Using clinical, emotionless language, the study discloses numerous serious problems at CSD/SCF. These begin in Chapter 3, a review of CSD/SCF's organizational structure. Researchers question agency power, secrecy, and lack of due process. Consider these findings:

"CSD management has a credibility problem in the field, fueled by selected members of the media. However, the problem is not limited to the media. Signs of distrust were present among other sectors as well, ranging from workers to a a state advisory committee member...one explanation may be management's attempt to support staff in controversial or damaging casework decisions .... The overall impression is that the agency has too much power and exercises it arbitrarily." pg 3-21

"As an external study group, we have been barraged with telephone calls and letters from CSD clients, attorneys, relatives of clients, and others who are very angry with the agency. We have logged over 500 calls from Oregon citizens since the study began.... The quantity and emotional content of the calls indicate the agency has more than an image problem." pg 3-34

"Oregon has many [casework accountability] structures in place yet citizens across the state from clients to judges and legislators cry out for more accountability. Why? The reason must be found in the power of the agency. It is difficult to think of a way to satisfy the need for accountability without reducing the agency's power.... Any agency with tremendous power which operates largely in secrecy is going to be misunderstood. As long as the law accords the agency the authority to remove children...accountability will be an issue. pg 3-40

Another element of CSD/SCF organization has to do with permanency planning - the process in which kids long held in the system are finally disposed of. Here, too, the study finds serious problems:

"Permanency planning has become a stumbling block to the overall performance of CSD....it tends to be mired in the 1970's notion that permanency means adoption." "The very criterion the agency uses for screening cases into the permanency planning unit, namely the child's adoptability, gives second class status to the goal of returning the child home." pg 3-37.

Permanency is also briefly discussed in Chapter 6: "Workers report that about 20% of children who enter permanency planning eventually return to their parents.... This is a direct result of the agency's belief that without the threat of termination of parental rights, there is little chance of getting parents to change their behavior." pg 6-22

Chapter 6 analyzes CSD/SCF policy in light of the philosophy behind its creation: that children would be protected by services, not police action. The report finds CSD/SCF conduct at variance:

"There is no policy which requires CSD to tell a family its assessment led it to determine abuse did or did not occur.... The result is that CSD may remove a child from her home, place the child...and compel the parents to cooperate with services without informing parents whether abuse took place, or even whether any determination has been made at all....failure to inform the family...makes the agency appear secretive and conspiritorial, it also means the family loses its right to grieve the determination." pg 6-8.

"To parents who find themselves accused of abuse and/or neglect, this is clearly a police agency, but it carries out that function without providing any of the normal due process protections for those accused." pg 6-10

"By limiting how information is stored and shared, CSD makes itself less vulnerable to those who would question it on specific case decisions." pg 6-10

The report goes on to analyze CSD/SCF's power over parents. It concludes:

"Workers implied they could not be confrontational with parents without the official support of a legal process that would give them the upperhand. This represents...an authority relationship, not a casework relationship." pg 6-22

"Too much power is removed from parents when their children are placed into CSD/SCF custody....parents retain nothing in the way of decision-making power. It is as if their rights had been terminated." pg 6-22

The report points out shortcomings in exercise of power over parents with respect to medical care for children:

"...if the information we received in client interviews is to be given credence, CSD may in fact fail to provide adequate medical care, precisely because it fails to assume that parents intend the best for their children and often refuses to listen when parents attempt to inform the agency of a child's...medical issues." pg 6-23

The report illustrates CSD abuse of power with a single story:

"She complained bitterly about the initiation of her case. Her son was interviewed at the school and immediately removed into CSD temporary custody. The caseworker and a policeman appeared at her worksite and began questioning her about her methods of disciplining her son. Only when she asked what this was about was she told there had been a report of abuse. Weeks later the caseworker told her that it was due solely to the hostility she exhibited when questioned about her disciplinary methods that the child was not immediately returned." pg 6-20.

Chapter 7 reviews CSD/SCF conduct with respect to its own policy. Here, too, the study finds problems:

"CSD policy emphasizes...no single caseworker is to make unilateral decisions affecting the lives of children and families....in 23% of the cases there was no documentation that anyone had assisted the caseworker in the decision [to remove children], even after accounting for cases in which someone had helped but it was not clear who....it represents a significant lack of compliance with a very basic tenet of the agency's philosophy." pg 7-10

SCF is by law allowed to remove children from families in emergencies. Lay readers might think an "emergency" strictly means a crying and bloody child, a stained dress, or other horrifying scenario. Actually, agency policy is far more inclusive: any injury to a child is classified by the agency as an emergency. Even by its own broad definition, the study finds SCF conduct is again at variance with policy:

"While only 9% of reports are classified at the onset of the investigation as emergencies, 19% of the children are removed from their homes. This discrepancy may suggest that either criteria for classifying cases as emergencies are insensitive to actual differences among cases or that too many children are being removed on an emergency basis. Our overall analysis of the agency leads us to conclude that the latter is true." pg 7-2

SCF is allowed by law to interview children at school, away from parents. Here also, the study finds agency conduct again excessive:

"...clearly [there] is something amiss when so few cases are deemed emergencies and yet more than 67% involve caseworker interviews with children without prior parental knowledge." pg 7-11

SCF is required to develop case plans for families in the system. The study questions if case plans are really taken seriously by the agency:

"Without any doubt, the single most extraordinary thing about CSD case plans is their treatment of services...planned for the clients. In every single case, a service which was planned was also provided.... That kind of perfection is startling." pg 7-13

SCF is required to notify parents of pending court proceedings and case reviews. The study found SCF conduct is again at variance:

"Barely 50% of the mothers...were notified of the CRB reviews of their cases..." pg 7-16

Chapter 7 concludes "CSD performance, as indicated by the results of the case reading, exhibits serious difficulties." pg 7-20

Chapter 9 analyzes case review and quality assurance as conducted by Citizen Review Boards (CRBs). CRBs are comprised exclusively of citizen volunteers. By law, cases involving children in foster care must be reviewed by a CRB every six months. To qualify for CRB review, children must be from among the most severely abusive cases. The study finds that even among these cases, great disagreement exists between CRBs and CSD/SCF:

"According to CRB statistics between 1989-1990, local boards [dis]agreed with CSD case plans in [44%] of cases reviewed." pg 9-9

The study points out that CSD/SCF has little accountability to even CRBs:

"If the purpose of accountability is to hold individuals to a given standard, something must happen when the standard is not met. In this arena, all of Oregon's case review measures are limited....their power to hold the agency accountable is limited by the agency's willingness to comply." pg 9-31

Part 2 of the report contains nine goals, outlined in some 63 pages. Details of these recommendations are presented elsewhere on this website. In summary, however, it is instructive to note that the top five recommendations specifically curtail CSD/SCF power. Given the size and thoroughness of the study, one might expect the Oregon legislature would have moved decisively to adopt at least some of these recommendations as law. Astonishingly, the Oregon legislature failed to act at all.

We understand genuine child abuse - the kind of persistent mental and physical anguish the agency shows in all its posters - does occur and must be dealt with. However, our experience with SCF tells us it has trouble distinguishing loving discipline that unhappily left a mark, from genuine and persistent abuse. Until some of this study’s recommendations are acted upon, too many hapless families will be mauled by a powerful, secretive, unaccountable SCF.

Goal 1: Transform CSD into a less punitive, more service-oriented agency with a greater emphasis on strengthening families. (page 5)

Recommendation 2: CSD should establish a policy which makes the Family Unity Model the first and primary method of which caseworkers work with client families. (page 14)

Recommendation 3: CSD should establish a policy to ensure that more information is shared with client families, including formal notification of the family regarding the findings of CSD assessments of child abuse and neglect, immediate notification to the family that a repot of abuse and neglect has been made, and notification to the parents of where their children are living while in foster care. (page 15)

Recommendation 4: CSD should change its policy on interviews with and removals of children from school settings to limit such activities to situations which clearly represent emergencies.

Recommendation 5: The legislature should change the statute which gives CSD parental rights over children in its custody to limit the agency's power and provide parents with a stronger voice in the care of their children, until parental rights have been legally terminated.

Recommendation 6: CSD should eliminate permanency planning as an organizational unit and transform it into a philosophy which permeates the agency's work, with the specialized functions related to the legalities of termination of parental rights located within the adoption unit.

Recommendation 7: Community agencies, including mental health agencies, schools and day care centers, should assume the primary responsibility for early detection and intervention into family issues, leaving CSD to deal with situations which have escalated to abuse and/or neglect. This should be done through contracts with CSD, so that the focus of the efforts is clear and federal funding can be obtained through Titles IV-E and XIX.

Recommendation 8: Ensure the availability of a core set of prevention services, including both treatment and emergency services, to clients in all branches.

Goal 2: Improve the coordination between the courts and CSD.

Recommendation 2: The legal criteria for emergency removal of the child should be written in conformity with Recommendation 1 above, or, in the event that recommendation is not implemented, with the current provisions of ORS 419.577(3)(b); furthermore, removals should not occur without a prior court order.

Recommendation 3: The State Legislature should ensure that all parents involved in juvenile court proceedings have access to competent representation.

Goal 3: Increase the time workers have to spend with clients, both individually and collectively.

Recommendation 2: CSD should undertake a complete revision of the paperwork required of caseworkers, both to eliminate the duplication inherent in the current system of dual recording on paper and the computer and to merge the activities of caseworkers in serving their clients and complying with state and federal requirements. The entire system should be computerized.

Goal 4: Improve the quality of casework practice.

Recommendation 2: CSD should develop a more extensive training program for all caseworkers, requiring both adequate training immediately after hiring and on-going training in advanced skills on an annual basis.

Recommendation 3: The legislature should provide the funding and CSD should organize itself so that each supervisor is responsible for no more than six workers.

Recommendation 4: The Personnel Department and CSD should change the qualifications for the position of supervisor, so that previous casework experience in the field of child welfare, but not necessarily within CSD, is a requirement for that position.

Recommendation 5: CSD should hold supervisors accountable for performing three roles in relation to the caseworkers under their supervision: an administrative role focused primarily on accountability, a clinical role exercised in case specific decision-making, and an educational role which emphasizes the supervisor's responsibility for enhancing the skills of caseworkers.

Recommendation 6: CSD should enforce its policy requiring the review of in-home cases; these reviews should be documented and branch managers should be required to monitor supervisory practice in this area.

Goal 5: Make the Citizen Review Board process more beneficial and less contentious for all parties.

Recommendation 2: CSD should enter into a contract with the Judicial Department for the administrative reviews conducted by the CRBs, so that federal Title IV-E funds would be available to offset a substantial proportion of the CRB costs, including the costs of training CRB volunteers.

Recommendation 3: CSD and the Judicial Department should, as part of the contract recommended above, agree on what documents are to be submitted to the CRBs for each review, so that duplication of the paperwork can be eliminated, as well as agree on roles and mutual expectations, CSD follow-through on CRB recommendations and joint training of volunteers.

Recommendation 4: The CRB should expand its orientation training to two full days and continue to require developmental training of at least four hours per year.

Recommendation 5: CRB leadership should continue to work actively to increase the cultural diversity of board members; administrators should work closely with neighborhood groups, churches and civic organizations that advocate for minority populations as well as former clients to serve.

Recommendation 6: The CRB administration should make system advocacy a higher priority for the next biennium, using data it already collects to identify salient issues.

Goal 6: Enhance CSD's ability to learn from its mistakes and be more sensitive to client and community concerns.

Recommendation 2: CSD should identify a staff person or unit to serve in the role of "ombudsman". This individual or unit should coordinate the sensitive case review process, track and analyze sensitive case review issues and serve as a central focal point for other client and community concerns or grievances.

Recommendation 3: CSD should ensure that at least one caseworker representative participate on sensitive case review teams.

Recommendation 4: CSD should investigate ways to increase its ability to use the child fatality review process to identify patterns of abuse and/or public health concerns.

Recommendation 5: CSD should sponsor a follow-up conference on child fatality review for local team in the fall of 1992.

Recommendation 6: CSD should develop a policy to require staff to comply with legitimate requests for information from law enforcement, district attorneys, judges, parents' attorneys, and foster parents, with any request related to providing services or protecting the child being considered legitimate. If necessary, statutory changes in the confidentiality laws should be made.

Goal 7: Expand the formal responsibility for protecting children and preserving families to a broader array of institutions with in the community.

Recommendation 2: CSD should use federal Title IV-E funds as a mechanism for increasing the amount of funding available for protective and preventive/restorative programs, using the Missouri decision of the Grant Appeals Board as the basis for its action.

Recommendation 3: CSD should determine what requirements would need to be met to fund protective and preventive/restorative programs through Title XIX (Medicaid) targeted case management funds as it has recently done for foster care.

Recommendation 4: The Legislature should fund a large increase in CSD's contract monitoring staff, to be located in the regional offices, to ensure that these newly contracted services are held accountable for accomplishing the tasks they are designed to accomplish.

Recommendation 5: CSD should develop a joint agreement with the Department of Education, which should be replicated at the local level, specifying each other's roles, responsibilities and processes in abuse reporting and investigation.

Goal 8: Produce a more unified state approach to child protection, giving less autonomy to branch offices in handling child abuse and neglect reports.

Recommendation 2: CSD should institute a system of periodic program reviews focusing on client outcomes and quality casework practice for each of the major programs.

Recommendation 3: The Executive Branch should ensure, to the extent possible, that there is stability in the administrative ranks of the agency. In particular, no one should be forced to resign as a result of this report.

Recommendation 4: CSD should develop standardized statewide training in the law and legal process. Lawyers, judges, district attorneys and assistant attorneys general should assist in the developing and reviewing curriculum.

Recommendation 5: CSD should retain counsel to represent caseworkers in juvenile court for child welfare cases, other than in termination of parental rights cases, thereby eliminating the confusion of caseworkers regarding representation by district attorneys appointed to the juvenile court.

Goal 9: Increase the ability of central office to monitor client progress and agency performance.

Recommendation 2: CSD should increase its monitoring of contract service providers so that it occurs more frequently than once per biennium.

Recommendation 3: CSD should use the client outcomes measures which it currently produces or will produce to monitor its own performance, to monitor contract providers.

Recommendation 4: CSD should, in conjunction with providers, consider a system of open competitive bidding for state-level contracts as a means of re-focusing services to address new issues and of discovering new technologies.

Recommendation 5: CSD should develop the computer capacity to measure its performance in relation to actual client outcomes.

Recommendation 6: CSD should improve its computer capacity to measure its performance in relation to changes in case status.

Recommendation 7: CSD should develop the computer capacity to measure its performance in relation to compliance with state and federal requirements.

Recommendation 8: CSD should develop the computer capacity to measure the extent to which it is targeting its service on those families in greatest need.

Recommendation 9: CSD should develop the computer capacity to measure its performance in relation to its efficiency in meetings its mandates.