Kansas Foster Care Performance Audit 2009

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT
Children In Need Of Care: Reviewing Selected

Issues Related to Handling Their Cases
A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee

By the Legislative Division of Post Audit
State of Kansas
August 2009
09PA02
Legislative Post Audit Committee
Legislative Division of Post Audit
THE LEGISLATIVE POST Audit Committee and or committees should make their requests for
its audit agency, the Legislative Division of Post performance audits through the Chairman or any
Audit, are the audit arm of Kansas government. other member of the Committee. Copies of all
The programs and activities of State government completed performance audits are available from
now cost about $13 billion a year. As legislators the Division’s office.
and administrators try increasingly to allocate tax
dollars effectively and make government work more
efficiently, they need information to evaluate the
work of governmental agencies. The audit work LEGISLATIVE POST AUDIT COMMITTEE
performed by Legislative Post Audit helps provide
that information. Representative Virgil Peck Jr., Chair
Representative Tom Burroughs
We conduct our audit work in accordance Representative John Grange
with applicable government auditing standards Representative Peggy Mast
set forth by the U.S. Government Accountability Representative Tom Sawyer
Office. These standards pertain to the auditor’s
professional qualifications, the quality of the audit Senator Terry Bruce, Vice-Chair
work, and the characteristics of professional and Senator Anthony Hensley
meaningful reports. The standards also have been Senator Derek Schmidt
endorsed by the American Institute of Certified Senator Chris Steineger
Public Accountants and adopted by the Legislative Senator Dwayne Umbarger
Post Audit Committee.
The Legislative Post Audit Committee is a LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT

bipartisan committee comprising five senators and
five representatives. Of the Senate members, three 800 SW Jackson
are appointed by the President of the Senate and Suite 1200
two are appointed by the Senate Minority Leader. Topeka, Kansas 66612-2212
Of the Representatives, three are appointed by the Telephone (785) 296-3792
Speaker of the House and two are appointed by the FAX (785) 296-4482
Minority Leader. E-mail: LPA@lpa.ks.gov
Website: http://kslegislature.org/postaudit
Audits are performed at the direction of Barbara J. Hinton, Legislative Post Auditor
the Legislative Post Audit Committee. Legislators
DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA FOR

IMPROVED GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY OR COST SAVINGS?
The Legislative Post Audit Committee and the Legislative Division of Post Audit have launched an
initiative to identify ways to help make State government more efficient. If you have an idea to share
with us, send it to ideas@lpa.state.ks.us, or write to us at the address above.
You won’t receive an individual response, but all ideas will be reviewed, and Legislative Post Audit will
pass along the best ones to the Legislative Post Audit Committee.
The Legislative Division of Post Audit supports full access to the services of State government for all
citizens. Upon request, Legislative Post Audit can provide its audit reports in large print, audio, or other
appropriate alternative format to accommodate persons with visual impairments. Persons with hearing
or speech disabilities may reach us through the Kansas Relay Center at 1-800-766-3777. Our office
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
LEGISLATURE OF KANSAS
LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT

800 SOUTHWEST JACKSON STREET, SUITE 1200
TOPEKA, KANSAS 66612-2212
TELEPHONE (785) 296-3792
FAX (785) 296-4482
E-MAIL: lpa@lpa.ks.gov
August 21, 2009
To: Members, Legislative Post Audit Committee
Representative Virgil Peck Jr., Chair Senator Terry Bruce, Vice-Chair

Representative Tom Burroughs Senator Anthony Hensley
Representative John Grange Senator Derek Schmidt
Representative Peggy Mast Senator Chris Steineger
Representative Tom Sawyer Senator Dwayne Umbarger
This report contains the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from

our completed performance audit, Children in Need of Care: Reviewing Selected
Issues Related to Handling Their Cases.
The report also contains an appendix comparing actual child removal rates
during fiscal years 2006 through 2008 to predicted child removal rates during that
same time period for all 105 Kansas counties.
The report includes several recommendations for the Department

of Social and Rehabilitation Services. We would be happy to discuss these
recommendations or any other items in the report with any legislative committees,
individual legislators, or other State officials.
Barbara J. Hinton
Legislative Post Auditor
READER’S GUIDE
The Big Picture The Details

The highlights sheet, Used to describe key aspects
inserted in each report, of the audited agency;
Audit Highlights “At-a-Glance Box”
provides an overview of the generally appears in the first
audit’s key findings few pages of the main report
Located at the end of the

Conclusions and audit questions, or at the
Recommendations Side Headings Point out key issues and
end of the report findings
Included as the last Charts, Tables, Visually help tell the story
Agency Response Appendix in the report and Graphs of what we found
Table of Contents, Lets the reader quickly Highlight interesting

and lists of figures locate key parts of the report Narrative Text Boxes information or provide
and appendices detailed examples
This audit was conducted by Katrin Osterhaus, Brad Hoff, Lisa Hoopes and Ivan Williams. Leo
Hafner was the audit manager. If you need any additional information about the audit’s findings,
please contact Katrin Osterhaus at the Division’s offices.

800 SW Jackson Street, Suite 1200
Topeka, Kansas 66612
(785) 296-3792
E-mail: LPA@lpa.ks.gov
Web: www.kslegislature.org/postaudit
Table of Contents
Question 1: Have Social Workers Been Unduly Influenced To Include Information in Applications for
Petition That Is Contrary to What Their Investigations Showed?
The Secretary of SRS Was Recorded As Saying Social Workers in Sedgwick County Were Being Unduly
Pressured by Attorneys. ...................................................................................................................... page 9
At Least One Social Worker In Every SRS Region Told Us They’ve Felt Unduly Pressured At Some Point To
Include Or Exclude Facts In Their Applications. ............................................................................... page 10
Historical Issues May, In Part, Explain Why Social Workers In Sedgwick County Reported Feeling
Pressured More Often Than Others. ... ............................................................................................. page 13
A Limited Review of Documents From Several Jurisdictions Didn’t Reveal Anything

Unique About Wichita. ....................................................................................................................... page 17
SRS Hasn’t Adopted New Policies or Procedures To Address The Issue Of Perceived Bullying. .......... page 18
Question 1 Conclusion. . ........................................................................................................... page 18

Question 1 Recommendations for Executive Action . ............................................................ page 19
Question 2: Are Social Workers Who Handle Child-In-Need-Of-Care Cases Qualified, and Do They Receive
Sufficient Training To Work Effectively With the Attorneys and the Courts?
All SRS Social Workers We Reviewed Met the Licensure Requirements Of the State. .......................... page 20
The Training Social Workers Receive on Working With Attorneys and the Courts
Varies Considerably. ......................................................................................................................... page 21

Question 3: Does SRS Have Sufficient Numbers of Social Workers To Handle Child-In-Need-Of-Care
Caseloads?
On Average, SRS’ Children and Family Services Social Workers Handle About 35 Open
Cases Per Month. ............................................................................................................................. page 29
Caseload Standards That Exist Generally Apply to Social Workers Who Provide Direct
Case-Management, Not Monitoring Services. .................................................................................. page 31
SRS Officials Rely on Program Staff and Supervisors To Ensure That Caseloads Are Evenly
Distributed Within and Across Regions. ............................................................................................ page 32
Slightly More Than One-in-Four Social Workers Surveyed Said They Had About the
Right Number of Cases ..................................................................................................................... page 34

List of Figures
At A Glance: The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services - Fiscal Year 2008 ...........................page 4
Figure OV-1: SRS Management Regions....................................................................................................page 5
Figure OV-2: How the Child in Need of Care (CINC) Removal Process Works ..........................................page 7
Figure OV-3: Listing of Key Players and Their Responsibilities In the Foster Care System .....................page 8
Figure 1-1: Frequency of Social Workers’ Opinions About Feeling Unduly Pressured by an
Attorney To Include or Exclude Facts They Felt Distorted the Circumstances of a
CINC Case ........................................................................................................................................... page 11
Figure 1-2: Summary of Survey Responses Regarding the Frequency of Strong Disagreements
With Attorney On handling of CINC Cases ..........................................................................................page 13
Figure 1-3: Comments from Social Workers Outside Wichita Regarding Their Working
Relationships with District/County Attorneys and the Court System .................................................page 16
Figure 2-1: Summary of Courses Offered by Five Kansas Universities Relating to Court
Testimony, Preparing Legal Documents, and Working with District Attorneys ...................................page 22
Figure 2-2: Percentage of Responding Social Workers Who Said They Received
INSUFFICIENT Initial Training for Handling CINC Cases .................................................................page 23
Figure 2-3: Percentage of Responding Social Workers Who Said They Received
INSUFFICIENT Ongoing Training for Handling CINC Cases ............................................................page 25
Figure 3-1: Information About the Types of Cases SRS Social Workers Carry Out ..................................page 30
Figure 3-2: Social Worker Specialist Positions and Caseload Information FY 2009 ..............................page 31
Figure 3-3: Current SRS Social Worker Staffing and Caseload Proportions by Region .........................page 32
Figure 3-4: Average Caseload Information per Social Worker Specialist FTE by
Region and by Year ............................................................................................................................page 34
Figure 3-5: Average Weighted Caseloads and Related Survey Responses ............................................page 36
Figure 3-6: Comparison of SRS Social Worker Turnover and Vacancy Rates .........................................page 37
Figure 3-7: SRS Social Worker Filled and Vacant Position Information by Region
(Children and Family Services Program as of June 1, 2009) ..............................................................page 37
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Scope Statement .................................................................................................................page 39
Appendix B: Child Removal Numbers and Proportions Across All Kansas Counties ..............................page 41
Appendix C: Agency Responses...............................................................................................................page 45
Children In Need Of Care: Reviewing Selected Issues
Related to Handling Their Cases
In March 2008, the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services
(SRS) made a comment during a meeting with an advocacy group
for parents whose children had been removed from their homes,
indicating that in Sedgwick County “oftentimes we end up writing
things because it’s what our social workers get bullied by the District
Attorney’s Office into writing. So they (the social workers) really
have no belief in what it says.” The Sedgwick County District
Attorney denied that her staff has ever tried to persuade social
workers to put statements in applications for petition that weren’t
accurate. Subsequently, the Secretary of SRS retracted his original
statement.
Despite the Secretary’s retraction, legislators have continued to hear

concerns about the handling of these cases. This performance audit
answers the following questions:
1. Have social workers been unduly influenced by attorneys

to include information in applications for petition that is
contrary to what their investigations showed?
2. Are social workers who handle child-in-need-of-care cases
qualified, and do they receive sufficient training to work
effectively with the attorneys and the courts?
3. Are there sufficient numbers of social workers to handle
caseloads?
To answer the first question, we interviewed various SRS officials and

staff, and surveyed social workers Statewide to gather their opinions
about whether they are being unduly pressured to include or exclude
information on child-in-need-of-care cases. We also interviewed
judges, district attorneys, parent attorneys, and guardians ad litem in
four urban counties (Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee, and Wyandotte),
and reviewed a small number of court documents in each of these
jurisdictions. To determine whether Sedgwick County appears to
have a higher child removal rate than other Kansas counties, we
analyzed child-removal rates across the State.
For the second question, we determined the types of training SRS

provides to social workers who deal with child-in-need-of-care cases.
We reviewed qualifications and training records for a sample of
social workers to determine whether they were qualified and received
training to work with attorneys and the court system. In addition, we
interviewed university officials to find out the extent to which social
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 1
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
work degree programs at the Regents’ institutions address working
with attorneys and the court system. Finally, as part of our survey
of social workers, we asked their opinions about the adequacy of the
initial and ongoing training they received related to working with
attorneys and the courts.
For the last question, we analyzed SRS caseload, vacancy, and

turnover information to determine social worker staffing ratios and
caseloads, both Statewide and on a regional basis. We looked for
comparable caseload benchmarks to help us assess whether there are
sufficient numbers of social workers to handle the current child-in-
need-of-care caseloads. In addition, as part of our survey of social
workers, we asked social workers’ opinions about the size of their
caseloads.
A copy of the scope statement the Legislative Post Audit Committee

approved for this audit is included in Appendix A. For reporting
purposes, we’ve changed the order of the questions and made minor
editorial changes.
Generally accepted government auditing standards require that we

