Child Welfare
Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters
Gao ID: GAO-06-944 July 28, 2006
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 48 federally declared disasters in 2005. Two of these disasters--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands of children in Louisiana's foster care system to 19 states. As a result, there has been growing interest in the extent to which states have developed strategies to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersion of children in the child welfare system. Congress asked us to conduct a study of the challenges facing state child welfare systems, including the development of plans for dealing with the dispersion of children in the child welfare system due to disasters. This report addresses state child welfare disaster planning. Specifically, we are providing information on (1) the number of states that have statewide child welfare disaster plans and the primary components of those plans, (2) the extent to which states that experienced federally declared disasters in 2005 also had child welfare disaster plans, and (3) how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports states' efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans.
On June 26, 2006, we briefed Congressional staff on the results of our study of state child welfare disaster planning. This report formally conveys the information provided during that briefing. In summary, we found that twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a written child welfare disaster plan. However, the plans varied in the extent to which they included selected child welfare program components, such as identifying children under state care who may be dispersed. Specifically, nineteen state plans addressed preserving child welfare records, thirteen state plans addressed identifying children who may be dispersed, eleven state plans addressed identifying new child welfare cases and providing services, ten state plans addressed coordinating services and sharing information with other states, and six state plans addressed placing children from other states. Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally declared disaster in 2005, 8 reported having a written child welfare disaster plan. While HHS does not have the authority to require states to develop child welfare disaster plans, it has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster plans by issuing guidance in 1995 and funding technical assistance on disaster planning through its network of national resource centers. The guidance generally does not address the potential dispersion of children and families in a disaster. In addition, child welfare officials reported that additional disaster planning assistance from the federal government would be helpful, including information or training on how to develop a disaster plan and what to include.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-06-944, Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-944
entitled 'Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have
Plans to Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by
Disasters' which was released on July 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2006:
Child Welfare:
Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to Safeguard Children
in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters:
Child Welfare:
GAO-06-944:
Contents:
Letter:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Comments from the Administration for Children and Families and Our
Evaluation:
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning Presentation:
Appendix II: Components of State Disaster Plans:
Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters in 2005:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Appendix VI: Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: States Reporting Having Disaster Plans:
Table 2: States Not Reporting Having Disaster Plans:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 28, 2006:
The Honorable Jim McDermott:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 48
federally declared disasters in 2005. Two of these disasters--
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--resulted in a prolonged interruption of
child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands of children in
Louisiana's foster care system to 19 states. As a result, there has
been growing interest in the extent to which states have developed
strategies to cope with disasters that could result in the dispersion
of children in the child welfare system.
You asked us to conduct a study of the challenges facing state child
welfare systems, including the development of plans for dealing with
the dispersion of children in the child welfare system due to
disasters. This report addresses state child welfare disaster planning.
Specifically, we are providing information on (1) the number of states
that have statewide child welfare disaster plans and the primary
components of those plans, (2) the extent to which states that
experienced federally declared disasters in 2005 also had child welfare
disaster plans, and (3) how the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) supports states' efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans.
We used multiple data collection methods, as part of the broader study,
to obtain this information. First, we surveyed state child welfare
directors in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to
obtain information on the strategies that they developed to cope with
disasters that could result in the dispersion of children. Second, we
interviewed child welfare officials in five states: California, New
York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah. These states were selected for
variance in program administration (state administered, state-
supervised/county-administered, state and county administered), the
predominance of urban or rural characteristics, the achievement of
child welfare standards on HHS's Child and Family Services Review,
changes in the number of children reported to be in foster care; and
geographic location. In addition, we interviewed federal child welfare
officials and representatives from national child welfare organizations
concerning the strategies that states had developed. Finally, we
analyzed agency documentation, legislation, and other material related
to child welfare programs and requirements. We conducted our work
between October 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
On June 26, 2006, we briefed your staff on the results of our study of
state child welfare disaster planning. This report formally conveys the
information provided during that briefing. In summary, we found that:
* Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a
written child welfare disaster plan. However, the plans varied in the
extent to which they included selected child welfare program
components, such as identifying children under state care who may be
dispersed. Specifically:
* nineteen state plans addressed preserving child welfare records,
* thirteen state plans addressed identifying children who may be
dispersed,
* eleven state plans addressed identifying new child welfare cases and
providing services,
* ten state plans addressed coordinating services and sharing
information with other states, and:
* six state plans addressed placing children from other states.
* Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally
declared disaster in 2005, 8 reported having a written child welfare
disaster plan.
* While HHS does not have the authority to require states to develop
child welfare disaster plans, it has assisted states in developing
child welfare disaster plans by issuing guidance in 1995 and funding
technical assistance on disaster planning through its network of
national resource centers. The guidance generally does not address the
potential dispersion of children and families in a disaster. In
addition, child welfare officials reported that additional disaster
planning assistance from the federal government would be helpful,
including information or training on how to develop a disaster plan and
what to include.
HHS is planning several actions with regard to child welfare disaster
planning. First, the department plans to hold a child welfare disaster
planning conference for states in August 2006. Second, HHS is updating
its 1995 disaster planning guidance for release at the conference.
Finally, the department has asked states to voluntarily submit copies
of their disaster plans for review by December 2006. However, it is
unclear how much these efforts will address the potential dispersion of
children and families in a disaster.
Conclusions:
In the absence of federal requirements that states develop child
welfare disaster plans, many states have not done so. In addition,
states that have developed disaster plans do not always address the
dispersion of children and families. The lack of plans for dealing with
the dispersion of children may result in confusion at a time when
families are under strain and need services most. Without minimum
requirements on what states should include in their child welfare
disaster plans, some states may be unable to ensure the continuity of
services within and across state lines for the children under their
care.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To ensure continuity of services within or across state lines for the
children under state care, Congress should consider requiring that
states develop and submit child welfare disaster plans for HHS review.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we
are recommending that the Secretary of Health and Human Services ensure
that the department's child welfare disaster planning guidance address
the dispersion of children and families within and across state lines.
This guidance should include information on:
* preserving child welfare records,
* identifying children who may be dispersed,
* identifying new child welfare cases and providing services,
* coordinating services and sharing information with other states, and:
* placing children from other states.
Finally, we are recommending that the Secretary develop and provide
training on child welfare disaster planning to all states.
Comments from the Administration for Children and Families and Our
Evaluation:
HHS's Administration for Children and Families provided written
comments on a draft of this report; these comments appear in appendix
IV. Regarding our recommendations that HHS ensure that the department's
guidance and training to states on child welfare disaster planning
address the dispersion of children and families, ACF stated that it has
taken action to update the guidance and provide training to states and
will encourage them to develop and submit disaster plans for review.
ACF also requested that the report be modified to clarify that the
focus of this report is on programmatic Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP)
rather than on information technology DRPs. ACF stated that states have
information technology-related DRPs for their automated systems and
those plans address the need for preserving essential information
recorded in the electronic case records. We clarified this point in the
report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, relevant congressional committees, and other interested
parties and will make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Key
contributors may be found on the last page of the report.
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning Presentation:
Child Welfare Disaster Planning:
Briefing for Representative Jim McDermott, Ranking Member Subcommittee
on Human Resources House Committee on Ways and Means:
June 2006:
Introduction:
Two 2005 disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in a prolonged
interruption of child welfare services and the dispersion of thousands
of Louisiana's child welfare children to 19 states.
There has been growing interest in the extent to which states have
developed strategies to cope with disasters that could result in the
dispersal of children in the child welfare system.
Objectives:
Our objectives were to determine:
Q1: How many states have statewide child welfare disaster plans and
what are the primary components of those plans?
Q2: To what extent do the states that experienced federally declared
disasters in 2005 also have child welfare disaster plans?
Q3: How does the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) support
states' efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans?
Scope and Methodology:
To attain our objectives, we:
Surveyed state child welfare officials in 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Thirty-seven states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico responded to the questions on disaster
planning.
Interviewed child welfare officials in five states: California, New
York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
Interviewed federal child welfare officials and reviewed agency
documentation.
We conducted our work between October 2005 and June 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Summary of Results:
We found that:
Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a
written child welfare disaster plan. However, the plans varied in the
extent to which they addressed selected child welfare program
components, such as identifying children under state care who may be
dispersed.
Eight of the 29 states, plus Puerto Rico, that experienced a federally
declared disaster in 2005 reported having a written child welfare
disaster plan.
HHS has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster plans by
issuing guidance and funding technical assistance on disaster planning
through its network of national resource centers. The guidance,
however, generally does not address the potential dispersion of
children and families in a disaster.
Background:
Child welfare programs are intended to prevent child abuse and neglect
and to protect and improve the lives of children who have experienced
maltreatment.
HHS's Children's Bureau of the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) establishes policy, oversees states' child welfare programs, and
provides technical assistance to states primarily through its national
resource centers (NRC).
State or local child welfare agencies administer the programs and
monitor the children and their families.
In order to receive federal child welfare funds, states must meet a set
of program requirements that are described in their 5-year Child and
Family Services Plans.
There are no federal requirements for states to develop plans that
address the needs of children during disasters. However, states are
required to have disaster recovery plans (DRPs) for their automated
systems and according to HHS, states have developed information
technology DRPs that address the need for preserving essential
information recorded in electronic case records.
In 2005, 29 states and Puerto Rico experienced federally declared
disasters.
Severe storms and flooding were the most commonly experienced types of
disaster.
A disaster can affect states that do not directly experience the
disaster when they receive children evacuated from states experiencing
the disaster.
Research Question 1:
How many states have statewide child welfare disaster plans and what
are the primary components of those plans?
Q1: Status of State Disaster Plans:
In a GAO survey of state child welfare officials in the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico:
Twenty states and the District of Columbia responded that they had a
written child welfare disaster plan.
Seventeen states and Puerto Rico responded that they did not have a
written child welfare disaster plan.
Eleven states did not respond to the disaster planning questions in the
GAO child welfare survey.
Two states did not respond to the survey.
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems
challenges.
Note: In this slide the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are
considered states.
[End of Figure]
Q1: States Reporting Not Having a Plan or Not Responding:
States reporting not having a plan:
Alaska:
Minnesota:
Arizona:
Mississippi:
California:
Missouri:
Delaware:
New Hampshire:
Florida:
New Mexico:
Hawaii:
Ohio:
Indiana:
Puerto Rico:
Maryland:
Vermont:
Michigan:
West Virginia.
States not responding to disaster planning questions:
Colorado:
New York:
Connecticut:
Oklahoma:
Kentucky:
Pennsylvania:
Louisiana:
South Dakota:
Maine:
Wyoming:
New Jersey.
States not responding to survey:
Massachusetts:
Nebraska:
Q1: Selected Child Welfare Program Components:
GAO surveyed state child welfare officials in 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico on whether their states child welfare
disaster plan addressed each of the following selected program
components:
identifying children under state care who may be dispersed,
identifying caseworkers who may be dispersed,
continuing services for children under state care who may be dispersed,
coordinating services and sharing information with intrastate agencies,
coordinating services and sharing information with other states,
placing children from other states,
providing in-home family services to children from other states,
identifying new child welfare cases and providing appropriate services,
and:
preserving essential case information, electronic and documentary.
The 21 existing child welfare disaster plans varied in the extent to
which they addressed selected child welfare program elements.
For example, 3 states Illinois, Montana, and Washington addressed all
of the selected child welfare program elements.
Q1: Program Components Addressed by State Disaster Plans:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems
challenges. 17.
[End of figure]
Research Question 2:
To what extent do the states that experienced federally declared
disasters in 2005 also have child welfare disaster plans?
Q2: Comparison of States With Disasters And Existing Disaster Plans:
Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally declared
disaster in 2005:
Eight states reported having written child welfare disaster plans.
Ten states and Puerto Rico reported that they did not have a written
child welfare disaster plan.
Nine states did not respond to the disaster planning questions
contained in the GAO survey.
Two states did not respond to the GAO survey.
Q2: Disaster Plan Status for States with Federally Declared Disasters
in 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems
challenges.
[A] Massachusetts and Nebraska had disasters but did not respond to the
GAO survey.
[End of figure]
Research Question 3:
How does the Department of Health and Human Services support states'
efforts to develop child welfare disaster plans?
Q3: HHS Efforts To Assist States In Developing Disaster Plans:
HHS has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster plans by:
providing disaster planning guidance to states in 1995;
disseminating disaster planning guidance though the National Resource
Centers for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning, and on
Legal and Judicial Issues Web sites; and:
providing $2.8 million to eight National Resource Centers to help
states with disaster planning.
Q3: HHS Disaster Planning Guidance Is Limited:
Federal disaster planning guidance generally does not address:
identifying children who may be dispersed,
preserving child welfare records,
coordinating services and sharing information with other states,
placing children from other states, and:
identifying new child welfare cases and providing services.
Q3: Additional Federal Assistance On Disaster Planning Would Be
Helpful:
Child welfare officials reported that additional disaster planning
assistance from the federal government would be helpful, including:
information on disaster planning requirements or criteria,
training on how to develop a disaster plan,
examples of good disaster plans, and:
forums for exchanging disaster planning information with other states.
HHS's Child Welfare Disaster Planning Initiatives:
HHS initiatives to improve state child welfare disaster planning
include:
planning a child welfare disaster planning conference for states in
August 2006,
updating its 1995 disaster planning guidance for release at the
conference, and:
asking states to voluntarily submit copies of their disaster plans for
review by December 2006.
Conclusions:
In the absence of federal requirements that states develop disaster
plans, many states have not done so.
Without disaster plans, these states may be unprepared to provide
continuity of services for children and families who have been
dispersed to or from other counties in the state or across state lines.
States that have developed disaster plans do not always address the
dispersal of child welfare children and families, and the lack of
dispersal plans may result in confusion at a time when families are
under strain and need services most.
Without minimum requirements on what states should include in their
child welfare disaster plans, some states may be unable to ensure
continuity of services within or across state lines for the children
under their care.
*For example, of Louisiana's 5,000 foster children, close to 2,000 were
displaced by Hurricane Katrina. During that time, child welfare
officials did not have current emergency contact information, which
made it hard for them to find the foster families that had to evacuate.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To ensure continuity of services within or across state lines for the
children under state care, the Congress should consider requiring that
states develop and submit child welfare disaster plans for HHS review.
Recommendations:
To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we
recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:
ensure that the Department's disaster planning guidance address the
dispersion of children and families within and across state lines,
including steps for:
* identifying children who may be dispersed,
* preserving child welfare records,
* coordinating services and sharing information with other states,
* placing children from other states, and:
* identifying new child welfare cases and providing services.
develop and provide training to states on child welfare disaster
planning.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Components of State Disaster Plans:
State: Alabama;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: Arkansas;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: Georgia;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Iowa;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Idaho;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Illinois;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: X;
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: X;
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Kansas;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: Montana;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: X;
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: X;
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Nevada;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: North Carolina;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: X;
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: North Dakota;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Oregon;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Rhode Island;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: Tennessee;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: Texas;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: X;
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: X;
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
State: Utah;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Virginia;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: X;
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: X;
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Washington;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: X;
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: X;
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: X;
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: X;
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: X.
State: Wisconsin;
State Plan Components: Identify children who may be dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify caseworkers who may be dispersed:
[Empty];
State Plan Components: Continue services to children who may be
dispersed: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Preserve essential case information: X;
State Plan Components: Coordinate services within state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Coordinate services outside state: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Place children from other states: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Provide in-home family services: [Empty];
State Plan Components: Identify new child welfare cases: [Empty].
Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems
challenges.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters in 2005:
Table 1: States Reporting Having Disaster Plans:
State: Alabama;
Type of disaster: Hurricane Dennis; Hurricane Katrina;
Month: July; August.
State: Idaho;
Type of disaster: Heavy rains, flooding;
Month: July.
State: Kansas;
Type of disaster: Severe winter storms, heavy rains, flooding; Severe
storms, flooding; Severe storms, flooding;
Month: February; August; November.
State: Nevada;
Type of disaster: Heavy rains, flooding;
Month: March.
State: North Carolina;
Type of disaster: Hurricane Ophelia;
Month: October.
State: North Dakota;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding, ground saturation; Severe
winter storms and record/near-record snow;
Month: July; November.
State: Texas;
Type of disaster: Hurricane Rita;
Month: September.
State: Utah;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding; Flood, landslide;
Month: February; August.
Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005
federally declared disaster data at [Hyperlink,
http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005].
[End of table]
Table 2: States Not Reporting Having Disaster Plans:
State: Alaska;
Type of disaster: Severe winter storm; Severe fall storm, tidal surges,
flooding;
Month: March; December.
State: Arizona;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding; Severe storms, flooding;
Month: February; April.
State: California;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding, debris flows, mudslides;
Severe storms, flooding, landslides, mud and debris flows;
Month: February; April.
State: Connecticut;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: December.
State: Florida;
Type of disaster: Hurricane Dennis; Hurricane Katrina; Hurricane Wilma;
Month: July; August; October.
State: Hawaii;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flash flooding;
Month: February.
State: Indiana;
Type of disaster: Severe winter storms, flooding; Tornado, severe
storms;
Month: January; November.
State: Kentucky;
Type of disaster: Severe winter storm, record snow; Severe storms,
tornadoes;
Month: February; December.
State: Louisiana;
Type of disaster: Tropical storm Cindy; Hurricane Katrina; Hurricane
Rita;
Month: August; August; September.
State: Maine;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding, snow jams, ice melts;
Month: June.
State: Massachusetts;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: November.
State: Mississippi;
Type of disaster: Hurricane Dennis; Hurricane Katrina;
Month: July; August.
State: New Hampshire;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: October.
State: Nebraska;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: June.
State: New Jersey;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: April.
State: New York;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: April.
State: Ohio;
Type of disaster: Severe winter storms, flooding, mudslides;
Month: February.
State: Pennsylvania;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding;
Month: April.
State: Puerto Rico;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding, landslides, mudslides;
Month: November.
State: South Dakota;
Type of disaster: Severe storm; Severe winter storm;
Month: July; December.
State: West Virginia;
Type of disaster: Severe storms, flooding, landslides;
Month: February.
State: Wyoming;
Type of disaster: Tornado;
Month: August.
Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005
federally declared disaster data at [Hyperlink,
http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005].
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Jul 21 2006:
Ms. Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, And Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ashby:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "CHILD WELFARE:
Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to Safeguard Children
in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters" (GAO-06-944),
before its publication. These comments represent the tentative position
of the Department and are subject to reevaluation when the final
version of this report is received.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on
them.
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The U.S.
Government Accountability Office's Draft Report Entitled "Child
Welfare: Federal Action Needed To Ensure States Have Plans To Safeguard
Children In The Child Welfare System Displaced By Disasters" (GAO-06-
944):
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report, which addresses the need for States to have in
place disaster plans that address child welfare system issues.
GAO Recommendations:
To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we
are recommending that the Secretary of Health and Human Services ensure
that the department's child welfare disaster planning guidance address
the dispersion of children and families within and across state lines.
This guidance should include information on:
* preserving child welfare records,
* identifying children who may be dispersed,
* identifying new child welfare cases and providing services:
* coordinating services and sharing information with other states, and:
* placing children from other states.
Finally, we are recommending that the Secretary develop and provide
training on child welfare disaster planning to all states.
HHS Comments:
This report provides an overview of the status of child welfare
disaster planning by States. GAO's major concern appears to be that
many States do not have child welfare disaster plans in place, and when
they do, the plans do not always address the dispersion of children and
families that can occur. GAO concluded that, in the absence of Federal
requirements that States develop child welfare disaster plans, many
States have not done so.
The report identifies a number of actions that HHS is taking to assist
States with child welfare disaster planning, including convening a
national conference on this issue in August 2006, updating the 1995
guide for child welfare disaster planning, and providing training and
technical assistance through the network of national resource centers.
In addition, HHS is asking its regional offices to work with States to
voluntarily submit their disaster plans for review.
As the report notes, there is no Federal requirement that States
develop child welfare disaster plans. Therefore, the Administration for
Children and Families (ACF) is encouraging States to address this issue
through training and technical assistance. The 1995 child welfare
disaster planning guide is being updated and the information GAO
recommends has already been included in the revision. Training on
disaster planning is being provided to all States, both at the national
child welfare disaster summit being held in August 2006 and through the
network of national child welfare resource centers. ACF's regional
offices are working with States to encourage the development of child
welfare disaster plans and to submit those plans for review.
The report and letter should be modified to clearly indicate that the
focus of the review is on programmatic Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP)
rather than on information technology DRPs. ACF maintains that States
have information technology-related DRPs for their automated systems
and those plans do, in fact, address the need for preserving essential
information recorded in the electronic case record.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cornelia M. Ashby, (202)512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director) and Arthur T. Merriam Jr. (Analyst-in-
Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Wayne Sylvia, Mark E.
Ward, Christopher T. Langford, and Kathleen Boggs made significant
contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work. In addition,
Carolyn Boyce provided technical support, James Rebbe provided legal
support, and Charles Willson assisted in the message and report
development.
[End of section]
Appendix VI Related GAO Products:
Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf
Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-680R, Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina: GAO's Preliminary Observations Regarding
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, GAO-06-442T, Washington, D.C.:
March 8, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provisions of Charitable Assistance, GAO-
06-297T, Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2005.
September 11: More Effective Collaboration Could Enhance Charitable
Organizations' Contributions in Disasters, GAO-03-259, Washington,
D.C.: December 19, 2002.
Disaster Management: Improving the Nation's Response to Catastrophic
Disasters, RCED-93-186, Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1993.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: