Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 55

M.D., bnf Stuckenberg, et al. v. Abbott, et al.

Compliance Status Report

January 2022
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 55
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 55

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2
DFPS Performance Summary – Fiscal Year 2021 and January – June 2021................................... 3
Screening, Intake and Investigation of Maltreatment in Care Allegations .............................. 3
Organizational Capacity .................................................................................................................. 6
Screening, Intake and Investigation of Maltreatment in Care Allegations ........................................ 8
Remedial Order 3 .................................................................................................................................. 8
Statewide Intake ............................................................................................................................... 8
Residential Child Care Investigations ......................................................................................... 11
Timeliness of RCC Investigations: Remedial Orders 5 Through 11; 16 and 18 ......................... 21
Remedial Orders 5 and 6: Timely Investigation Initiations ..................................................... 21
Remedial Orders 7 and 8: Timely Face-to-Face Contact .......................................................... 23
Remedial Order 9: Tracking and Reporting on Timely Face-to-Face Contact ...................... 25
Remedial Order 10: Timely Investigation Completions .......................................................... 25
Remedial Order 11: Tracking and Reporting on Timely Investigation Completions .......... 28
Remedial Order 16: Timely Investigation Documentation ...................................................... 29
Remedial Order 18: Timely Notification Letters ....................................................................... 29
Remedial Order A6: Points of Contact for Reporting ................................................................... 31
Remedial Order B5: Caseworker Notification of Abuse/Neglect Allegations ........................... 33
Remedial Order 37: Home History Reviews .................................................................................. 35
Organizational Capacity ......................................................................................................................... 38
Remedial Order 1: CPS Professional Development Training ...................................................... 38
Remedial Order 2: Graduated Caseloads ....................................................................................... 39
Remedial Orders 35 and A-1 through A-4: CPS CVS Caseworker Caseloads ........................... 42
Remedial Orders B-1 through B-4: RCCI Investigator Caseloads ............................................... 48

i
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 55

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Statewide Intake Calls, FY 2019 – FY 2021 ............................................................................. 9
Figure 2. Statewide Intake Calls by Month, FY 2021........................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Statewide Intake Call Types, FY 2021 ................................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Intakes Reclassified to PN, FY 2021 – FYTD 2022 ............................................................... 13
Figure 5. RCCI Monthly Intakes vs. Open Investigations, FY 2019 – FYTD 2022........................... 13
Figure 6. RCCI Annual Intakes vs. Opened Investigations, FY 2019 – FY 2021 .............................. 14
Figure 7. RCCI FTEs: Filled vs. Case Carrying Positions, FY 2019 – FY 2021................................. 15
Figure 8. RCCI Timely Investigation Initiation by Priority Level, FY 2021 ..................................... 22
Figure 9. RCCI Timely Priority 1 Initiations, FY 2021......................................................................... 22
Figure 10. RCCI Timely Priority 2 Initiations, FY 2021....................................................................... 23
Figure 11. RCCI Timely Face-to-Face Contact by Priority Level, FY 2021 ....................................... 24
Figure 12. RCCI Timely Priority 1 Face-to-Face Contact, FY 2021 .................................................... 24
Figure 13. RCCI Timely Priority 2 Face-to-Face Contact, FY 2021 .................................................... 25
Figure 14. Timeliness of RCCI Investigations Closed, FY 2021 ......................................................... 26
Figure 15. RCCI Monthly Count of Open vs. Delinquent Investigations, FY 2019 – FY 2021....... 27
Figure 16. RCCI Notifications Sent within Five Days of Investigation Closure, FY 2021.............. 30
Figure 17. RCCI Notifications Sent to Reporter within Five Days of Investigation Closure, FY
2021 ............................................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 18. RCCI Notifications Sent to Provider within Five Days of Investigation Closure, FY
2021 ............................................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 19. Intakes with Notice within 24 Hours, FY 2021 .................................................................. 34
Figure 20. DFPS Core Professional Development Completion – Caseworkers Hired Jan. 1, 2021 –
July 31, 2021 .............................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 21. DFPS Graduated Caseloads within Guidelines, FY 2021................................................ 41
Figure 22. SSCC Graduated Caseloads within Guidelines, FY 2021................................................. 41
Figure 23. CPS Conservatorship Caseloads, FY 2019 – FY 2021 ........................................................ 44
Figure 24. CPS Conservatorship Caseloads by Month, FY 2021 ....................................................... 45
Figure 25. Child Only Caseloads – All Staff (DFPS and SSCC), FY 2021 ......................................... 45
Figure 26. Child Only Caseloads – DFPS, FY 2021 .............................................................................. 46
Figure 27. Child Only Caseloads – SSCC, FY 2021 .............................................................................. 46
Figure 28. Percentage of Caseworkers with More Than 17 SUB Stages, by Day, May – October
2021 ............................................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 29. RCCI Average Daily Caseload, FY 2019 – FY 2021 ........................................................... 50
Figure 30. RCCI Staff with 17 or Fewer Investigations, FY 2021 ....................................................... 51
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 55