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based
on our audit objectives. We conducted this performance audit in
accordance with those standards with the following exceptions:
Specifically, because of time constraints, we conducted only limited

testing of the SRS caseload, turnover, vacancy, and child-removal rate
data. Our limited testing included interviewing officials to understand
how the data are compiled, reading the findings from other available
audits involving these data, and reviewing the data for reasonableness
and consistency by checking for outliers, looking at trends in the
data, and comparing data sets with each other (e.g. making sure the
number of social worker positions reported within the caseload data
and turnover data were consistent). Finally, we compared information
SRS officials reported to us about vacant positions to information
contained in Kansas’ Statewide Human Resources and Payroll
(SHaRP) system.
Based on these preliminary tests, we need to make the reader aware of

the following issues with the data:
 Caseloads are self-reported by each SRS region, and we found

minor missing data or data entry errors. Any inaccuracies would tend
to overstate or understate the number of cases handled per social
worker, but are unlikely to be extreme enough to affect our findings and
conclusions.
2 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
 Turnover data for some social worker specialist positions assigned to
programs other than the Children and Family Services Program had
to be included in the overall turnover rates we present because of the
way the information is contained in the SHaRP system. If these social
workers are significantly different from those within the Children and
Family Services Program in staying with or leaving SRS, the turnover
data we present is likely over- or understated.
 Removal rates are based on data SRS collects as part of the

federal “Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System”
requirements. Federal instructions call for children to be reported
who are removed from the home and placed in the State’s custody.
In Kansas, those reports don’t include some children removed from
their homes on a temporary basis but never placed in SRS custody—
primarily those who temporarily are taken into police protective custody
but returned home shortly afterwards. Because various states have
different laws governing when a child is considered to be in state
custody, comparisons of removal rates between states aren’t very
reliable. However, comparisons among regions in Kansas are reliable
because the information is consistent within the State.
Taking these issues into account, we think it’s unlikely that the
data are so grossly or systematically wrong as to affect our findings
and conclusions. Therefore, we believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives.
Our findings begin on page 9, following a brief overview of the child-

in-need-of-care process.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Overview of the Child-In-Need-Of-Care Process
The Department of SRS The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) is the
Is the Agency State’s primary social service agency. SRS is a large organization
Responsible for that administers a wide variety of programs. This audit focuses on a
Handling Child Welfare small portion of the Foster Care Program––specifically the process
In Kansas of investigating reports of child abuse and neglect and how that
information gets reported to the courts so that decisions can be made
regarding whether a child should be removed from the home. That
investigation function is carried out by SRS social workers within
the Children and Family Services Program. The accompanying At-
A-Glance box shows how that Program fits into the Department’s
overall organizational structure.
AT A GLANCE
The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services – Fiscal Year 2008
SRS
3,749.8 FTE
$1.5 billion
Strategic Integrated Service Capital Disability & Behavioral

Administration
Development Delivery Improvements Health Services
319.6 FTE
26 FTE 3,313 FTE 0 FTE 91.2 FTE
$36.2 million
$2.5 million $621.9 million $10.3 million $855.6 million
Child Support Rehabilitation Economic and Children & Family Field

Enforcement Services Employment Support Services Operations
57 FTE 198.4 FTE 65.3 FTE 66.5 FTE 2,925.9 FTE
$24.3 million $59.1 million $190.8 million $199 million $148.7 million
This audit focused primarily on the Children and Family Services Program and Field Operations within Integrated Service Delivery.
The Children & Family Services Program is responsible for a broad range of services to develop family strengths, prevent the
dissolution of families, and ensure the well-being of children. Among other things, social workers under this program are
responsible for conducting child-abuse and neglect investigations and overseeing private contractors who handle adoptive
placements, family preservation, and foster care.
Field Operations consists of SRS staff located within six regions throughout the State. Staff within these regions administer public
assistance, medical assistance, and food stamps, investigate allegations of abuse and neglect of children and elderly adults,
establish and enforce child support orders, and provide employment assistance for people with disabilities.
Source: Governor’s Budget Report, Volume 2, Fiscal Year 2010, and additional fiscal information from SRS officials.
The information is unaudited.
The Children and Family Services Program has approximately 370

social worker specialist and social worker supervisor positions which
not only investigate reports of child abuse and neglect, but also
oversee child welfare services such as family preservation, foster
care, and adoption. Since the late 1990s, SRS has contracted with
non-profit entities to provide those services to clients, and its own

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
social workers monitor the activities of the contractors to ensure they
are meeting their obligations under the contract.
SRS’ social workers are assigned to six geographic regions in the

State as shown in Figure OV-1.
Figure OV-1
SRS Management Regions
Cheyenne Washington
Rawlins Decatur Norton Phillips Republic Marshall Brown
Smith Jewell Nemaha Doniphan
Northeast
Atchison
KC
Sherman
Thomas Sheridan Graham Mitchell
Cloud
Jackson
Metro
Rooks Osborne
Clay Pottawatomie
Riley Leavenworth
Jefferson
Ottawa Wyandotte
Lincoln
Wallace Shawnee
Logan Geary
Gove Trego Ellis Russell Wabaunsee
Dickinson Johnson
Douglas
Saline
West Ellsworth
Osage
Greeley Wichita Franklin

Scott Lane Rush Morris Miami
Ness
Barton
Lyon
McPherson
Rice Marion
Chase
Pawnee Coffey Anderson Linn
Hamilton Finney Hodgeman

Kearny
Stafford Harvey
Butler Greenwood
Reno Allen Bourbon
Edwards
Gray South Woodson

Southeast
Stanton Grant Haskell
Ford
Pratt Sedgwick Central
Kiowa Kingman
Wilson Neosho
Elk Crawford
Morton Stevens Meade

Seward Clark
Barber Sumner Cowley
Comanche Harper Montgomery Labette Cherokee
Chautauqua
Source: SRS Website Wichita
The Decision To Under State law, a child who is under 18 can be declared a child in
Remove a Child need of care for any of the following reasons:
From a Family Involves being without adequate parental care, control, or subsistence, and the
A Complex Process condition isn’t due solely to the lack of financial means of the child’s
With Many Players parents or other custodian
And Steps
being without the care and control necessary for the child’s physical,
mental, or emotional health
being physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually abused
being physically, mentally or emotionally neglected
residing in the same residence with another person under 18 who

has been physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected, or
sexually abused
being placed for care or adoption in violation of the law
being abandoned or not having a known living parent
not attending school as required by State law

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
committing an act that children under 18 are prohibited from doing (e.g.
underage drinking)
being willfully or voluntarily absent from home without the consent of the
child’s parent or other custodian (a runaway)
being willfully or voluntarily absent at least a second time from a court-

ordered placement
being younger than 10 and having had criminal possession of a firearm
being younger than 10 and committing a felony or misdemeanor
has permanent custodian who is no longer able to serve
The process for declaring a child to be “in need of care”

typically begins with someone making a report to SRS or to
law enforcement. Anyone can call SRS or local law enforcement
officials and report that a child has been abused or is otherwise
thought to be in need of care. Certain professionals––such as doctors
and teachers––are mandated by law to report when they see signs that
a child may be being abused or neglected.
Depending on when the report is called in and the circumstances

of the complaint, either SRS staff or law enforcement officials will
respond. If law enforcement responds to the complaint, police
officers will assess the situation to determine whether the child is in
danger. In those cases, officers will remove the child from the home
and place him or her in police protective custody. This allows a child
to be temporarily removed from the home for up to 72 hours.
Regardless of whether law enforcement or SRS responds to the

initial report of child abuse or neglect, SRS social workers will
conduct an investigation. If SRS has been the only agency involved
in the complaint, based on its staff’s investigation SRS officials may
or may not decide that the situation justifies asking the district or
county attorney to petition the court to remove the child from the
home and declare the child in need of care. On the other hand, if the
police initiated protective custody, both SRS and the district or county
attorney are notified immediately. In that situation, SRS must provide
the results of its investigation to the district or county attorney, who
decides whether to petition the court to remove the child and place
him or her in SRS’ custody.
A judge then decides who should have legal custody of the child
while the child-in-need-of-care case is pending, based on probable
cause that the child’s health or welfare is in danger. Figure OV-2 on
the following page illustrates the investigative process and subsequent
steps that can lead to a child being declared a child in need of care.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure OV-2
How the Child in Need of Care (CINC) Removal Process Works
INITIAL COMPLAINT RECEIVED

SRS or Law Enforcement receives a report of abuse, neglect,
or that a child’s behavior is out of control
SRS works with family to

keep the family intact
Child taken into Police

Family problems cease Family problems Protective Custody (by law
and SRS closes the file continue to occur enforcement officers)
SRS investigates the situation and conducts interviews with

parents, children, etc. Based on that evidence, an application
for petition is prepared with the findings and SRS’
recommendation for removing child or leaving in home and
working with the family.
District or County Attorney’s Office files a

Child-In-Need-of-Care Petition
Based on a finding of probable cause that the child may be in

harm’s way, a judge issues an “Ex Parte Order of Protective
Custody,” and the child is removed from the home or remains in
protective custody.
TEMPORARY CUSTODY HEARING

A temporary custody hearing is held within 72 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) of the child
being taken into custody. At this hearing the judge decides who should have legal custody of the
child while the child-in-need-of-care case is pending. The evidence standard at this point is
“probable cause” that the child is in danger.
If no probable cause, child is NOT kept in If probable cause, the judge places the child in the
protective custody and is returned to parents. temporary custody of Secretary of SRS.
ADJUDICATION HEARING
Adjudication hearing is held to determine whether the
child is a child in need of care (CINC). The evidence
standard at this point is “clear and convincing”
evidence that the child is a child in need of care.
Source: LPA Summary of the Child-in-Need-of-Care Process,
Kansas Code for Care of Children, KSA 38-2201 et seq.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Once the process has begun, a number of people are involved to
help ensure that the rights of all the parties and the best interest
of the child have been taken into account. Among these are the
judge, the parents’ attorney(s), guardians ad litem, parent allies, and
court-appointed special advocates. Figure OV-3 describes the role
each of these plays in the process.
Figure OV-3
Listing of Key Players and Their Responsibilities
In the Foster Care System
SRS & …receive, investigate, and assess reports that a child is in need of
SRS Contractors… care. Provide family preservation, foster care, reintegration, or
adoption services to children and their families.
Law Enforcement …receive and investigate reports that a child is in need of care. Will
Officials… take a child into custody if the child is at imminent risk of serious
harm, or if a judge has ordered the child to be taken into custody.
District or County …can file child-in-need-of-care petitions and represent the State in
Attorneys… these cases (arguing for removing the child from the home).
District Court Judges… …determine whether a child should be declared in need of care, who
should have custody of the child, whether adequate progress is being
made toward reunification, whether adoption should be pursued,
whether parental rights should be severed, and whether the child
should be returned home.
Guardians ad Litem… …are appointed by the court to represent the best interests of the
child.
Parent Attorneys… …are attorneys hired by the parents or appointed by the court to
represent the parents if they can't afford one.
Parent Allies… …are friends or family members who volunteer to support the parents
in court by attending court hearings, listening to the proceedings, and
taking notes.
Court-Appointed Special …are volunteers who investigate the child's situation, monitor the
Advocates… case, and advocate for the child.
Source: LPA Report 06PA08, entitled Foster Care: Reviewing Decisions to Remove Children From Their
Homes

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Question 1: Have Social Workers Been Unduly Influenced To Include
Information in Applications for Petition That Is Contrary to What Their
Investigations Showed?
Answer In Brief: Although the Secretary of SRS was recorded saying that social
workers in Sedgwick County were being unduly pressured by
attorneys to put information into applications for petition they
didn’t believe in, he later explained he wasn’t implying that the facts
put in the applications were untrue, but that there were sometimes
significant disagreements about the relevance of some information
within the applications.
Statewide, about 80% of social workers responding to our survey said

they’ve never felt unduly pressured by county or district attorneys to
include or exclude facts that would distort the circumstances of a
case in the applications they prepare. However, at least one social
worker in every SRS region told us they had felt unduly pressured
at some point to include or exclude certain facts. Responses from
social workers in Sedgwick County were significantly different. Only
about 50% indicated they’d never felt pressured, and just over one
in four indicated they had felt pressured at least on occasion by the
District Attorney’s Office. In addition, Statewide, more than half the
responding social workers said they—at least occasionally—strongly
disagreed with decisions by county or district attorneys.
Several factors may help explain social workers’ responses

in Sedgwick County. First, social workers and judges both
acknowledged that the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office
had tried to be more controlling in the past––five or more years
ago. But they also told us working relationships between SRS
and that office had improved since then. At the same time, social
workers in Sedgwick County and elsewhere clearly feel frustrated
that county or district attorneys don’t always respect or follow their
recommendations regarding whether to remove a child or whether
a child should be declared “in need of care.” Since the Secretary’s
comments, SRS hasn’t adopted new policies or procedures to address
the issue of perceived bullying. These and related findings are
discussed in the sections that follow.
The Secretary of SRS In a March 2008 meeting between the Secretary of SRS and the
Was Recorded As Saying family advocacy group Citizens for Change, the Secretary made
Social Workers in comments regarding the work done by Sedgwick County social
Sedgwick County workers. Someone in the audience tape-recorded his comments,
Were Being Unduly which included the following statement:
Pressured by Attorneys
“But in Sedgwick County, oftentimes we end up writing things because
it’s what our social workers get bullied by the District Attorney’s Office
into writing. So they really have no belief in what it says. I am working

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
on our staff that we do our assessments properly and we do not get
bullied into writing things we don’t believe. But then the reality comes
down to, you send a 25-year-old social worker into a room with a 15-
year county ADA (assistant district attorney) who is willing to yell at
them, cuss at them, scream at them and threaten them.....”
These comments later were published in a Wichita newspaper.

The Sedgwick County District Attorney stated that the Secretary’s
comments were outrageous and “left the impression that her Office
was doing something it shouldn’t be doing.”
After the newspaper published the Secretary’s comments,

he issued a statement to clarify and retract a portion of his
statements. In that subsequent statement, and in meetings held with
us at the beginning of the audit, the Secretary made it clear he didn’t
know of, or believe there has been, an instance where a county or
district attorney had demanded a social worker commit perjury or
misrepresent the facts of a situation.
The Secretary indicated he wasn’t suggesting anyone should question

the veracity of information in the applications for petition, and
explained that the problems he alluded to stemmed from people
disagreeing about which facts were relevant to a case. He also
explained that his comments were based on anecdotal stories he had
heard from social workers over time, and they weren’t just related to
Sedgwick County.
At Least One Social Kansas counties often have different names for the documents social
Worker In Every SRS workers complete to initiate the process for removing a child from his
Region Told Us or her home. For consistency purposes, we called them “applications
They’ve Felt Unduly for petitions” or “applications” throughout this question. County or
Pressured At Some district attorneys use the information included in these applications—
Point To Include Or along with information from other sources—in preparing child-in-
Exclude Facts In Their need-of-care petitions. We made these sets of documents, and the
Applications process for preparing them, the focus of our audit because they are
what the SRS Secretary was referring to when he made his comments.
Because there was no way for us to tell whether a social worker

was “bullied” into including or excluding certain facts or statements
simply by looking at an application for petition, we had to rely
primarily on what social workers were willing to tell us. Accordingly,
we surveyed social workers Statewide and held a focus group with
Sedgwick County social workers to get their opinions about whether
they were being unduly influenced by district or county attorneys.
We sent 294 surveys to social workers; 136 responded, for a

Statewide response rate of 46%. Figure 1-1 on the next page

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
summarizes answers to two separate questions about whether social
workers had been unduly pressured by county or district attorneys to
either include or exclude facts from the application they prepare that
they thought would distort the facts of a child-in-need-of-care (CINC)
case.
The reader should be aware that some social workers responded

differently to the two questions. For example, they may have said
they never felt pressured to include facts, but they occasionally had
felt pressured to exclude facts. Therefore, the percentages for the
various responses can’t be added together.
Figure 1-1
Frequency of Social Workers' Opinions About Feeling
Unduly Pressured by an Attorney To Include or Exclude Facts
They Felt Distorted the Circumstances of a CINC Case
Pressure to EXCLUDE Facts

4% (1) 1% (1)
100%
6% (2) 7% (1) 10% (2) 7% (9)
11% (2)
7% (1) 25% (6)
10% (2) 11% (15)
80% 13% (2)
25% (6)
60%
96% 94%
89%
(24) (31) 81%
(16) 80%
40% 73% (16) (110)
(11)
50%
(12)
20%
0%
KC Metro Northeast South Central Southeast West Wichita Statewide
Never Almost Never Occasionally Frequently
Pressure to INCLUDE Facts

100% 3% (1) 4% (1) 2% (3)
7% (1) 5% (1)
12% (3) 3% (1) 7% (9)
17% (3)
7% (1)
20% (4) 14% (19)
80% 29% (7)
13% (2)
60%
25% (6)
94%
88% (31)
(22) 83%
40% (15) 73% 75% 77%
(15) (104)
(11)
42%
20% (10)
0%
Source: LPA analysis of social worker survey responses.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Statewide, an average of about 80% of social workers indicated
they have never felt unduly pressured by a county or district
attorney’s office to include or exclude facts in the applications
for petition they prepare. An even higher percentage of social
workers in the KC Metro and Northeast regions responded they felt
that way. Statewide, for those that did indicate being pressured,
most felt it occurred almost never or only occasionally, but it had
occurred at least once at some point in their career for about 18-21%
of responding social workers. A small minority (1-2%) indicated
they frequently felt pressured to include or exclude facts they thought
could distort a CINC case.
Responses from social workers in Wichita more often indicated

they felt unduly pressured. As Figure 1-1 shows, generally half or
less of the social workers in Wichita responded that they had never
felt unduly pressured to exclude or include facts on their written
applications. Additionally, more than one-in-four respondents from
that region stated they felt occasionally or frequently pressured to
include or exclude facts from their applications.
A significant number of social workers in every region also

reported sometimes having strong disagreements with the county
or district attorney’s office regarding how a CINC case should
proceed. Depending on the region, anywhere from 34% to 79% of
the social workers responding to our survey said they’ve occasionally
or frequently strongly disagreed with the county or district attorney
on how a child-in-need-of-care case should proceed. The Statewide
average was 56% responding this way.
The largest percentage of social workers reporting occasional or

frequent disagreements were in the West. Social workers in Wichita
were next, with 63% (15) stating they’ve occasionally disagreed, and
12% (3) stating they’ve frequently disagreed strongly with attorneys.
Figure 1-2 on the following page shows our survey results in this
area Statewide and by region.
Although a minority of social workers said their disagreements

were about the relevant facts of the case, the most frequent areas of
disagreement were about whether a child should be removed from
home, and whether or not a child should be declared “in need of
care.”
Such disagreements can go both ways. Social workers may

recommend removing the child, but the county or district attorney
decides not to pursue removal. Similarly, social workers may think
the child should remain in the home while the family received
services, but the attorney decides to take action to remove the child.
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 1-2
Summary of Survey Responses Regarding the Frequency
of Strong Disagreements With Attorneys On Handling of CINC Cases
100%
8% (2) 9% (3) 7% (1) 11% (2) 12% (16)
12% (3)
90%
28% (5)
80% 25%
40% (8)
70% (10) 45%
60%
60% 28% (9) (60)
68% 63%
(5) (15)
50% (13)
40%
66%
30% 52% (21)
(13) 44% 43%
20% (8) 33% (57)
(5) 21% 25%
10% (4) (6)
0%
Never / Almost Never Occasionally Frequently / Always
Source: LPA analysis of survey responses from SRS social workers.
Historical Issues To help understand what may be going on in Sedgwick County, we

May, In Part, Explain interviewed 11 of 53 social workers, four Sedgwick County judges who
Why Social Workers have handled child-in-need-of-care cases, officials from the Sedgwick
In Sedgwick County County District Attorney’s Office, and several parent attorneys and
Reported Feeling guardians ad litem.
Pressured More Often
Than Others A reduction in the amount of time social workers in Sedgwick
County have to complete investigations may contribute to their level
of pressure. Prior to 2007, Sedgwick County allowed up to 144 hours
before a temporary custody hearing was held. The 2006 Legislature
modified the law to clarify those hearings must be held within 72 hours.
According to the Kansas Health Institute, this was the way all other
jurisdictions had interpreted the existing statutes. Both newer and veteran
social workers told us the new timeframe has made it more difficult to
complete their investigations.
Social workers also told us there had been issues in the past, but their
working relationship with the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s
Office has improved. In our discussions with social workers about the
allegation of bullying and undue pressure from the District Attorney’s
Office, none of the 11 social workers said they had ever been pressured to
include false information in their applications for the petition.
However, the veteran social workers indicated that in the past—five or

more years ago—the District Attorney’s Office strongly tried to influence
what information was contained in the social workers’ applications. The
social workers we spoke with also stated that—in more recent times—the
relationship with the District Attorney’s Office has improved and is
positive.
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
In addition, two Sedgwick County judges agreed there may have been a
“nugget of truth” to Secretary Jordan’s comments 10-15 years ago, when
the District Attorney’s Office was, in their opinion, very controlling of
SRS workers. However, they stated that currently the District Attorney’s
Office is very open and collaborative. One judge stated he thought
the current staff in the District Attorney’s Office can be idealistic and
aggressive, which can intimidate social workers with less experience or
confidence.
Nevertheless, none of the judges said they were aware of anything

unethical taking place between the District Attorney’s staff and SRS
social workers. Several judges we spoke with said they review the
paperwork for a case before the temporary hearing, and will ask social
workers’ opinions during the temporary custody hearing.
None of the three parent attorneys and two guardians ad litem we talked
to from Wichita said they had seen instances of an SRS social worker
being unduly influenced by the District Attorney’s staff.
Finally, when we looked at child-removal rates in Sedgwick County we

didn’t see anything that made Wichita stand out. This information is
provided in the box below.
Child-Removal-Rate Information for Four Urban Jurisdictions (FY 2006-2008)
At the beginning of this audit, we heard several concerns regarding a higher-than-normal removal rate of
children in Sedgwick County. Part of the allegation concerned comparisons between Sedgwick County's
removal rate to that of other states. To address these concerns, we analyzed the removal rates of all Kansas
counties across fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Federal reporting requirements establish that removals are
counted at the point where the state obtains custody of the child. That point can vary across states. For
example, in Kansas, children who are taken into police protective custody but are sent back home didn't come
into SRS custody, and therefore aren't counted based on the federal reporting mandates. Because other states'
laws may differ in when a child comes into custody, comparing removal rates across states would be flawed.
However, a comparison of removal rates within a state can provide a basis to judge whether rates are
higher in one area than another. We averaged removal rates for all 105 counties for the 3-year period.
Because socio-economic factors influence removal rates (more affluent areas with less crime or poverty tend to
have lower removal rates), we used census poverty and other demographic data to "predict" the removal rate
by county. The table below summarizes our predicted and the actual removal numbers and proportions for the
four urban counties we studied in this audit.
Number and Percent of Children Removed
Average ACTUAL LPA PREDICTED Difference Between ACTUAL
Number and Number and and PROJECTED
County Proportion Proportion Percentages
229 231 -2
Slightly lower
Johnson 0.17% 0.17% 0.00%
657 682 -25
Slightly lower
Sedgwick 0.50% 0.52% -0.02%
400 294 +106
Much higher
Shawnee 0.94% 0.69% +0.25%
274 281 -7
Wyandotte Slightly lower
0.62% 0.64% -0.02%
3,648
n/a n/a n/a
Statewide 0.52%
As the data show, Sedgwick County removed an average of about 660 children per year, which represents
about five children for every 1,000 children in that county. This removal rate was slightly below our predicted
results, given our model. Appendix B provides this data for all 105 counties.
Source: LPA analysis of SRS child removal data, FY 2006-2008

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Social workers clearly feel frustrated that their recommendations
regarding whether to remove a child or where to place that
child aren’t always respected or followed. The child-in-need-of-
care petition that the county or district attorney prepares usually is
based on information learned during the SRS investigation, but can
include information from other sources such as police reports or prior
criminal records. The decision about whether to file a petition with
the court to remove a child from the home rests solely with the county
or district attorney’s office.
Attorneys don’t always follow the SRS social worker’s

recommendations. This is clearly a sore spot with social workers
because, as several of them told us, they feel they have the most
contact with the family and are in the best position to say whether a
child is in danger. The following are some survey comments from
social workers in Wichita:
“I feel the DA needs to trust our decisions and not question everything. They
need to remember we are the one working with the family; they have never met
the family. With that in mind, as professionals, we are going to be the ones to
make the best call for the family.”
“There needs to be respect between the DA’s office and SRS. SRS has respect
for the DA’s office. I cannot say and do not see that they have respect for
us, our position, our profession, or our time. It is sad. We need each other to
effectively protect children and help families.”
“…New workers receive a lot of support from co-workers, but the courts/DAs are
unsympathetic and can be very rude when new workers don’t know all of the
answers. I have felt “bullied” by DA’s when they have outcomes already in mind
for a case and I don’t agree. I have felt like they’ve “bullied” me into making
the decision to remove a child from the home when I don’t feel it’s in the best
interest of the child. I’ve often felt like the DAs don’t care what social workers
think about CINC cases and ask us only as a formality. I do not think there’s
good communication between SRS and [the] court. There needs to be trust
built between the two to ensure efficacy.”
Officials with the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office told us

that, if social workers feel strongly that a child shouldn’t be removed,
they aren’t required to prepare an application for the case. However,
the social worker must forward all notes to the District Attorney’s
Office so the district attorney’s staff can prepare a petition. According
to officials, this happens in about 1%-3% of all cases.
Judges and attorneys we talked to emphasized that disagreements

about the handling of cases are inevitable, and explained that these
disagreements largely are due to the differing perspectives that social
workers and district attorneys bring to the job. Social workers’
training centers on working with families and providing services
to maintain or re-unite families, whenever possible. Attorneys are
trained to apply the law to the facts presented.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 1-3
Comments from Social Workers Outside Wichita Regarding Their Working Relationships
with District/County Attorneys and the Court System
Social workers from various SRS regions outside the Wichita region also commented on the
working relationship they have with district/county attorneys or the court system. Below are a sampling of
those comments:
“Have court and attorneys treat social workers with respect. Have a training for attorneys/GAL’s to
explain how and what SRS does...”
“I think that social workers and the court system clash based on status, differences in training and
expectations, misunderstanding of other’s roles and possibilities for contribution, and lack of respect. I
think that social workers receive special training to investigate, assess, and make recommendations that
the court system does not receive. I think that the court system overlooks the value of social workers'
intensive work with families and chooses their own recommendations based on values and a belief that
they are better equipped to make decisions because they have a law degree."
"I think they [district attorneys] need to learn how to listen to social workers and to trust their ability to
investigate abuse and neglect cases. They need to give SRS time to do their job before they start yelling
and demanding information."
"I feel there is no respect for the social worker and their knowledge of cases and most of the time the
evidence never comes out in court."
"Children and Family Services would be able to do their job much more effectively if we had a good
working relationship with our county attorney. Too often, I am made to feel unwanted at court hearings or
feel like my ideas are not being listened to by our county attorney even if they are put in an affidavit. I
feel like if the idea did not stem from the county attorney's office, it will not be heard."
Source: Comments from LPA survey of SRS social workers other than Wichita.
These distinct roles may cause inherent differences in how cases are
viewed and handled. One judge called it a “clash of professions.”
Another judge thought it was a challenge for SRS workers to
understand that disagreements are “ok,” and that such conflict is
healthy and necessary for the system to work.
We heard and saw many of the same comments or issues during

interviews and reviews we conducted across other parts of the
State. Social workers from other areas also commented about poor
working relationships and frustrations about the lack of trust from
county or district attorneys. Figure 1-3 provides some examples.
We also interviewed attorneys and judges in three other urban

counties (Shawnee, Wyandotte, and Johnson). None of these officials
expressed concerns about any unethical behavior by attorneys in their
jurisdictions. However, they also confirmed that social workers and
attorneys can and do have professional disagreements regarding the
handling of child-in-need-of-care cases.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Judges in all three jurisdictions told us they ask social workers’
opinions in court. One judge stated that social workers need to
believe in themselves as professionals. They need to be confident
to stand up in court and say their piece; it’s the social workers’
responsibility to stand up to the District Attorney and not cave.
A Limited Review of Although it’s impossible to tell solely from reviewing applications for
Documents From petition whether a social worker was pressured to include or exclude
Several Jurisdictions information, we did compare the information in the social workers’
Didn’t Reveal Anything applications to information that appeared in the petitions to the court
Unique About Wichita for 10 cases in Wichita. We saw several instances where the petition
filed by the District Attorney’s Office omitted some information from
the social worker’s application, such as the mother claiming she’s of
Indian heritage.
We also saw instances where the petition included additional

information not found in the social worker’s application—such as
a more clinical description for a child’s psychological problems,
or the fact that a particular parenting class didn’t address domestic
violence—information likely obtained from other sources or from the
social worker after he or she submitted the original application.
To assess whether these types of differences were typical, we
reviewed 10 cases each in Johnson and Wyandotte Counties. In
general, we found the same types of differences in the documentation
for their cases.
Officials we talked to in the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s

Office told us they may ask social workers to provide additional
information they think they need to build their case, such as
requesting additional interviews with significant relatives, or
providing the criminal history of a parent.
Because of the limited time between the child being taken into
custody and the need to conduct a temporary custody hearing (72
hours), the amount of investigation an SRS social worker can do is
limited. An official with the District Attorney’s Office told us that
new information may come in later, and may cause the petition to get
amended.
Social workers in Wichita told us they believe that staff from the
District Attorney’s Office direct more work than they should in the
form of additional requests for interviews or work they are asked to
get done. An official from the District Attorney’s Office said they
need to be able to question applications that appear to be incomplete.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
SRS Hasn’t Adopted Given the serious nature of the statements made by the Secretary
New Policies or of SRS, we would have expected the Department to develop
Procedures To Address some policies for social workers Statewide to follow in the event
The Issue Of Perceived they feel they are being bullied or coerced by staff in a county or
Bullying district attorney’s office. Such a policy should explain the types of
interactions with district attorneys’ offices that are considered to be
normal, and what types of interactions may be problematic. It also
should address the steps social workers and upper-level SRS officials
will take in cases where bullying or undue influence is perceived.
SRS officials told us they haven’t issued any new policies or memos
on this topic since the original comments were made. When we asked
about this, SRS officials provided us with the general policy from its
staff handbook that says social workers should ask supervisors when
concerns arise about how to handle individual situations. Those
officials told us they thought that guidance was sufficient.
Since the Secretary’s comments regarding “bullying” and undue

pressure on social workers, officials with the Sedgwick County
District Attorney’s Office told us they have taken steps to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety. They have stopped making even
editorial changes to documents produced by SRS social workers.
Instead, they ask the social workers to make any necessary changes.
According to Sedgwick County social workers we talked to, they

now will go to the SRS liaison staff located in the District Attorney’s
Office to make the necessary changes on the liaison’s computer to
avoid having to go back to the SRS office for that work.
Conclusion: Documenting that a social worker was unduly influenced by a district

or county attorney is difficult, because it isn’t something that can be
seen in the applications for petition, and it’s unlikely that either of
the parties involved would be willing to come forth and admit to it.
Based on survey responses, it’s clear that issues occur in Sedgwick
County more frequently than in other parts of the State. However,
our conversations during the audit with social workers, judges,
and others from that area lead us to believe that those issues more
likely stem from disagreements about how cases should proceed,
rather than pressure to distort the facts of a case. Nonetheless, it’s
important that all social workers be well trained on the differences
between inappropriate behavior by a county or district attorney’s
staff, and legitimate differences of opinion about which facts are
relevant or how a case should proceed. Clearly, if social workers
are being unduly influenced regarding the facts they provide to the
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
court, it’s a serious situation that needs to be reported immediately.
The policies that SRS officials told us deal with this situation are too
general to be effective, and they need to be strengthened to adequately
address this concern.
Recommendations for 1. To help ensure that social workers know how to handle situations
Executive Action: where they think they are being inappropriately pressured by
county or district attorney staff, the Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services should do the following:
a. develop a policy that codifies the specific steps social workers

should follow in the event they think they are being unduly
pressured or they encounter unethical or inappropriate
behavior by someone in a county or district attorney’s
office. Such a policy should include a process for notifying
upper-level SRS management so they can follow up with the
appropriate district or county attorney if considered necessary.
b. provide training to all social workers Statewide on the new

policy, and as part of that training discuss the roles of both
attorneys and social workers in handling child-in-need-of-care
cases, as well as actions by county or district attorneys that
might be considered inappropriate and that should be reported
to SRS management.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Question 2: Are Social Workers Who Handle Child-In-Need-Of-Care Cases
Qualified, and Do They Receive Sufficient Training To Work Effectively
With the Attorneys and the Courts?
Answer In Brief: SRS social workers we reviewed were all licensed by the Behavioral
Sciences Regulatory Board, and social worker supervisors met
additional experience requirements. However, the training social
workers receive in the area of writing legal documents, working with
attorneys, and testifying in court varies considerably. Most social
work degree programs at Regents’ institutions in Kansas don’t require
specific courses on working with attorneys and the courts. Initial job
training SRS social workers receive on these topics is sparse and,
according to social workers, largely insufficient. We also found that
SRS lacks a good system for ensuring that social workers receive the
initial training. Ongoing training related to working with attorneys
and the courts also is inconsistent across the State, as confirmed by
social worker surveys. Judges, attorneys, and others we talked to
pointed out the need for additional training for social workers on
these topics. These and related findings are discussed in more detail
in the sections that follow.
All SRS Social Workers To be qualified to practice social work in the State of Kansas, a
We Reviewed Met the social worker must be licensed by the Kansas Behavioral Sciences
Licensure Requirements Regulatory Board. That licensure process requires:
Of the State
Submitting proof of a social work bachelor’s or master’s degree with
college transcripts to the Board; and
Passing the “Association of Social Work Boards” exam
Social workers must renew their licenses every two years. As part
of the renewal process, the Board also requires social workers to
complete 40 hours of continuing education during the preceeding two
years.
In addition to the basic licensing requirement for all social workers,

SRS requires those in supervisory positions to have at least one-year
of experience as a social worker.
The Children and Family Services Program within SRS has about 370
social worker specialist and supervisor positions in six regions across
the State. To determine whether those workers met qualifications, we
reviewed the qualifications of all 136 social worker specialists and
supervisors from two of the six SRS regions––Kansas City Metro
and Wichita. We found that all 136 staff had current licenses. All 19
supervisors in these two regions also met the minimum experience
qualification for being a supervisor.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
The Training Social SRS social workers basically have three stages during which they
Workers Receive on may receive training related to writing legal documents, working with
Working With attorneys, and testifying in court:
Attorneys and
The Courts Varies during their degree program
Considerably
as part of their initial orientation and training provided by SRS
as part of ongoing training throughout their career with the De-
partment
To assess the adequacy of social workers’ training during these stages,

we included questions about initial and ongoing training on our
survey of social workers Statewide. In addition, we talked to officials
in the schools of social work at the Regents’ universities in Kansas,
and reviewed the description of their course offerings for social
work degree programs. Our findings are discussed in the following
sections.
Most social work degree programs at the Regents’ institutions

offer electives but don’t require students to take classes focused
solely on working with attorneys and the courts. Five of the six
Regents’ universities in Kansas offer social work degrees. Emporia
State University was the exception.
We talked with officials from each of the five universities to identify

the course requirements for obtaining a social work degree at their
school. We also asked them to identify specific courses that teach
social work students how to write legal documents, work with
attorneys, and testify in court.
Only two universities (Wichita State and Pittsburg State) require a

course with a semester-long focus on working with attorneys and
courts to be completed to obtain a social work degree. At Wichita
State University, the course is called “Children and Family Policy and
Practice” and at Pittsburg State University the course is called “Social
Work and the Law.” The other universities offer various courses,
some are required and some are elective, that may have some content
related to court-related topics, but that isn’t the focus of the course.
The information we gathered about those courses is summarized in

Figure 2-1 on the following page.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 2-1
Summary of Courses Offered by Five Kansas Universities
Relating to Court Testimony, Preparing Legal Documents,
and Working with District Attorneys
Courses With a Semester-Long Curriculum Other Courses University Officials Told Us Have
University
Focused on Legal/Court-Related Instruction Some Legal/Court-Related Instruction
Social Work and the Law (Required) Mental Health Theory and Practice (Required)
Social Workers and the Court Process Field Practicum (Required)
(Elective) Criminal Law and Society (Elective)
Pittsburg State Criminal Procedures (Elective)
University Criminology (Elective)
Juvenile Delinquency (Elective)
The Family and Society (Elective)
Children and Family Policy and Practice

(Required) Field Practicum (Required)
Wichita State
Social Work and the Law (Elective)
University
Forensic Interviewing (Elective for Master's
students)
Social Work and the Law (Elective) Generalist Practice: The Helping Relationship
Fort Hays
(Required)
State
Introduction to the Practicum (Required)
University
Field Practicum (Required)
No courses with specific elements related to Social Work Practice I (Required)
the legal/court setting Social Work Practice II (Required)
Kansas State Field Research Preparation (Required)
University
Child Welfare Survey (Elective)
No courses with specific elements related to Fundamentals of Social Work Practice (Required)
the legal/court setting Seminar in Professional Issues (Required)
University of Integrative Seminar: Social Work in Children and Family
Kansas Settings ( Required for Master's students)
Source: LPA review of course descriptions and interviews with University officials.
As the figure shows, the amount of coursework related to working

with attorneys and the courts that a student may take while
completing a social work degree varies from institution to institution,
and is really dependent upon whether they happen to take the elective
courses that cover that material.
Initial training social workers receive in working with attorneys

and the courts isn’t uniform and structured, and according
to social workers we surveyed, isn’t sufficient. SRS requires
social workers to complete a core curriculum of activities called the
“PASSPORT” consisting of a list of potential training activities social
workers can select from. SRS officials told us their expectation is
that new social workers will complete at least 50% of those activities
within the first 90 days of employment. Our review found that for the
most part, that training isn’t uniform and structured. Some examples
of what we saw in the PASSPORT:
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
During a period when a new social worker is supposed to shadow an
experienced worker, tasks call for the new worker to:
 accompany another social worker to a court hearing to observe the interaction

between the social worker and the parents, and to make note of what stages
of crisis the parents (and the worker) pass through.
 arrange for a supervisor, trainer, or mentor to introduce them to the county

or district attorney who will be representing the State. Ask him/her for
recommendations regarding appropriate dress and behavior when attending
court, and his/her two most important recommendations when preparing to
testify.
During a period of intensive supervision related to writing skills for legal

reports, tasks call for the new worker to:
 review a court report outline and go over each section with their supervisor,
trainer, or mentor to understand what information they will need to report.
 ask co-workers who have effective court report-writing techniques how they
prepare and write their reports, and if there’s time observe them using the
format while writing a court report.
Overall, we found that what a new social worker is likely to learn is

largely dependent upon which activities the social worker completes,
and who that social worker observes or talks with. There appears to be
little emphasis on a uniform way of doing business. In other words, two
new people starting at the same time could learn very different things,
depending on who they observe or talk to.
We surveyed all SRS social workers and asked their opinions about
whether their initial training related to preparing legal documents for
child-in-need-of-care cases, working with attorneys, and testifying in
court. Generally, more than half the survey respondents said their initial
training in these areas was insufficient. Figure 2-2 summarizes these
survey results by SRS region.
Figure 2-2
Percentage of Responding Social Workers Who Said They Received
INSUFFICIENT Initial Training for Handling CINC Cases
Preparing Documents Working with Attorneys Testifying in Court

100%
93%
90% 86%
79%
80%
70%
70% 64%
65%
60% 60% 58% 58% 58% 60%
56% 56%
60% 54%
50% 50%
50%
42%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
KC Metro Northeast South Central Southeast West Wichita
Source:LPAanalysisofsurveyresponsesfromsocialworkers.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
As the figure shows, respondents from the Southeast region were
most critical; about 90% of respondents rated their initial training on
working with district attorneys and testifying in court as insufficient.
SRS also lacks a good system for ensuring that social workers
complete the initial training curriculum timely, and that it’s
consistent across the State. We reviewed training documentation
for a sample of 25 social workers who were hired after January 2008
to determine whether they had completed the initial training within
90 calendar days, as specified by SRS management. Here’s what we
found:
Training wasn’t completed in a timely manner: Of the 25 social

workers, three didn’t complete the initial training curriculum at all. Of
the remaining 22 social workers, 14 were late in completing the training
curriculum. These 14 social workers completed their training from 1-9
months after the required 90 days.
Completion of training isn’t properly logged and tracked: SRS

has a centralized database that’s designed to track the training social
workers receive. Once the initial PASSPORT training is completed, a
social worker’s supervisor is responsible for submitting this information
to a database administrator to be entered into the database. For the
22 social workers whose records we reviewed, only seven had their
training properly logged within the agency’s central tracking database.
While we were able to gather documentation from the various regions
to determine training activities for the remaining 15 social workers,
an incomplete central database indicates supervisors aren’t following
procedures, and management isn’t actively monitoring this area.
Central SRS staff don’t provide enough guidance on how the

training documentation is to be completed: SRS instructions on
the initial training curriculum say that, “There are some topics where
you will need to complete all of the activities listed. There are some
topics where you may already have some experience that meets the
activities suggested. In general, you will complete at least 50% of the
suggested activities…” However, the actual workbook on which training
is recorded doesn’t specify which activities are mandatory, and it doesn’t
contain a structured way to calculate whether staff completed at least
half the activities. Officials told us the instructions are intentionally
flexible in order to accommodate the experience and skills each social
worker brings to the job. However, without more guidance of what’s
minimally expected, there’s a risk that needed skills won’t be taught to
all social workers.
Ongoing training related to working with attorneys and the

courts is inconsistent across the State. SRS officials told us
they don’t mandate specific ongoing training related to working
with attorneys and the courts, preparing documents, or testifying
in court. To accomplish their continuing education requirements,
social workers can choose from a series of classes the Department
offers throughout the year. Several of these classes specifically
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
relate to training areas we were focused on, such as “Finding Words:
Interviewing Children and Preparing for Court” or “Confidence in
Court.” Because these courses are optional, the amount of ongoing
training a social worker actually receives in these areas can vary
widely within and across regions.
Our interviews with each of the six regional officials showed that
other ongoing training opportunities commonly included:
meetings with judges to discuss court operations, expectations and

processes
meetings with officials from the respective attorney offices to discuss

such things as court operations, expectations and processes, and how
to write affidavits
one-on-one training sessions or presentations from SRS legal staff on

such things as subpoenas, testifying in court, and what the expectations
are for social workers in the court room setting
However, regional differences also were apparent. Meetings may

be regularly scheduled in one region or county and more sporadic
in others. Only officials from the Kansas City Metro region stated
that mock trials are underway or planned in two counties to provide
social workers with more hands-on training on testifying. In addition,
we received identical training documents provided to social workers
related to testifying in court from two regions, but officials from other
regions told us they didn’t have that material.
Survey responses regarding ongoing training were a little more

positive, but still more than one-third of the respondents rated it as
Figure 2-3
Percentage of Responding Social Workers Who Said They Received
INSUFFICIENT Ongoing Training for Handling CINC Cases
Preparing Documents Working with Attorneys Testifying in Court

80%
69% 69%
70%
60% 57%
50% 45% 46%

44% 44% 44% 44%
42% 42%
40% 36%
32% 32% 33%
30%
30% 25%
21%
20%
10%
0%
KC Metro Northeast South Central Southeast West Wichita
Source: LPA analysis of survey responses from social workers.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
insufficient. Again, the Southeast region was most critical in the
sufficiency of training in all three areas of preparing documents,
working with attorneys, and testifying in court.
We also asked what improvements social workers would make to the

training they received. Overall, the most common remark—from 21
respondents—was the need for more training on court expectations—
both from judges and attorneys—as they vary from court to court.
(All but the Wichita region has multiple jurisdictions). The box
below provides a cross-section of survey comments related to
training.
Survey Comments From Social Workers about Training
x “I want the court system to provide a crash course in acceptable court documents; overall presentation of the
material; appropriate court etiquette, and testifying skills. I want attorneys and judges to meet with social workers
once a month to receive training on domestic violence, substance use and CINC definition and interpretations.”
(South Central)
x “Training needs to be done by professionals outside the agency. Upper management and central office staff are
geared toward policies and procedures within the organization and numbers/outcomes. Training needs to come
from front-line workers, not workers who worked in the field at one time and worked their way up.” (South
Central)
x “One would have to take into account that each county is different and runs differently. I have worked in 8
counties. Not one is similar. It also makes a difference if the County Attorney office respects SRS. Training
should be in each county and include the County Attorney in the training to learn their expectations.” (Northeast)
x “SRS initial training really doesn’t include any information about testifying or preparing for court. A segment
needs to be added. I learned this through “Finding Words” training.” (Northeast).
x “More training in general. More hands-on training. More training on child welfare legal process; expectation in
Sedgwick County vs. different counties. Information on change-of-venue cases. More open communication
between SW and (Assistant) District Attorney.” (Wichita)
x “I felt ill-prepared for my 1st CINC case. I did not know court procedures regarding hearings and testifying. I do
not feel there’s been enough training on court proceedings for new workers. In my opinion, new workers get
thrown into CINC court cases without knowledge of what needs to be done.” (Wichita)
x “I only remember one actual training about legal stuff. The “training” that we have received regarding writing
applications and working with DAs is all peer assistance or guidance from supervisor. (I) think (I) should have
been shown language in which the judge and DA want things. I’ve got better with practice.” (KC Metro)
x “There hasn’t been any training so I would recommend we start with the basics” (Southeast)
x “There needs to be continuing education for all social workers that is mandatory to attend. All the previous
subjects mentioned need to be a priority for all social workers. The State (SRS) needs to be responsible to
ensure that social workers are trained for their job and most times they receive none.” (Southeast)
x “There’s no training offered in the areas listed. The trainings provided are form and paperwork based. In my own
experience and when training new workers, shadowing experienced workers is the best training one can have.
Shadowing should be required for 6 months to really prepare a worker. When I started I was handed a case load
and thrown to the wolves. These practices are going on and are inappropriate to the clients and employees.”
(West)
x “Mock interviews and testifying. More detailed training on these items.” (West)
Attorneys and judges concurred that social workers could use

more training in preparing affidavits and testifying in court. We
asked district attorneys, judges, parent attorneys, and guardians ad
litem from Sedgwick, Johnson, Wyandotte, and Shawnee Counties
about their opinions on social workers’ training in the areas of
preparing documents, working with attorneys, and testifying in court.
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Almost everyone we talked to acknowledged that social workers work
under tight deadlines and receive low pay for a difficult and stressful
job. In addition, nearly all attorneys and judges stated that social
workers could improve in a few areas. Below is a sample of what
these officials said:
District Attorneys acknowledged there’s a learning curve in the social

work profession and workers improve with experience. Generally,
district attorneys we talked to said some social workers could use
additional training in all three areas of writing legal documents, testifying
in court, and conducting investigations.
Judges provided mixed responses on their perception of how

adequately social workers are trained. Some stated that social workers
are well trained, while others stated that social workers need to
improve on their testifying skills. In this area, judges from Johnson and
Wyandotte Counties told us they have started, or will start, to hold mock
trial sessions for social workers. Finally, one judge told us that there is
a strong need for all social work degree students to complete a “Social
Work and the Law” course in college.
Parent Attorneys and Guardians ad Litem generally stated the

training social workers receive related to working with attorneys and the
courts appears to be adequate. However, one parent attorney stated
that she has seen social workers not collect necessary documents or
submit reports late. Another parent attorney mentioned that some social
workers have told the family inaccurate information about the case or
have told the family visitation will happen when the social worker has no
authority to do so, perhaps indicating the need for better guidance on
what the social worker’s role is during court proceedings.
Conclusion: All the social workers in the Children and Family Services Program
that we reviewed met the basic qualification for their jobs, which is
to have a valid social worker’s license. To be licensed, a degree in
social work is required. As we learned in this audit, the amount of
exposure social workers will get to working with attorneys and courts
and drafting legal documents as part of their degree programs will
vary considerably depending on where they went to school and what
courses they took. That makes it all the more important for SRS to
have uniform and consistent training for both new and experienced
social workers Statewide that addresses those topics. The approach
SRS currently takes to training is somewhat haphazard, and doesn’t
ensure consistent learning for all social workers. The overwhelming
response from both new and experienced social workers is that the
training as it relates to working with the courts and attorneys and
drafting legal documents isn’t sufficient and needs to be improved.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Recommendations for 1. To ensure that all social workers receive the proper initial training
Executive Action: in a reasonable amount of time, the Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services should do the following:
a. provide better guidance and clearer instructions to each of

the regional SRS offices on what constitutes completion of
PASSPORT training
b. identify certain core areas within the PASSPORT training

workbook, such as “Court Procedures and Protocol” and
“Writing Skills for Legal Reports,” that all social workers are
required to complete
c. conduct periodic checks to ensure that all new social workers

have completed the required training courses within the
allotted time period
d. review the tracking database on a periodic basis to ensure

the social worker’s training record is up to date and reflects
the correct number and type of classes the social worker has
completed
2. To ensure that all social workers receive sufficient ongoing

training related to working with attorneys, preparing legal
documents, and providing testimony, the Department of Social
and Rehabilitation Services should do the following:
a. offer refresher training sessions to experienced social workers

focusing on court expectations, how to effectively work with
attorneys, preparing legal documents, and providing legal
testimony
b. work with each of the SRS regional offices to develop a

curriculum of ongoing training courses that would give social
workers opportunities to gain experience working in a court
setting
c. identify beneficial training materials used in certain SRS

regional offices and share those materials with other regions

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Question 3: Does SRS Have Sufficient Numbers of Social Workers To Handle
Child-In-Need-Of-Care Caseloads?
Answer In Brief: On average, Children and Family Services social workers at SRS were
responsible for about 35 open cases per month during the first 10
months of fiscal year 2009. We couldn’t conclude whether this was an
appropriate caseload because existing caseload standards are based on
the types of work done by social workers in states where foster care isn’t
privatized, which is different from the work SRS social workers do. What
we can tell is that average caseloads Statewide have remained relatively
stable over the last three years, but vary quite a bit among some of the
regions. Statewide only about 27% of social workers responding to our
survey indicated they thought their caseload was about right. About
39% said they thought they had many more cases than they could handle
effectively. Surprisingly, social workers in some of the regions with
heavier caseloads were less likely to complain about the number of cases
they had to handle. Caseloads are somewhat higher than they otherwise
would be because of a large number of vacancies that currently exist.
These and related findings are discussed in more detail in the sections
that follow.
On Average, SRS’ As noted in the Overview, since the late 1990s Kansas has contracted out
Children and Family the functions related to family preservation, foster care, and adoption. As
Services Social Workers a result, except for investigations of alleged abuse and neglect and a few
Handle About 35 other types of cases, SRS social workers in Kansas now primarily are
Open Cases Per Month responsible for monitoring families and children that SRS has referred
to contractors, not for providing direct case-management services. The
types of cases they handle—and the general types of activities they carry
out—are summarized in Figure 3-1 on the following page.
The Children and Family Services Program has 265 full-time-equivalent

social work specialists, whose workload often includes both handling
abuse-and-neglect investigations and monitoring cases referred to
contractors.
During the first 10 months of fiscal year 2009, these social worker
specialists had an average of about 9,200 open cases of all types during
any given month. Figure 3-2 on page 31 shows average caseloads by
region and Statewide, based on these data.
As the figure shows, the average monthly caseload for social workers
ranged from about 26 cases in the Southeast region to about 47 cases in
the South Central region. The caseload figures could be slightly higher
or lower due to minor missing data or data entry errors we found in the
caseload information we received from SRS, as described on page 2.
We don’t think these inaccuracies were significant enough to affect our
findings.
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 3-1
Information About the Types of Cases SRS Social Workers Carry Out
Type of Case Description of Case Type What SRS Social Workers Do
These cases are assigned to SRS field - investigate the situation by reviewing the initial report
staff either because of a credible report - interview family members, health professionals,
of child abuse or neglect, or because school officials, and others as needed
Abuse or Neglect police protective custody was initiated. - complete a family-based assessment to determine
Investigation / (In a small portion of these cases, the whether the situation can be addressed through in-
Assessment social worker is assisted by special home services or whether the child needs to declared
investigator staff within the Program.) a child in need of care
- provide information to district or county attorneys,
which starts the legal portion of the CINC process
These cases involve families that need - connect families with community resources when a
Family Services "low-intensity" services to maintain their family is in need of services
children in the home.
The interstate compact ensures each - assess the relative or facility for placement
state has uniform procedures for the - perform a home study, and KBI and child abuse
Interstate placement of children from another registry checks
Compact for the state. When another state requests a - perform case-management responsibilities (visits with
Placement of child be placed in Kansas, an SRS the family, providing or connecting the child to
Children (ICPC) Social Worker reviews and reports on services, etc) once the child is placed
the conditions at the potential - maintain the documentation requirements
placement. - communicate with the sending State
These cases involve children the court - monitor the cases
designated as "Children In Need of - participate in the initial meetings
Care." In Kansas, non-profit - review the case-planning documents
contractors are responsible for the - attend court hearings
Foster and Group placement of the children in foster
Care (a) homes or residential facilities, and for
providing various services towards
reunification, custodianship, or
adoption.
These cases involve children for which - monitor the cases
the courts have determined - review the case-planning documents
reunification isn't an option, and - attend court hearings
Adoption
parental rights have been terminated.
Services (a) In Kansas, non-profit contractors are
responsible for finding adoptive parents
and providing necessary services.
These cases involve families that need - monitor the cases
intensive support and services in order - review the case-planning documents
to maintain their children in the home. - attend court hearings
Under privatization, SRS staff refer
Family these families to the contractors who
Preservation provide a variety of services such as
Services (a) teaching parents appropriate
expectations, dealing with family
conflict, and services for children with
behavior problems, mental illness, and
developmental disabilities.
(a) In other states, these services typically are provided by social services agency staff directly.
Source: SRS Children and Family Services Program caseload reporting instructions, and interviews with officials.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 3-2
Social Worker Specialist Positions and Caseload Information
FY 2009 (a)
Average monthly Average
social worker Average monthly monthly
SRS Region specialist positions cases caseload
KC Metro 67.1 2,061 30.7
Northeast 50.8 1,679 33.1
South Central 34.7 1,619 46.6
Southeast 31.4 803 25.6
West 32.1 1,202 37.4
Wichita 48.8 1,825 37.4
Statewide 264.9 9,189 34.7
(a) Only includes first 10 months of fiscal year 2009.
Source: LPA analysis of SRS caseload data per full-time-equivalent social worker
specialist.
Caseload Standards A number of organizations have developed caseload standards for

That Exist Generally social workers. For example:
Apply to Social Workers
Who Provide Direct the Child Welfare League of America’s recommended caseloads
for conducting child protective services investigations are 12 initial
Case-Management,
assessments/investigations per month, or 17 active cases per month,
Not Monitoring Services with no more than one new case for every six open cases. For social
workers providing direct family foster care services, the League
recommends 12-15 children per social worker.
the Council on Accreditation—a non-profit international child and

behavioral services accrediting organization—indicates that caseloads
should not exceed 15 investigations, or 15-30 open cases at any one
time, and should take into account such things as the social work
practice requirements, case outcomes, experience of the worker, and
complexity of the case.
These caseload standards were built around situations where social

workers provide all the direct services related to foster care, family
preservation, and adoption. They don’t apply to situations in which
the social worker primarily is monitoring contractors actually
providing the direct services to families and children, as is the
situation in Kansas.
In 1997 SRS hired a consultant to develop caseload measures

specifically for Kansas. This was done in part to fulfill the
requirements of a lawsuit settlement agreement with the American
Civil Liberties Union over the quality of foster care services. The
consultant studied the various activities social workers carried
out, and assigned weights to each activity. The resulting caseload
standards allowed the agency to compare staff with different kinds of
caseloads on a uniform basis.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
SRS discontinued its use of the caseload measures its consultant
had created in 1997 because the requirement to evaluate individual
social workers’ caseloads was eliminated with the conclusion of
the settlement agreement in 2002, they were outdated, didn’t take
changes in technology into account, and didn’t consider the different
work requirements now applicable to social workers’ jobs.
SRS Officials Rely on SRS currently manages caseloads by looking at the proportion of total
Program Staff and staff and total cases assigned to each region. Here’s a brief summary
Supervisors To Ensure of the process SRS follows:
That Caseloads Are
Evenly Distributed program administrators in each region are required to report monthly
Within and Across information to central office staff in Topeka about the number of open
cases each individual social worker specialist handles for the various
Regions programs, such as Children and Family Services, Child Support
Enforcement, or Rehabilitation.
these data are aggregated into summary reports to show the proportion
of cases by region and by program.
the reports are sent back to the regional program administrators to

assess staffing within the region and to allow comparisons across the
regions. Central management told us the regional managers can use
those data to make a case for changes in staff resources.
SRS officials told us doing these “higher-level” staffing reviews

with un-weighted caseload information didn’t produce significantly
different results from using the weights the consultant had developed.
Our analyses showed that caseloads and staff appeared to be

reasonably similar in most regions, but not all of them. We
carried out a similar analysis to the one SRS uses, but focused only
on caseload data for the social
Figure 3-3 workers handling Children and
Current SRS Social Worker Staffing and Caseload Proportions
by Region
Family Services’ cases within
each region. Because there
FY 2007 FY 2009 (a)
% of % of % of % of
can be some mismatching of
Region Total FTE Total Caseload Total FTE Total Caseload resources and caseloads on
KC Metro 23.1% 23.4% 25.3% 22.4% a month-to-month basis due
Northeast 19.7% 18.3% 19.2% 18.3%
to fluctuations in cases being
opened and closed, we averaged
South Central 13.5% 15.8% 13.1% 17.6%
the monthly data for each region.
Southeast 11.7% 9.3% 11.9% 8.7%
West 11.6% 14.1% 12.1% 13.1% Figure 3-3 compares the
Wichita 20.4% 19.1% 18.4% 19.9% average percent of total Children
Statewide 100% 100% 100% 100% and Family Services’ field staff
(a) First 10 months of fiscal year 2009 and total Children and Family
Source: LPA analysis of SRS caseload data. Services’ cases assigned to each
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
of the six regions during fiscal year 2007 and the first 10 months of
fiscal year 2009.
The figure shows that caseloads and staff across regions appeared to
be fairly similar, but some regions were less closely matched. For
example, during the first 10 months of 2009:
the West region had 12% of the staff and 13% of the cases, and the
Northeast region had about 19% of the staff and 18% of the cases
on the other hand, the South Central region handled almost 18% of the
total cases with only about 13% of total staff
Although such differences can look relatively small on a percentage

basis, they can translate to more sizeable differences in the average
caseloads of individual social workers.
Average caseloads have been stable over the past three years, but
vary across regions. To determine what social worker caseloads
have been, we looked at average caseloads for Children and Family
Services’ social workers by region for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and the
first 10 months of 2009, using the following two approaches:
Un-weighted Caseloads: This method simply involves dividing the

number of cases of all types that social workers handle by the number
of full-time-equivalent social workers. That gives a very rough measure
of caseload per social worker, because it doesn’t take into account the
differences in the amount of time and effort needed to handle different
types of cases.
Weighted Caseloads: This method provides a somewhat more uniform

comparison of caseloads because it attempts to equalize the differences
in the level of effort it takes for the different types of cases social
workers handle. For example, if it generally takes twice as long for a
social worker to conduct an abuse and neglect investigation as it does
to monitor a foster care case, an abuse and neglect investigation would
be given twice the weight given to monitoring a foster care case. We
used statistical regression models to weight the SRS caseload data.
Our analysis of the caseload information under each approach is

displayed in Figure 3-4 on page 34.
As the figure shows, both methods produced the same general

relationships in the data. Over time, caseloads Statewide
were relatively stable at around 34-36 un-weighted cases and 23-
24 weighted cases per social worker specialist. Within individual
regions, however, the caseloads were less stable; some regions
showed increases, while others showed decreases during the period.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 3-4
Average Caseload Information per Social Worker Specialist FTE by Region and by Year
Un-weighted Caseload Averages

50 47 45
45 42 41
40 38 37
40 37 36 35
35 35 33 34
35 32 31 32 32
30 27 28 26
25
20
15
10
5
0
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 (a)
Weighted Caseload Averages

50
45
40
35 31
30 25 24 27 27 27
23 24 24 23 24 24
25 21 23 19
22
19
23
20
22 22
20
15
10
5
0
(a) Fiscal year 2009 includes only the first 10 months of the year
Source: LPA analysis of SRS caseload data for social worker specialist positions within the Children and Family Services Program.
Both methods also showed that caseloads varied widely across

regions in fiscal year 2009. Social workers in the South Central
region had the heaviest caseloads (47 un-weighted and 31 weighted
cases), and those in the Southeast region had the lightest caseloads
(26 un-weighted and 19 weighted cases).
Slightly More Than Statewide, only about 27% of the social workers responding to our
One-in-Four Social survey said they had about the right number of cases. About 34%
Workers Surveyed of the respondents indicated they had a few more cases than they
Said They Had About thought they could handle effectively, while the remaining 39% said
The Right Number of they had many more cases than they could handle effectively. Some
Cases of their individual comments about their caseloads can be found in the
box on page 35.
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Social Workers' Opinions on Average Caseloads and Staffing Issues
As part of our survey of social worker specialists and supervisors, a number of social workers
commented on staffing issues:
"We need to be fully staffed with well-trained workers so we can effectively handle & serve our families."
— KC Metro
"Work loads are already far too high, excuses are made for inefficient workers, positions are open that
can't be filled! In July we will be accepting new cases with no new workers and already increasing
workloads." — Southeast
"Most of the time I have the right # of cases but there are a few months Dec-Feb. where our caseloads
were out of this world. Usually average 10 per month of new cases Dec-Feb -- 15-18 new cases a
month." — Northeast
"Cases don't always close in a month. For more involved cases, they stay open -- then we get new cases
& so on. I would be ok if I could get the logs & paperwork done from old cases - 2006 & 2007 & 2008. I
can't be off rotation to get 'old logs/KIDS' done -- and even if I'm off rotation, if I have a case open & a new
intake comes in, I have to take it." — Northeast
"Caseloads out west become challenging due to the travel time. We drive 1-2.5 hrs to get to our clients /
court hearings, etc." — West
"Caseload distribution is the key to achieving the goal of excellent investigations and exploring family
resources which would result in less removals. 12-14 investigations per month should be absolute max."
— South Central
"Typically before the hiring freeze Oct to Dec and March to May caseloads are heavier, which makes it
more difficult to do everything we would like to do with and for clients. Rest of year is somewhat easier to
handle unless you have to file a CINC case. Then all of your other cases go on the back burner and you
have to play catch up. From the time a police protective custody case is assigned at the beginning of the
day to the time you have to make a decision to file a CINC affidavit and let the DA know by 4 or 4:30 p.m.
is not enough time to gather all the info you need and then you have to work late for hours to type the
petition and get documents ready for the DA by 8:30 or 9:00 the next morning. Many times we barely
have time to stop and eat. Files on SRS history have to be copied also. We sometimes don't have
support staff who can copy entire files (which can be large) first thing in the morning so we wind up
copying it the evening of the 1st day case is assigned if we have to go to the DA at 8:30 or 9:00 the next
day." — Wichita
Source: LPA analysis of survey responses from SRS social workers.
Figure 3-5 on page 36 compares the weighted caseloads for each

region for the first 10 months of fiscal year 2009 to the percent of
social workers from the region indicating they had many more cases
than they could handle effectively.
Surprisingly, the regions with the heaviest caseloads weren’t

necessarily the regions where social workers thought they had too
many cases to handle effectively. Based on the caseload information,
we would have expected social workers from the South Central
region to respond that they had many more cases than they could
handle effectively because their weighted caseloads in fiscal year
2009 appeared to be so much higher than the other regions. Yet as
Figure 3-5 shows, only 29% of the social workers from the region
responded that way.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure 3-5
Average Weighted Caseloads and Related Survey Responses
Weighted % of Social Workers Stating They % of Survey Respondents
Caseloads Have Many More Cases Than They Who Are Relatively New
Region FY 2009 (a) Can Handle Effectivley (<2 Years)
KC Metro 23.3 67% (16) 40%
Northeast 23.6 38% (12) 18%
South Central 31.0 29% (5) 6%
Southeast 19.5 42% (5) 13%
West 22.9 26% (5) 26%
Wichita 22.4 25% (5) 13%
Statewide 23.7 39% (48) 20%
(a) First 10 months of fiscal year 2009.
Source: LPA analysis of SRS caseload data and survey responses.
In contrast, two-thirds of the social workers in the Kansas City Metro

region thought they had many more cases than they could handle
effectively, even though the weighted caseloads in that region were
slightly below the Statewide average during fiscal year 2009. These
more negative responses may be due to the fact that this region had
by far the highest number of new staff responding to our survey
as the last column in Figure 3-5 shows. These staff may feel less
comfortable or more overwhelmed with their work than more-
seasoned staff.
Summary information about the most recent caseloads, vacancy, and

turnover rates for each region are shown in Figure 3-6 on the next
page.
As the figure shows, the vacancy and turnover rates have been the
highest in the Kansas City Metro and Wichita regions. SRS officials
told us the Kansas City Metro region suffers such a high turnover rate
because this region provides more opportunities for social workers to
go back to school or work elsewhere for more pay, given the number
of hospitals and other businesses on the Kansas and Missouri sides.
Vacant positions cause each social worker to handle an average

of about five extra cases per month. As of June 1, 2009, the six
regions reported to us that 275 full-time-equivalent social worker
specialist positions were filled, while 43 such positions were vacant.
If those 43 positions had been filled as of March 31, 2009, the average
workload for a social worker Statewide would have been 30 un-
weighted cases, rather than 35.
Figure 3-7 on the next page provides information about social worker
specialist and supervisor vacancies by region.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Figure3Ͳ6
ComparisonofSRSSocialWorker
TurnoverandVacancyRates
Turnover Rate Vacancy Rate
24.0%
KC Metro
17.5%
9.6%
Northeast
1.6%
8.1%
South Central
10.0%
4.6%
Southeast
12.2%
8.6%
West
11.6%
10.2%
Wichita
18.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Ɣ turnover data---11 months from July 2008 to June 2009

Ɣ vacancy data---as of June 1, 2009
Source: LPA analysis of SHaRP turnover reports and SRS vacancy data.
These vacancies are due in part to the hiring freeze implemented at

the beginning of fiscal year 2009 because of the State’s budget crisis.
Since then, officials told us the Secretary of SRS reviews every
position request, and only approves those where a critical workload
situation exists. For example, the Secretary approved filling a total
of 11 social worker specialist positions in the Kansas City Metro
region as recently as March and May 2009 because of severe worker
shortages there.
Figure 3-7
SRS Social Worker Filled and Vacant Position Information by Region
(Children and Family Services Program as of June 1, 2009)
FILLED Positions VACANT Positions
Avg. Vacancy
SW SW SW SW Vacancy Duration
Region Specialist Supervisor Total Specialist Supervisor Total Rate (Months)
KC Metro 68 12 80 16 1 17 17.5% 7.1
Northeast 54 9 63 1 0 1 1.6% 2.6
South Central 39 6 45 4 1 5 10.0% 5.8
Southeast 30 6 36 3 2 5 12.2% 24
West 31 7 38 5 0 5 11.6% 12.6
Wichita 53 7 60 14 0 14 18.9% 16.9
Statewide 275 47 322 43 4 47 12.7% 12.2
Source: LPA analysis of position and vacancy data reported by SRS regional offices as of June 1, 2009.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Conclusion: Because the available caseload standards don’t fit the way Kansas
conducts business, we couldn’t really assess whether SRS has the
right number of social workers to handle child-in-need-of-care cases.
The social workers themselves are somewhat divided on whether
their caseloads are too heavy; 27% of survey respondents say they
are about right, and 39% indicate they have many more cases than
they can handle effectively. The current level of vacancies adds, on
average, about five cases to each social worker’s caseload. Given
the current state of the economy and the State’s financial situation, it
likely will remain difficult to fill vacant positions for the near term.
Thus, it will be important for SRS officials to keep an eye on some of
the imbalances in workloads that appear to be developing, particularly
in the South Central and Southeast regions, and to reallocate
resources if necessary to address those imbalances.
Recommendations for 1. To help ensure that caseloads for the Children and Family
Executive Action: Services Program are balanced across the six regions, Department
officials should continue to monitor caseloads and as needed
adjust the number of social workers assigned to various regions to
ensure an equitable workload for all social workers.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
APPENDIX A
Scope Statement
This appendix contains the scope statement approved by the Legislative Post Audit
Committee for this audit on September 17, 2008. The audit was requested by Senator Jean
Schodorf and Representative Mike O’Neal.
Children in Need of Care: Reviewing Selected Issues Related to Handling Their Cases
On June 8, 2008, the Wichita Eagle reported that, during a March 18th meeting with the
advocacy group “Citizens for Change,” the Secretary of SRS said that in Sedgwick County
“oftentimes we end up writing things because it’s what our social workers get bullied by the
District Attorney’s Office into writing. So they really have no belief in what it says.” The
District Attorney denied that her staff has ever tried to persuade social workers to put statements
in affidavits that weren’t accurate. Subsequently, the Secretary of SRS retracted his original
statement about social workers being bullied by the District Attorney’s office.
Despite the Secretary’s retraction, legislators have continued to hear concerns about
the handling of these cases. They are interested in knowing whether social workers and case
managers are qualified, and whether they are trained to work with the courts and district
attorneys’ offices. They also want to know whether sufficient numbers of social workers and
case managers are employed to handle the workload. Finally, they would like to know whether
social workers in Kansas have been unduly influenced by prosecutors, and if so, the extent of the
problem, and if so, what needs to be done to address it.
A performance audit of this topic would answer the following questions:

1. Are social workers and case managers who handle child-in-need-of-care cases qualified,
and do they receive sufficient training to work effectively with the prosecutors and the
courts? To answer this question, we would determine what the required qualifications are
for social workers and case managers. We would review the personnel files for a sample of
social workers and case managers to determine whether they met the basic qualifications. We
would determine the types and amount of training social workers receive related to working
with prosecutors and the judiciary. We would survey social workers to determine whether
they think that training is sufficient, and if not, what needs to be improved. Also, we would
interview a sample of local judges to determine whether they think social workers and case
managers are adequately trained to document the results of their investigations and testify to
the facts in a courtroom setting. In addition, we would ask them for any other observations
about how the handling of child-in-need-of-care cases could be improved. We would
conduct other work in this area as needed.
2. Are there sufficient numbers of social workers and case managers to handle caseloads?
To answer this question, we would review the number of cases assigned to social workers and
case managers. We would look for standards for the number of cases a social worker or case
manager should be able to handle, and compare the caseloads in Kansas counties to those
standards. In addition, we would compare caseloads across counties to determine whether
there are particular counties where the caseloads appear to be out of line. We would also look

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
at available information about caseloads over time to determine whether they appear to be
increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. In addition, we would look at position vacancies
and the length of time positions have been unfilled in a sample of counties to determine what
impact vacancies could be having on the caseloads of existing workers.
3. Have social workers been unduly influenced by prosecutors to include information
in affidavits that is contrary to what their investigation showed? Through the surveys
administered under Question 1, we also would gather information about any concerns
social workers have about prosecutors trying to get them to say things in affidavits that they
don’t believe are accurate. We would use the results of those surveys to help identify areas
of the State that appear to have potential problems. For any specific cases we are able to
identify through our surveys or other contacts with social workers, we would conduct more
in-depth interviews with the social workers and prosecutors involved, review available
correspondence, and compare what is documented in the investigations to what is contained
in the court affidavits to try to identify evidence of potential problems. For any cases where
it appears that the documented facts of the investigation show something substantially
different from what is contained in the affidavit, we would follow up with the social workers
and prosecutors’ offices to get their perspectives on what occurred and why. We would
conduct other work that appears to be warranted to answer the audit question.
Estimated time to complete: 15-20 weeks

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
APPENDIX B
Child Removal Numbers and Proportions Across All Kansas Counties
This appendix contains average removal numbers and rates for all 105 counties based
on actual removal counts from fiscal years 2006 through 2008. The appendix also shows our
predicted removal numbers and rates, calculated based on various census data for each county,
such as the total population, number of children, poverty levels, and racial make-up of each
county. Finally, the appendix shows the percent difference between the actual and predicted
removal data.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Appendix B
Comparison of Actual and Predicted Average Child Removal Rates By County
Fiscal Years 2006-2008
Average ACTUAL Average PREDICTED Difference Between
Removal Information Removal Information ACTUAL and
County
PREDICTED
Number Percentage Number Percentage Percentages (a)
Allen 39 1.32% 35 1.17% 0.14%
Anderson 10 0.51% 11 0.60% -0.09%
Atchison 28 0.67% 37 0.89% -0.22%
Barber 9 0.90% 8 0.80% 0.09%
Barton 91 1.40% 55 0.85% 0.55%
Bourbon 44 1.21% 40 1.11% 0.10%
Brown 12 0.51% 19 0.77% -0.26%
Butler 71 0.45% 81 0.51% -0.06%
Chase 3 0.50% 3 0.50% -0.01%
Chautauqua 4 0.50% 6 0.82% -0.33%
Cherokee 27 0.54% 51 1.00% -0.46%
Cheyenne 1 0.25% 2 0.32% -0.07%
Clark 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00%
Clay 14 0.75% 15 0.78% -0.03%
Cloud 20 1.08% 19 1.02% 0.07%
Coffey 4 0.22% 9 0.45% -0.22%
Comanche 1 0.36% 0 0.00% 0.36%
Cowley 61 0.74% 74 0.90% -0.16%
Crawford 115 1.33% 95 1.10% 0.23%
Decatur 2 0.44% 4 0.84% -0.40%
Dickinson 20 0.46% 31 0.72% -0.26%
Doniphan 7 0.40% 16 0.95% -0.55%
Douglas 38 0.18% 94 0.43% -0.26%
Edwards 5 0.71% 3 0.39% 0.31%
Elk 2 0.38% 5 0.74% -0.36%
Ellis 49 0.88% 53 0.95% -0.07%
Ellsworth 2 0.21% 19 1.68% -1.47%
Finney 67 0.53% 49 0.38% 0.14%
Ford 76 0.73% 27 0.26% 0.46%
Franklin 44 0.65% 34 0.51% 0.14%
Geary 52 0.68% 61 0.81% -0.13%
Gove 2 0.43% 2 0.28% 0.15%
Graham 1 0.22% 9 2.11% -1.88%
Grant 8 0.36% 3 0.14% 0.22%
Gray 2 0.12% 0 0.00% 0.12%
Greeley 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0.00%
Greenwood 18 1.24% 13 0.89% 0.35%
Hamilton 0 0.00% 1 0.12% -0.12%
Harper 6 0.46% 10 0.78% -0.31%
Harvey 51 0.64% 46 0.58% 0.07%

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Appendix B
County
PREDICTED
Haskell 2 0.20% 0 0.00% 0.20%
Hodgeman 1 0.23% 1 0.18% 0.05%
Jackson 13 0.39% 18 0.52% -0.12%
Jefferson 15 0.35% 24 0.58% -0.23%
Jewell 3 0.64% 4 0.83% -0.19%
Johnson 229 0.17% 231 0.17% 0.00%
Kearny 5 0.39% 2 0.18% 0.21%
Kingman 9 0.50% 11 0.65% -0.15%
Kiowa 2 0.39% 2 0.38% 0.01%
Labette 68 1.31% 54 1.04% 0.27%
Lane 2 0.68% 0 0.00% 0.68%
Leavenworth 83 0.45% 97 0.53% -0.08%
Lincoln 8 1.24% 3 0.47% 0.77%
Linn 12 0.53% 19 0.86% -0.33%
Logan 4 0.82% 3 0.62% 0.20%
Lyon 70 0.81% 84 0.97% -0.16%
Marion 13 0.51% 20 0.74% -0.23%
Marshall 13 0.63% 16 0.78% -0.14%
McPherson 26 0.40% 44 0.68% -0.28%
Meade 5 0.39% 1 0.11% 0.27%
Miami 57 0.71% 28 0.35% 0.37%
Mitchell 12 0.93% 10 0.80% 0.13%
Montgomery 45 0.57% 90 1.13% -0.57%
Morris 13 1.07% 8 0.67% 0.39%
Morton 4 0.48% 0 0.00% 0.48%
Nemaha 7 0.26% 8 0.33% -0.07%
Neosho 34 0.90% 34 0.90% 0.00%
Ness 1 0.19% 2 0.44% -0.25%
Norton 5 0.47% 17 1.58% -1.11%
Osage 18 0.45% 23 0.59% -0.14%
Osborne 3 0.44% 5 0.67% -0.23%
Ottawa 5 0.37% 7 0.53% -0.16%
Pawnee 13 0.95% 22 1.59% -0.64%
Phillips 8 0.76% 7 0.67% 0.09%
Pottawatomie 11 0.20% 15 0.29% -0.08%
Pratt 19 0.94% 17 0.83% 0.11%
Rawlins 1 0.22% 3 0.74% -0.52%
Reno 147 1.02% 138 0.97% 0.06%
Republic 4 0.45% 9 1.11% -0.66%
Rice 18 0.80% 18 0.81% -0.01%

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
Appendix B
County
PREDICTED
Riley 54 0.39% 0 0.00% 0.39%
Rooks 6 0.54% 8 0.73% -0.19%
Rush 5 0.78% 3 0.49% 0.29%
Russell 12 0.90% 15 1.10% -0.20%
Saline 48 0.35% 92 0.68% -0.32%
Scott 1 0.06% 3 0.27% -0.21%
Sedgwick 657 0.50% 682 0.52% -0.02%
Seward 39 0.51% 25 0.33% 0.18%
Shawnee 400 0.94% 294 0.69% 0.25%
Sheridan 1 0.20% 2 0.33% -0.14%
Sherman 6 0.49% 13 1.07% -0.58%
Smith 7 1.06% 6 0.82% 0.24%
Stafford 6 0.60% 6 0.61% -0.01%
Stanton 1 0.12% 0 0.00% 0.12%
Stevens 2 0.13% 2 0.13% 0.01%
Sumner 72 1.23% 39 0.66% 0.57%
Thomas 12 0.70% 8 0.45% 0.25%
Trego 3 0.46% 2 0.40% 0.06%
Wabaunsee 4 0.26% 7 0.44% -0.19%
Wallace 1 0.20% 0 0.00% 0.20%
Washington 3 0.27% 7 0.59% -0.33%
Wichita 4 0.64% 0 0.00% 0.64%
Wilson 13 0.57% 18 0.83% -0.26%
Woodson 4 0.70% 7 1.26% -0.57%
Wyandotte 274 0.62% 281 0.64% -0.02%
(a) Percentage difference between actual and predicted removal rates may not equal due to rounding.
Source: LPA analysis of removal data.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
APPENDIX C
Agency Responses
On August 5, we provided copies of the draft audit report to the Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services and to the Office of the District Attorney in Sedgwick County. Both
responses are included in this Appendix. Based on their responses, we made some minor
changes to information provided in the overview of the report and to Question 1 which didn’t
affect our overall findings and conclusions.
The response from the Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office raised several issues that
we wanted to comment on. Each of those is addressed below:
1. The District Attorney’s response suggested that our comparison in several jurisdictions of
applications for an order of protective custody (generally prepared by social workers) and
child-in-need-of-care petitions (generally prepared by district or county attorneys) was not
a good use of our time, and that we may not have understood the differences between these
two documents. We disagree. Our purpose in comparing these documents for 10 cases
each in three large counties was to look for any major differences in the facts presented in
them. Had we seen such differences (which we didn’t), we would have followed up with
the social workers and attorneys involved to determine why they existed, and whether
they represented a problem with important factual data being intentionally included or
excluded. That was the primary concern addressed by this audit.
2. The District Attorney’s response pointed out that we did not take them up on an offer
observe the processes involved in child-in-need-of-care hearings. Within the timeframe
for this audit, we thought that other activities would be more useful in helping us address
the issues related to whether social workers were being unduly influenced, whether they
were well trained, and whether they were employed in sufficient numbers to handle
caseloads.
3. In its response, the District Attorney’s Office indicated the data presented on pages 15 and
16 of the report show that social workers and prosecutors are in general agreement about
the decision to remove a child in 97-99% of all cases filed. However, the 1% to 3% of
cases mentioned at the bottom of page 15 represent only the most severe disagreements
where the social worker essentially declined to complete an application for a petition.
Further, the proportion was an estimate provided by officials from the District Attorney’s
Office, and doesn’t mean social workers agreed with the decision to remove the child in
the remaining 97% to 99% of all cases. As shown in the chart on page 13 of the report, 15
of the social workers in Wichita who responded to our survey (63%) said they occasionally
have strong disagreements with the District Attorney’s Office over the handling of a case;
3 workers (12%) said they frequently or always had strong disagreements.
4. In its response, the District Attorney’s Office cited a number of legitimate reasons why
social workers and attorneys may disagree about a case, and states that “to infer that these
legitimate disagreements are tantamount to misconduct by one side is inappropriate.” We
just want to clarify for the reader that our report does not make this inference in any way.
5. The District Attorney’s response correctly reports that we initially intended to either
survey or conduct focus groups with prosecutors, but later decided not to. Instead, we

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
decided to interview various judges and attorneys in all four large urban counties. They
told us disagreements were inevitable because of differing perspectives; some even
suggested such disagreements were healthy and necessary for the system to work. The
results of our interviews are summarized in the report.
6. The District Attorney’s response noted that our survey of social workers did not establish
a time reference for questions regarding pressure to include or exclude facts they believed
distorted the circumstances of the case. That’s true. In preparing our survey, we didn’t
anticipate that some social workers might respond to situations that had occurred in
the distant past, and we agree it would have been preferable to include a timeframe.
However, it’s still important to note that one social worker from Sedgwick County
who said they had felt pressure to include or exclude facts they thought distorted the
circumstances of the case had been working in that role for less than two years.
7. The District Attorney’s Office indicated it would be more meaningful to present the raw
survey numbers in the report graphics, not just percentages. We agree, and we’ve added
those numbers to the figures in Question 1 of the report.

09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009
09PA02 AUGUST 2009

Kansas Foster Care Performance Audit 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kansas Foster Care Performance Audit 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT

Children In Need Of Care: Reviewing Selected

A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee

The Legislative Post Audit Committee is a LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT

DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA FOR

LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT

August 21, 2009

To: Members, Legislative Post Audit Committee

Representative Virgil Peck Jr., Chair Senator Terry Bruce, Vice-Chair

This report contains the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from

The report includes several recommendations for the Department

The Big Picture The Details

Located at the end of the

Table of Contents, Lets the reader quickly Highlight interesting

Legislative Division of Post Audit

A Limited Review of Documents From Several Jurisdictions Didn’t Reveal Anything

Question 1 Conclusion. . ........................................................................................................... page 18

Question 2 Conclusion. . ........................................................................................................... page 27

Question 3 Conclusion. . ........................................................................................................... page 38

Despite the Secretary’s retraction, legislators have continued to hear

1. Have social workers been unduly influenced by attorneys

To answer the first question, we interviewed various SRS officials and

For the second question, we determined the types of training SRS

For the last question, we analyzed SRS caseload, vacancy, and

A copy of the scope statement the Legislative Post Audit Committee

Generally accepted government auditing standards require that we

Specifically, because of time constraints, we conducted only limited

Based on these preliminary tests, we need to make the reader aware of

 Caseloads are self-reported by each SRS region, and we found

2 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT

 Removal rates are based on data SRS collects as part of the

Our findings begin on page 9, following a brief overview of the child-

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 3

Strategic Integrated Service Capital Disability & Behavioral

Child Support Rehabilitation Economic and Children & Family Field

The Children and Family Services Program has approximately 370

4 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT

SRS’ social workers are assigned to six geographic regions in the

Greeley Wichita Franklin

Hamilton Finney Hodgeman

Gray South Woodson

Morton Stevens Meade

Source: SRS Website Wichita

being physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually abused

being physically, mentally or emotionally neglected

residing in the same residence with another person under 18 who

being placed for care or adoption in violation of the law

being abandoned or not having a known living parent

not attending school as required by State law

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 5

being willfully or voluntarily absent at least a second time from a court-

being younger than 10 and having had criminal possession of a firearm

being younger than 10 and committing a felony or misdemeanor

has permanent custodian who is no longer able to serve

The process for declaring a child to be “in need of care”

Depending on when the report is called in and the circumstances

Regardless of whether law enforcement or SRS responds to the

6 PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT

INITIAL COMPLAINT RECEIVED

SRS works with family to

Child taken into Police

SRS investigates the situation and conducts interviews with

District or County Attorney’s Office files a

Based on a finding of probable cause that the child may be in