State Standards and Capacity to Track
Frequency of Caseworker Visits with
Children in Foster Care
DHHS-OIG Report
OEI-04-03-00350
December 2005
Objectives



Determine State written standards for
frequency of worker-child visits
Determine extent States could provide
statewide automated reports on frequency of
worker-child visits
Determine extent to which statewide reports
indicate children were visited
Background





No federal standard; monthly visit considered
a minimum benchmark
CFSR: of 35 states reviewed 2002-2004, 27
cited as needing improvement in frequency
of caseworker visits
OIG focused on children in foster care
Examined State frequency standards
Analyzed ability to produce statewide reports
Definitions


Visit = face-to-face contact between
caseworker and child
Standards = written procedures providing
guidance for caseworker visitation included
in State law, regulations, policies,
memoranda, or other documents
Limitations



Did not examine county, local or private
agency standards
Included only children placed in-State
Did not categorize exceptions to State
standards
Findings: Standards - Frequency



50 of 51 States have statewide written
standards
39 States have standard of monthly visits
4 States have more frequent standards
Findings: Standards - Frequency

7 States have less frequent standards
–
–
–
–
–
3 States = quarterly
2 States = every 2 months
1 State = every 6 weeks
1 State = 1/week to 1/every 12 weeks (range)
1 State = monthly to quarterly (range)
Findings: Standards - Frequency

Exceptions resulting in more or less frequent
visits
–
–
–
–
–
How recently child placed in foster care
Type of placement setting
Needs of the child
Case status
Caseworker caseload size
Findings: Standards - Location


33 States have standard stating at least
some visits take place in the placement
15 States recommend that every visit occur
in the placement
Findings: Standards

Most common events contributing to
development or enhancement of standards:
–
–
–
–
CFSR (10 States)
Lawsuits/consent decrees (8 States)
Collaboration w/child advocacy group (8 States)
Other events (17 States)
Findings: Statewide Reports




No Federal requirement
20 States demonstrated ability to produce
statewide reports detailing frequency of visits
for FY 2003.
19 reports produced using SACWIS
1 report produced using State administrative
review process
Findings: Statewide Reports

Impediments to report production for
remaining 31 States:
–
–
–
Documentation in paper case files (18 States)
Insufficient automated system capacity (8 States)
Lack of resources (e.g., insufficient staffing or
computer time) (5 States)
Findings: Visits in FY 2003


17 of States providing reports had at least
monthly visiting standards
Reports from these States showed:
–
–
–
5 States: <50% of children visited monthly
5 States: 50-75% of children visited monthly
7 States: 76-97% of children visited monthly
Findings: Visits in FY 2003


2 of States providing reports had quarterly visiting
standards
Reports from these States showed:
–
–

1 State: 45% of children visited monthly
1 State: 57% of children visited during a quarter
1 State standard ranged from monthly to quarterly
–
–
24% of children visited monthly
88% of children visited during a quarter
Findings: Visits in FY 2003

Factors reported by States as negatively
affecting visiting rates in their reports:
–
–
–
Insufficient documentation of visits
High caseloads and insufficient staff
Private provider visiting information not included
Findings: Visits in FY 2003

Factors reported by States as positively
affecting visiting rates in their reports:
–
–

Caseworker visits were a priority
Visiting was closely monitored
5 States reported that they improved visiting
rates by the end of 2003 or later
Recommendations


For States with limited or no automated
capacity to record visits and produce
statewide reports, ACF should promote the
development of automated systems such as
SACWIS
For States with such capacity, ACF should
work with States to ensure that visiting data
are recorded
Prepared by:
Susan Dougherty
National Resource Center for Family
Centered Practice and Permanency Planning
At the Hunter College School of Social Work
A Service of the Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS
www.nrcfcppp.org
susan.dougherty@hunter.cuny.edu