Table of Tables
Table 1. Statewide Intake Priority Designations .................................................................................. 12
Table 2. RCCI Administrative Reviews of Investigation Findings, FY 2019 – FY 2021 ................. 19
Table 3. CPS CVS Quality Assurance Case Reads – Rights Document, FY 2021 ............................ 32
Table 4. CPS CS Quality Assurance Case Reads – Home History Reviews, FY 2021..................... 37
Table 5. RCCI Average Daily Caseload, FY 2020 – FYTD 2022 ......................................................... 49
Table 6. Monthly RCCI Investigator Caseloads, January – June 2021 .............................................. 50

1
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 55

Executive Summary
In March 2011, a New York-based national advocacy group filed a federal class-action lawsuit
against the Governor of Texas, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, and the Texas
Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) asserting substantive due process claims
on behalf of approximately 12,000 children in the Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC)
of DFPS. The case is currently before Judge Janice Graham Jack of the Corpus Christi Division in
the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas. A trial on the merits was held in
December 2014. In December 2015, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and in
January 2018, the district court entered a final order including an injunction against Texas. Texas
appealed to the United States Fifth Circuit of Appeals and in October 2018, the Fifth Circuit issued
an opinion upholding some provisions and modifying others. The District Court modified its
final injunction in November 2018 and upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in July
2019, overturning certain parts and upholding other parts of the district court’s final injunction.
The final injunction went into effect in July 2019. Since that time, a court-appointed monitoring
team has been assessing the Defendants’ compliance with the provisions of the district court’s
final injunction.

The court-appointed monitoring team grouped the Court’s upheld remedial orders into five
categories: General; Screening, Intake and Investigation of Maltreatment in Care Allegations;
Organizational Capacity; Preventing Child-on-Child Sexual Aggression; and Regulatory
Monitoring & Oversight of Licensed Placements. This report discusses DFPS’ performance
concerning all remedial orders relating to Demographics, Screening, Intake and Investigations
(Remedial Orders 3, 5-11, 16, 18, A6, B5 and 37) and Organizational Capacity (Remedial Orders
1, 2, 35, A-1 through A-4, and B1 to B4). Subsequent DFPS compliance status reports will address
the department’s performance as to the remaining remedial orders not discussed herein.

Throughout this report, the data reporting periods by which DFPS evaluated certain performance
metrics include state fiscal years (mainly fiscal year 2021 aggregate and monthly data) and state
fiscal year quarterly reporting cycles. DFPS understands the Monitors’ methodologies to evaluate
the department’s performance may include different data reporting periods (e.g., five- and six-
month reporting cycles, one-month snapshots). However, the data reporting periods within this
report include both snapshots and data reporting periods that are consistent with federal and
state requirements DFPS must comply with to provide near real-time trend analysis and year-
over-year comparisons.

As discussed further herein, DFPS has made substantial policy and practice improvements in
compliance with the Court’s remedial orders. However, additional work remains. DFPS
appreciates and looks forward to the Court’s ongoing feedback as we work together to keep
children in care safe and continuously improve service quality.

2
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 55

DFPS Performance Summary – Fiscal Year 2021 and

January – June 2021
Screening, Intake and Investigation of Maltreatment in Care
Allegations

Remedial Order 3 (Screening and Investigating Abuse/Neglect Allegations)

• During FY 2021, Statewide Intake received 599,248 calls reporting suspected
abuse/neglect. Of these, 483,335 calls were handled (81%) and 115,913 calls abandoned
(19%).
• On average, callers waited 4.3 minutes before the call was handled and four minutes
before abandoning the call
• Compared to FY 2019, Statewide Intake received and handled slightly more calls in FY
2021 (1.6% and 2.7%, respectively) and slightly fewer calls abandoned (2.5%).
• Since October 2020, the proportion of intakes reclassified to Priority None (PN) have been
between zero and 6%.
• Between January and June 2021, Statewide Intake received 306,267 calls reporting
suspected abuse/neglect. Of these, 239,384 calls were handled (78%) and 66,883 calls
abandoned (22%). During this same time period, 93% of intakes progressed to
investigation (2,572 of 2,779 intakes).

Remedial Order 5 (Timely P1 Investigation Initiation)

• During FY 2021, 82% of Priority 1 investigations were timely initiated. Since March 2021,
Priority 1 investigation timeliness has predominantly improved, from 72% in March to
92% in August.
• Between January and June 2021, 79% of Priority 1 investigations were timely initiated.

Remedial Order 6 (Timely P2 Investigation Initiation)

• During FY 2021, 87% of Priority 2 investigations were timely initiated. Since March 2021,
Priority 2 investigation timeliness has been between 86% and 91%.
• Between January and June 2021, 86% of Priority 2 investigations were timely initiated.

Remedial Order 7 (Timely P1 Face-to-Face Contact)

• During FY 2021, 85% of Priority 1 investigations had timely face-to-face contact. Since
March 2021, face-to-face contact timeliness in Priority 1 investigations has predominantly
improved, from 77% in March to 94% in August.
• Between January and June 2021, 83% of Priority 1 investigations had timely face-to-face
contacts.

3
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 55

Remedial Order 8 (Timely P2 Face-to-Face Contact)

• During FY 2021, 88% of Priority 2 investigations had timely face-to-face contact. Since
December 2020, face-to-face contact timeliness in Priority 2 investigations has been
between 87% and 92%.
• Between January and June 2021, 88% of Priority 2 investigations had timely face-to-face
contacts.

Remedial Order 9 (Timely P1/P2 Face-to-Face Tracking)

• DFPS submits monthly reports to the Monitors that include indicators for whether each
face-to-face contact was timely or untimely; the date and time of the first face-to-face
contact with the alleged victim (in investigations having one alleged victim); and whether
all initial contacts for all alleged victims were timely (in investigations having more than
one alleged victim).

Remedial Order 10 (Timely P1/P2 Investigation Completions)

• During FY 2021, 66% of closed investigations were completed timely (1,298 out of 1,953
closed investigations).
• Between January and June 2021, 59% of closed investigations were completed timely (710
out of 1,210 closed investigations). During this same time period, the proportion of
delinquent investigations was between 5% and 49%.
• Between April and August 2021 (following the investigation backlog project), 74% of
closed investigations were completed timely. During this same time period, 86% of open
investigations remained timely (i.e., were not in an overdue status).
• In April 2021, only 5% of open investigations were delinquent, a considerable
improvement from a high of 76% delinquent investigations in December 2019.
• Between March and October 2021, between 5% and 20% of RCCI investigations were
delinquent.

Remedial Order 11 (Tracking and Reporting on Timely Investigation

Completions)
• DFPS submits monthly RCCI investigation reports to the Monitors that include indicators
for whether the investigation was completed timely; the date an investigation extension
was approved; the reason an approved extension was requested; and the extension
timeframe.

Remedial Order 16 (Timely P1/P2 Documentation)

• RCCI policy and practice requires all documentation pertaining to the investigation to be
completed by the date the investigation is completed, which is the same date the
investigation is submitted to the supervisor in IMPACT for approval and closure.

4
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 55

Remedial Order 18 (Notifications to Reporter and Provider)

• During FY 2021, 84% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the reporter.
• Between January and June 2021, 80% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the
reporter.
• During FY 2021, 72% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the provider.
• Between January and June 2021, 70% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the
provider.
• Since May 2021, the prevalence of timely notifications sent to the provider has been
between 90% and 94%.

Remedial Order A6 (Points of Contact for Reporting Suspected

Abuse/Neglect)
• The CPS Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care document, which includes contact
information for the Statewide Intake abuse/neglect hotline and the Foster Care
Ombudsman, is provided to all children and youth in CPS foster care. The Rights
document must be signed by the child/youth, caregiver and DFPS staff and be uploaded
to OneCase.
• During FY 2021, 86% of cases the CPS conservatorship (CVS) quality assurance team
reviewed included a signed, uploaded Rights document. Between Q1 FY 2021 and Q4 FY
2021, the prevalence of cases that included a signed, uploaded Rights document improved
by 19%, from 75% in Q1 FY2021 to 94% in Q4 FY 2021.

