Not All Testimony Sent to Sunset Was Posted

Public testimony sent in to the Texas Sunset Commission was supposed to be included in the public comments list. This was presented for the Department of Family and Protective Services portion. While the Angel Eyes over Texas testimony was sent in before the June 30th deadline, it was not. For that reason I am posting it here for your review.

Please take the time to read it and post comments at the bottom.

Thank you.


Jim Black, founder
Angel Eyes over Texas

515 S Bender #708
Humble, TX 77338
 281-706-0352

June 29, 2014

Attention Sunset Commission Members:

First I would like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity testify on June 25^th. I found the experience to be enlightening but a little bit disheartening.

In case you did not know it, this Sunset review of DFPS is being followed by Child Protection reform advocates nationwide. Texas has the opportunity to lead the nation in developing a workable cutting edge system that rebuilds families instead of tearing them apart.

To help you understand my testimony let me first tell you a little bit about myself and Angel Eyes over Texas. My background is not in Social Work or Law; but instead in manufacturing as a Manufacturing Engineer. My lack of a formal education (GED) resulted in my working specialty contracts for 52 companies in 32 years over a wide course of industries; often more in the capacity of Corporate Anthropology than engineering. When presented with the Discovery on the 2^nd trial against my youngest daughter; the lack of integrity and obviously bad casework, it became painfully apparent DFPS is not being operated in the manner in which it was designed.

Understanding DFPS Disposition. - Before I get heavily involved with my observations, I first ask you to look (outside the box) at how DFPS handles dispositions. For the purpose of this text and in observation of all public testimony, I beseech the Commission Members to apply Texas Administrative Code 40 TAC §700.511 to the evidence presented before you. The first subsection of that Rule is listed below.

(a) Allegation dispositions. An allegation disposition is the finding made in the investigation about each individual allegation of abuse/neglect which was identified at intake or during the investigation.

(1) Reason-to-believe. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, staff conclude that abuse or neglect has occurred.

(2) Ruled-out. Staff determine, based on available information, that it is reasonable to conclude that the abuse or neglect has not occurred.

(3) Unable to complete. Staff could not draw a conclusion whether alleged abuse or neglect occurred, because the family:

(A) could not be located to begin the investigation or moved and could not be located to finish the investigation; or

(B) was unwilling to cooperate with the investigation.

(4) Unable-to-determine. Staff conclude that none of the dispositions specified in paragraphs (1) - (3) of this subsection is appropriate.

(5) Administrative closure. Information received after a case was assigned for investigation reveals that continued Child Protective Services intervention is unwarranted as outlined in §700.507 of this title (relating to Investigation Interviews).

Determining Overall Disposition for the Investigation

Criteria for an Allegation Disposition		Overall Disposition
If any allegation disposition is:	and no allegation disposition is:	then the overall disposition is:
Reason to Believe (RTB)	(not applicable)	Reason to Believe
Unable to Determine (UTD)	Reason to Believe	Unable to Determine
Unable to Complete (UTC)	·  Reason to Believe, or   ·  Unable to Determine	Unable to Complete
Ruled Out (R/O)	·  Reason to Believe,   ·  Unable to Determine, or   ·  Unable to Complete	Ruled Out
Administrative Closure (ADM)	·  Reason to Believe,   ·  Unable to Determine,   ·  Unable to Complete, or   ·  Ruled Out	Administrative Closure

Table 1: Appendix 2472.1-A: Determining Overall Disposition and Overall Role (CPS Handbook)

In an early observation please notice how this table from the CPS handbook does not match the Administrative Code Rule.

But for the purpose of this text I will be using Reason to Believe (RTB),Unable to Determine (UTD) and Ruled Out (R/O) in presenting a number of my observations.

Early Observations

When a person first looks at the child protection system in Texas they see what appears to be one of the best systems in the nation. But when that same person looks at the delivery side and it is observed that same system is being grossly misapplied.

Texas has most of it's DFPS related handbooks online and they are updated monthly. This simple transparency makes Texas makes it unique among the other states. The only handbook that appears to be missing is the Administrative Management Policies and Procedures handbook. Through the Texas Public Information Act, all government information that affects a Texas citizen is to be made available to them. I feel that it should be also made public so that Rule 201 of both the Texas and Federal Rules of Evidence can be applied allowing it to be used as a quality control element in the courts.

Quality control is a major problem with DFPS. The agency has operated with such of a high turnover rate and lack of tenure that it has lost it's knowledge base. The lack of proper training has pushed the agency farther and farther away from it's intended mission. Remember that anytime a DFPS employ fails to follow the guidelines, statutes and rules set forth by the state they are actually insubordinate to their employer, the people of Texas. When it comes to statutes in many cases that insubordination results in down right criminal behavior, which violates Article 1 Section 30 of the Texas Constitution. Criminal behavior by caseworkers needs to trigger compensation under the Crime Victim Compensation Act of 1979.

Wednesday morning Rep. Dutton commented, “This is government at its worse.” A bit later in the morning his quizzing the Sunset staff revealed a major problem. While on the surface the question only appeared to address rather or not the complaint process was effective or not. There is far deeper rooted problem here. Is DFPS delivering what it is supposed to be? And isn't that the reason for Sunset?

On Tuesday we heard the staff report, Stephens and agency response. All of which focused on the operational side of the agency, but I heard very little about the effectiveness of outcomes and service delivery. Then on Wednesday we heard a great deal about service delivery, but very little (almost none) of it was positive.

We also heard a great deal about culture and a need for change. Tyrone Obaseki hit it pretty close when he said the key word is “paradigm”. I agree it is going to take a paradigm shift, change in focus and totally different mind set to make the system successful.

To show just how dysfunctional the system has become let's look at the job Reunification Safety Services (RSS). Angel Cook mentioned it in her testimony. I in mine. This job function is described in Section 3500 of the handbook and managed by rule under 40 TAC §700.703. It was mentioned as a FBSS function on pages 78-79 of the self evaluation, but NOTHING in the staff report. With a vague mention of it in the Stephens Group assessment as functions of CVS. The handbook shows it to be a standalone job function not to be tied into caseloads from CVS or FBSS.

We feel that the failure of this job function from appearing more than vague mention in the Stephens report is a clear indication that it is being by passed all together. No other DFPS job function has a more direct effect on Recidivism; which in turn effects caseloads. If you are looking for something that inflates caseloads, here is a place to look.

But it is not just RSS where this is a problem. Families report the lack of actually receiving a list of services from any stage of service. It appears the department would rather keep the child needlessly in the system while collecting Title IV funds than to actually follow the process and return the child when possible.

Very often it is very hard to determine who or what DFPS is protecting. In many ways it appears the agency is exploiting the very people it is to protect.

Recommendations

It has long been my contention that DFPS had far too much power for the quality of service it delivers. For that reason my recommendation is to Sunset DFPS as we know it. In it's stead create two new Sunset agencies to be reviewed on *6 year cycles with one in sync with operational related agencies such as the current with the next synchronized with Judicial related. (* Should be considered for even if DFPS remains)

1. Department of Services Protecting Families. Answering directly to the Governor.

• Face time is of utmost importance. Develop procedures allowing maximum interaction with those being served.
• Make maximum use of technology to improve contact.
• Develop case management around GPS technology.
• Move as much management functions to hand eld devices.
• Adopt rules based Enterprise Resource Management into case management.
• Re-purpose law enforcement squad cars for caseworker use. Set up motor pools in each region with gas and maintenance contracts through out. Replace prisoner rear bench seats with ones containing 3 integrated child seats. All vehicles should be equipped with printers.
• Develop casework pools where work is shared.
• Have law enforcement conduct the initial investigation. Current investigations convert to Safety Assessment workers keying in safety assessment real time into their hand devices. Printing various documentation before leaving.
• Use parallel case management when ever possible.

2. Office of Independent Ombudsman for Department of Services Protecting Families. Answering directly to the Attorney General.

• Write legislation insuring that workers know the limits of their immunity.
• Strengthen the immunity statute making it a violation to fail to collect information that would clear a family or points to criminal activity within the agency.
• Make the illegal removal of a child an offense under Penal Code §39.03 with min jail time for second offense.
• Amend the statute of limitations for a caseworker committing crimes against a child to “Age 18, plus 10 years.” along with a child aging out automatically gets a copy of their records.
• Make records required for discovery self redacting. Allowing them to be made available before the 14 day Adversary Hearing.
• Make discovery ongoing and presented at each PMC review hearing.

Numerous other things that need to be presented.

Understanding that a working family is a safe family. It is better to offer services that repair the broken families and reduce recidivism. The only way to do that is take a fresh approach. In the Sunset's staff missing the reunification I can't help but wonder how much more has been missed. In the past, reform and redesign efforts have been made with the Ombudsman's office and Office of Consumer Affairs internal and it has been ineffective at curbing improper and illegal behavior by employees. Currently the ACA refuses to collect information while a case is open. In the case of DFPS getting Permanent Managing Conservator-ship the case is never closed as long as the child is in the system.

As in our case. We know that the two initial investigations were falsified. Caseworker and supervisor were instructed to close the case 7 months before removal. The only exigent circumstance that existed the day of removal was the conditions they created would not exist later. After refusing the caseworker entry they sent an apartment maintenance worker through the window to open the door. It was never revealed what the danger they entered the home to stop was. Caseworker lied and put in her report claiming eldest son did not live there; instructing dad to not allow contact with mom there by placing child under Official Oppression by failing to hold a proper §262.106 hearing. From the time of removal on June 25, 2009 to children's return on March 14, 2014, caseworkers only made two visits: December 16, 2009 and January 28, 2014. Never any contact with a RSS caseworker. We believe the intent was to delay as long as possible to collect child support and Title IV funding.There are more details within my 4-15-14 testimony in attachments.

--

Jim Black

Angel Eyes over Texas

Disclaimer: The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may be confidential or contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any personal, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited.