needlessly from their families. (It should be noted that the
Legislature's own OPPAGA report on child protection doesn't address prevention at all.)

Establish an estimating conference that clearly delineates funding streams and provides
budget projections and requisite FTEs (including an allowance for training time) based on
numbers of children, not "cases."

Community-based care: Every single witness who has dealt with this concept praised it. But
every witness who spoke of costs warned us - and we hereby alert the governor and
Legislature - that community-based care costs more, not less, than the services now
provided via DCF. So along with great promise, community-based care carries great peril
unless it is funded and supervised adequately. DCF should analyze its capacity to support
its field operations and community care providers with quality-assurance, quality-monitoring
and fiscal staff.

The Legislature should provide a quick-response mechanism to allow the DCF secretary (or
any other department head, for that matter) to shift appropriated funds from one program to
another to meet emergency needs. Current law allows such shifting only with the
Legislature's approval. This can take months when the emergency demands a response
today. We fully understand the Legislature's determination not to allow any department head
to thwart its intent by shifting to another function funds appropriated for a program that the
Legislature values but that a given department head personally might consider unworthy or
unwise. Surely the governor, DCF and the Legislature can reach a compromise that
satisfies the interests of all involved. The priority here is to serve Florida's children.

DCF's caseworkers and supervisors must be paid better based on meritorious performance,
and they should be held fully accountable for their performance. Under-performers should
be counseled to improve; if they do not improve, they should be let go. DCF's director of
human resources, Amy Karimipour, testified that the agency's supervisors earn an average
of $38,000 a year statewide and $37,000 in Miami-Dade versus a nationwide average of
$42,000. "They sacrifice their own families,'' Ms. Karimipour said. "They work ungodly
hours. They're [always] on call.'' These workers deserve the public's support, Ms.
Karimipour continued, adding that the misdeeds of a few must not be allowed to taint the
dedication of the many. We wholeheartedly concur. (Statewide, caseworkers, also called
counselors, earn $30,697 on average. That compares to $30,829 average in Miami-Dade
and $33,436 nationally.)

All DCF employees should be selected-exempt under the Service First initiative and not part
of the career service system.

The OPPAGA Justification Review of DCF's family-safety program has identified several
areas of deficiency that deserve close legislative attention and commitment of resources.
The Legislature and DCF need to agree on measurement strategies for such matters as:
Timeliness of response to, and initiation of, investigations; closing investigations; preventing
recurrence of abuse-neglect; ensuring children have safe, stable and permanent living
arrangements. Legislative commitment is also necessary to address high staff turnover,
foster parent turnover and HomeSafenet implementation.

We suggest the Legislature figure out how we can ensure that dependent children at age 5
be enrolled in kindergarten.

Develop an expedited rule-making process since DCF is required to respond in an
expedited fashion to the needs of Florida's families and children and cannot be hindered by
lengthy and bureaucratic challenges.

Amend "mandatory reporter" statute to include all individuals, including clergy, who
volunteer with children.

Amend foster parent licensing requirements to enable DCF to revoke the license of any
foster parent who falsifies records or signs blank documentation. Such changes also should
preclude placement, or permit removal from relative or non-relative caregivers.

Make funding available to institute a supervisory-management course that focuses on the
behaviors and competencies that ensure outstanding managers. Competencies for all levels
of management need to be fully defined.
Part IV: Rationale for Our Priorities
Most of our priorities require no explication beyond that expressed above. Are DCF employees
underpaid? Surely some are. Are DCF's programs underfunded? Yes. These are no-brainer
questions. Other of our priorities, however, have subtler significance that may not be - indeed
probably will not be - evident at first mention. Among them:
Guardians Ad Litem: A number of witnesses urged us to place Guardians Ad Litem among our
highest priorities. In full concurrence, we place this priority first. Why? Because if there is any
program that costs the least and benefits the most, this one is it.
Simply put, a Guardian Ad Litem is a court-certified adult who has completed a mandatory training
course to become an advocate for a child's best interests. These guardians are an indispensable
intermediary between the child and the court, between the child and DCF. In addition, Guardians Ad
Litem are the child's sentinels against any DCF or provider caseworkers - and perhaps these are
few - who might be uncaring, insensitive, incompetent, or worse. Guardians can - and often do alert DCF officials, and if need be a judge, when DCF or a provider is not doing its job. Without their
Guardians Ad Litem, many of Florida's at-risk children would have no one to represent them as
individuals, as small people with big individual needs, thoughts, problems and aspirations.
Some Guardians Ad Litem are lawyers, but most are not. To qualify, one need only be a Florida
resident of good repute and have an abiding interest in protecting at-risk children. After completing
relatively brief training, the Guardian Ad Litem becomes court-certified to advocate for children.
These Guardians Ad Litem span the full spectrum of Florida's people. They are homemakers,
business executives, office workers, teachers, retirees - you name it. Like the children whose
interests they represent, Guardians Ad Litem also span the full spectrum of Florida's racial, ethnic,
age, income and cultural milieus.
While each Guardian Ad Litem serves as an advocate for a given child, the role is frequently bigger
than that. When a child's own family, school, and neighborhood roots have been eroded to bedrock,
a Guardian Ad Litem can be - and not uncommonly is - the life-sustaining mulch around those roots
that allows that child to grow. A dedicated Guardian Ad Litem can help a bent twig of a troubled child
grow eventually into a straight and fruitful tree.
Guardians Ad Litem, in a word, are more than a dependent child's advocate in court. Ideally these
guardians become the child's friend, protector, mentor, trusted adviser. A guardian can change a
child's life for the better, forever. So can a child change the guardian.
Miami-Dade County's Guardian Ad Litem program is widely lauded, and justly so. Its longtime
executive director, Joni Goodman, supervises a staff of 50 who work with 400 volunteer Guardians
Ad Litem. Those guardians provide representation to 65 percent of the children under DCF's
supervision in Miami-Dade County. That's materially better than the statewide average of 50 percent
representation.
In DCF's District 11, which encompasses Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, about 5,400 children
are under the agency's supervision. That's down from about 6,800 in the year 2000. (The numbers
have declined for several reasons: Children are moving more rapidly through the system; adoptions
are increasing, and cases no longer in need of supervision have been closed. All these point to
progress in District 11.) Of the 5,400 children under DCF supervision, some 1,600 - less than a third
- are in licensed foster homes, and another 800 are in licensed shelter care. Thus the majority of
District 11's dependent children - some 2,900 to 3,000 - are in unlicensed care. Because of where
they are rather than what they are, because of their status rather than their needs, these do not get
Guardian Ad Litem representation. There aren't enough funds.
That's unacceptable. Florida's goal should be - must be - that every child in state supervision have a
Guardian Ad Litem.
As they consider their pleas to the Legislature, advocates for the program might take to heart a
compelling case offered to us by Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Jeri Cohen. She has been
a juvenile judge since 1996, so she has seen the full panoply of problems - especially with
adolescents.
"The problem with adolescents is a killer,'' Judge Cohen told us. "It tears your heart out'' because
"these are throwaway children - that's the perception. … Most of the kids who are running away run
away continuously.''
Judge Cohen then offered a vivid argument for why, in her words, "Every child [in DCF's custody]
needs a Guardian Ad Litem.'' One day such a Guardian brought a 17-year-old runaway girl into her
court, Judge Cohen said. The girl had been found living in a motel with her boyfriend. Neither of
them was using drugs or alcohol. The problem, the judge related, was that the girl needed to see a
doctor but her caseworker wouldn't approve this unless the girl first came back into DCF's custody.
No way, said the girl. No doctor, then, said DCF. Judge Cohen says she broke the impasse by
ordering the girl medically evaluated.
Foster Care Review panels: We heard compelling testimony attesting to the value of these panels of
citizen volunteers. And again, Miami-Dade's Foster Care Review program offers a model that merits
expansion here and emulation statewide. It was started as the result of a United Way community
initiative that called together Miami's leadership to develop a proactive solution to the foster care
shift of the Eighties.
Miami-Dade has 18 Foster Care Review panels, each composed of five unpaid volunteer members.
Each panel meets once a month and reviews, typically, 12 to 14 DCF cases per meeting. Because
of crushing caseloads, juvenile court judges may spend only minutes on some cases, though some
cases take much more time because of the complexity and severity of the case. The Foster Care
Review panels normally average 40 minutes on each case. They review the child's (or children's)
records. They hear from the DCF caseworker and the child's Guardian Ad Litem and/or attorney - if
such there be - and at times the child and others.
If they spot something awry, the Foster Care Review panels can go to the judge and say, "Hey,
something's amiss here. Please intervene.'' Because they recognize that these volunteers are an
extra set of dedicated eyes and ears, both for the court and for DCF, judges do not easily disregard
the panels' counsel.
Yet at the very least there appears to be - and we stress the phrase appears to be - a sometimes
disconnect between Foster Care Review and DCF. To this end, the testimony of Octavio Verdeja, a
Coral Gables CPA and respected longtime civic leader in Miami-Dade County, is at once instructive
and disheartening. Mr.Verdeja spent 10 years as a Foster Care Review panelist and once was a
panel's chairman. His recitation of his experience should give DCF deep pause because we heard in
others' testimony their concerns about some DCF caseworkers' unpreparedness for or indifference
to their responsibilities.
Hear Mr. Verdeja on his experience as a Foster Care Review panelist: "In many, many cases the
DCF counselors that we had to deal with were ill-prepared'' and frequently appeared uninterested in
the case at hand, he said. "When you sit down in a panel and ask a DCF counselor 'When was the
last time you saw [this] child?' and the counselor has to start going through the records'' in order to
answer, Mr. Verdeja said, you know you've got a major problem. Similarly, he added, his panel
routinely would ask the caseworker what DCF had done for the child at issue during the last six
months. Too frequently, he said, the caseworker had only lame excuses that translated to "Nothing.''
"Something's wrong, really wrong,'' when this occurs, Mr. Verdeja added. "The hiring, the training,
the actual supervising, the motivating of these people'' must improve.
We need to take his counsel seriously.
DCF's woeful pay: This lament, heard for decades, is as true today as it was when first uttered. Few
people, either in private enterprise or in government, are paid as little to endure as much stress as
DCF caseworkers and supervisors. Nor are there many public agencies or private businesses in
which supervisors frequently earn less than persons they supervise. Want an exception? Well, try
DCF.
Our witnesses on May 13 included, back to back, DCF caseworker Reggie Horton and a supervisor,
Sergio Gomez. Mr. Horton's basic pay is $33,000 to $35,000 per year. Mr. Gomez's pay, he told us,
is $32,000 per year. Florida's pay scale lags the nation. The governor and Legislature should act at
the next opportunity to close that gap. At a minimum, vacant or newly created positions need to be
available, and so funded, at the mid-level of the salary range rather than the base level.
Ironically, Mr. Horton not only earns more than Mr. Gomez in base pay, but in total he makes
$49,000, about 35 percent more than Mr. Gomez. That's because Mr. Horton serves as a volunteer
(and paid) mentor and spends one weekend a month on 24-hour call to respond to emergencies.
Those after-hours duties, which bring him an extra $14,000 a year, are not available to DCF
supervisors.
In this light, a reasonable person well might ask: Why would somebody take on the responsibility of
a DCF supervisor when they can make more money as a caseworker or protective investigator?
During his everyday duty hours, Mr. Horton said, emergencies are the norm. Make a perfect
calendar for a given day, he mused, and something unforeseen will muck it up. Consider the
afternoon not long ago when, planning to do something else, out of the blue he received an
emergency call. Two teen-age girls had missed their transportation home from school. One girl
called a friend, a 38-year-old man, to ask him for a ride. Sure, the man said. He came for the girls,
bought them food at McDonald's, and started toward their homes.
But first, he said, I need to stop at my apartment for a minute. The girls went inside with him. Quickly
his sexual designs became clear, and the girls ran out to the street and flagged down a passing
motorist. Fortunately, that motorist turned out to be a plainclothes police officer. For the teen-age
girls, it meant a possible horror diverted. For Mr. Horton - as for others in comparable roles with
DCF - it was just another day of a planned schedule thrown askew because children cried out for
emergency help.
At the door, an elephant
Of all the changes that the Legislature has decreed for Florida's child welfare system, none even
remotely approaches in breadth, depth, difficulty - and, yes, unprecedented promise - as the one
that lies just ahead. This is the mandated change to a system of community-based care.
This concept is easy enough to grasp. Instead of DCF running the system statewide, as now and in
the past, the system within each DCF district will be locally run, tailored to local needs and drawing,
ideally, on local institutions many of which heretofore have been largely untapped. (One added
benefit of community-based care is that local people are more likely to help a locally based lead
agency than they might be DCF.) In each of its districts, DCF will negotiate with what's called a lead
agency to administer its programs. As the system is implemented in each district, DCF will turn over
to the lead agency the responsibilities and funding for running child welfare programs. That lead
agency in turn will contract with appropriate qualified providers to handle services, including
shelters, foster care, medical services - the whole gamut of child welfare responsibilities.
The 1998 Legislature mandated this change and originally set 2002 as the year to complete its
implementation statewide. But legislators soon realized that this schedule was too ambitious, the
changes too sweeping and complex, to be done that soon. So in 2002 the Legislature pushed the
deadline for final implementation back by two years, to 2004. District 11 is scheduled for that year.
Clearly, community-based care is the elephant at the door. The challenge is to open the door
gradually and entice the elephant in and coax it to do the elephantine tasks that must be done.
Otherwise the elephant simply will break the door down and menace everyone and everything
inside.
Already the switch to community-based care is under way in a few areas, and it has been achieved
with notable success in Manatee and Sarasota counties. Off to a strong early start seem to be
Hillsborough (Tampa) and Volusia (Daytona Beach) counties. Judge Julianne Piggotte testified to
the very positive trends she is seeing within the Volusia initiative. The lead agency in the Tampa
area is Hillsborough Kids, a nonprofit run by Chris Card. He's a respected child welfare advocate. In
testimony to our Panel, he spoke in glowing terms of what community-based care can achieve.
One example that he cited illustrates this promise with heartwarming clarity. A Hillsborough family
already had foster children in its care and wanted to take in another child. But the family home was
too small and the family couldn't afford the $10,000 cost of adding another bedroom.
Mr. Card reached out to executives of his community's branch of Uniroyal Technologies, a major
national corporation. Those executives visited the home, liked what they saw, and readily agreed to
pay to add a new bedroom. But then something happened that Mr. Card said neither he nor the
Uniroyal Technologies executives had ever envisioned. Instead of just adding a bedroom, the
company decided to pay to remodel the whole house. In the end, the company's $10,000
commitment to child welfare had zoomed to $250,000.
Mr. Card then concluded this story, beaming, with a poignant ending. On Christmas Day these
Uniroyal Technologies executives went to that home and gave out presents that they had bought for
the foster children there.
This is an inspiring example of what can happen when child welfare truly is focused within a given
community, with committed, hands-on, community involvement. To achieve such involvement, of
course, it's essential to have capable and fully dedicated leadership at the lead agency - leadership
such as Mr. Card is providing through Hillsborough Kids.
A lead agency's outreach effort cannot extend merely to local businesses, of course, although their
involvement is vital. The outreach must extend as well to the public schools, to local colleges and
universities, to the courts and Bar associations, to law enforcement, to the faith community, to
foundations - in short, to every possible source of help throughout the community.
If wisely planned and ably implemented, community-based care can vastly improve the services that
children so desperately need. It has done so elsewhere. It can do so everywhere in Florida. Every
Florida community's commitment to this worthwhile cause should be as broad, as deep, and as
enduring as the broad, deep, enduring needs of every Florida community's children.
The HomeSafenet Challenge
DCF is now implementing a new, computerized, web-based computer system called HomeSafenet
whose use will be mandatory statewide in due course. HomeSafenet is due to be completely
implemented by 2005. The federal government is presently paying half the system's cost, with the
ultimate bill at a projected $230 million.
Secretary Kearney and other DCF officials insist that HomeSafenet will be markedly superior to the
previous system of paper files, which continue to be used. Ultimately all of DCF's records on each
person in its supervision or care will be kept on HomeSafenet, enabling near-instantaneous access
to all available information about clients, providers, and the like.
But DCF has a problem. Testimony before our Panel showed that not a few caseworkers and
providers already dislike the system. Their chief complaints seem to be that HomeSafenet is
cumbersome to use and that it requires maybe even more time than the two to three hours a day
that one caseworker witness told us that he now spends on updating records and writing reports.
State Rep. Nan Rich of Broward County, who has a background in child welfare, said that she has
heard from many providers who are deeply unhappy with the system.
The Panel came away from its information-gathering unsure of the depth of the problem, but
convinced that there is a problem, though much of it may be perception. Clearly, DCF has a
potentially severe problem if such perceptions continue. Morale among DCF employees and service
providers is at stake; so is performance. When actual files were viewed, it was clear that many files
were not fully updated in the system. Rectify that quickly, or confidence in the system will be in
terrible shape.
Thus, we urge DCF to convene, this summer, a series of local conferences of key employees,
providers and other agencies with which DCF must interact. An honest dialogue - real listening should lead to fixing what needs fixing.
HomeSafenet is a long way from its final version. Like any computerized system, flaws or
shortcomings emerge with use and must be rectified. That said, it is vital that DCF instill in all
affected users the highest possible confidence that the system will in fact ease, not further burden,
their workload.
A complementary system, called Unity One, is now being tested in two Florida communities. The
system initially was developed at the request of Pensacola's Lakeview Center in Pensacola, which is
Baptist Memorial Hospital's nonprofit community-based care provider. Children's Home Society in
Orlando now is piggybacking on the Pensacola pilot project.
Unity One is being designed to work in conjunction with, not in place of, HomeSafenet. No matter
what complementary system any provider might choose, all must use HomeSafenet, as must all
DCF employees.
Three Panel members attended a briefing and demonstration of Unity One in Miami on May 24, and
came away with a strong sense that it shows promise of being a great asset in DCF's and providers'
work.
Unity One's developer is DCF's chief data-processing expert, Glenn Palmiere, who has been widely
recognized for his creativity and leadership in information technology. His demonstration of Unity
One suggested the system can keep virtually any sort of data imaginable, retrieve it instantly, and
use it for whatever comparisons or elaboration a provider might wish to set up. Moreover, it is the
local interface with data from law enforcement, schools, et al. Mr. Palmiere and DCF's information
systems chief, retired Marine Col. Randy Niewenhous, said they couldn't say when Unity One might
be ready for statewide use, but anticipated it would be within the next year. We saw Unity One as a
potentially invaluable asset in compiling, comparing and analyzing a virtually endless array of
information.
Some Final Words
If we are to have real progress toward, and genuine "ownership" of, the solutions to the problems
that face children and families in Florida, we must achieve a genuine partnership. A partnership with
commitments from every sector. The deepest compassion. The fullest public awareness - that sort
of awareness that not only embraces this cause as a moral imperative, but also a practical
imperative that speaks to the future of our community and of all of Florida. Think of what the faith
community could mean in this if each church or temple were to mentor a foster child, or perhaps
many. Think of the media not only covering this important story in full and contextual terms, but also
finding ways to mentor foster children themselves. Think of the United Way and Chamber helping to
ensure a broad and deep business and civic commitment, and resources, to children and families
with special challenges. Think of all of us - together - making that commitment. Our children - all our
children - deserve our full commitment.
Finally, we note that when the governor asked us to undertake this investigation, none of us could
have predicted how interesting, how challenging, how exhausting, the task would be. But each of us
on the Panel comes away from this experience grateful for the opportunity to serve a cause that we
all hold dear: The well-being of Florida's children.
The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Child
Protection:
Sara Herald, Carol Licko, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin
and David Lawrence Jr. (Chair)
Copyright© 2000-2001 State Of Florida
Privacy Statement