Remedial Order B5 (Caseworker Notification of Abuse/Neglect Allegations)

• Following deployment of an IMPACT enhancement in October 2021, when a caseworker
receives an alert on his/her workload and clicks on the alert, a pop-up window appears
with a list of intakes involving the child. When the caseworker selects an intake, intake
information displays, reducing the time required for a caseworker to access and assess the
child’s history.
• During FY 2021, 92% of intakes included notice to the child’s caseworker within 24 hours.
• Likewise, between January and June 2021, 92% of intakes included notice to the child’s
caseworker within 24 hours.

Remedial Order 37 (Home History Reviews)

• In January 2021, the process for reviewing a foster home’s history transferred from CPS
to the Statewide Intake division. Current policy requires the entire home history review
process to be completed within 48 hours.
• During FY 2021 Q4,1 in 89% of home history reviews (n=3), a staffing was held and
documented within 48 hours of intake. In 100% of the reviews, the narrative contained a

1FY 2021 Q4 is the first quarter for which performance data is available following the new home history
review completion timelines.

5
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 55

summary of the staffing, and in 88%, the narrative contained details of decisions/actions
taken by the caseworker/supervisor. Finally, in 50% of the reviews, the narrative
contained an accurate summary of the review.

Organizational Capacity

Remedial Order 1 (Core Professional Development Training)

• Among the 435 caseworkers hired between January 1, 2021 and July 31, 2021, 97.3% of
caseworkers required to complete CPD training have completed CPD training (333 out of
342 caseworkers). The remaining 2.7% (9 caseworkers) were pending completion (seven
caseworkers) or were not required to complete CPD training due to leaving DFPS or
transferring to a non-CVS job (two caseworkers).

Remedial Order 2 (Graduated Caseloads)

• During FY 2021, 87% of DFPS caseworkers were within graduated caseload guidelines at
30 days and 96% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60 days.
• Between January and June 2021, 90% of DFPS caseworkers were within graduated
caseload guidelines at 30 days and 96% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60
days.
• During FY 2021, 95% of SSCC caseworkers were within graduated caseload guidelines at
30 days and 96% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60 days.
• Between January and June 2021, 95% of SSCC caseworkers were within graduated
caseload guidelines at 30 days and 95% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60
days.

Remedial Orders 35 and A-1 through A-4 (CPS CVS Caseworker Caseloads)
• Between FY 2019 and FY 2021, CVS caseloads have consistently decreased, from 18.0
children in FY 2019 to 15.6 children in FY 2021.
• Between January and June 2021, CVS caseloads were 15.4 children on average.
• Both during FY 2021 and between January and June 2021, almost 60% of Texas
caseworkers (including both DFPS and SSCC staff) and DFPS-only caseworkers had
caseloads of 17 or fewer children, in accordance with caseload guidelines.
• During FY 2021, SSCC caseworker caseloads experienced more variability, with between
48% and 60% of caseworkers having caseloads of 17 or fewer children.
• Between January and June 2021, 52% of SSCC caseworkers had caseloads of 17 or fewer
children.

6
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 55

Remedial Orders B-1 through B-4 (RCCI Investigator Caseloads)

• Between FY 2019 and FYTD 2022, RCCI investigators’ average daily caseloads have
progressively decreased, from a high of 24 in November 2019 to a low of 6.6 in October
2021.
• During FY 2021, RCCI investigators’ average daily caseload was 11.3. The highest average
daily caseload during this time period was 15.2; the lowest was 7.6.
• Between January and June 2021, 92% of RCCI investigators’ average daily caseloads were
either below 14 investigations (322 of 378) or between 14-17 investigations (27 of 378).
Eight percent of investigations were above 17 (29 of 378).

7
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 55

Screening, Intake and Investigation of

Maltreatment in Care Allegations

Remedial Order 3
Remedial Order 3: DFPS shall ensure that reported allegations of child abuse and neglect involving
children in the PMC class are investigated; commenced and completed on time consistent with the Court’s
Order; and conducted taking into account at all times the child’s safety needs. The Monitors shall
periodically review the statewide system for appropriately receiving, screening, and investigating reports
of abuse and neglect involving children in the PMC class to ensure the investigations of all reports are
commenced and completed on time consistent with this Order and conducted taking into account at all
times the child’s safety needs.

Statewide Intake
The DFPS Statewide Intake division operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as the centralized
point of intake for reporting suspected incidents of abuse, neglect, and exploitation and child care
licensing standards violations. The Statewide Intake contact center receives intakes of suspected
abuse, neglect or exploitation via a toll-free phone number, internet reports, regular mail and a
fax number. During fiscal year (FY) 2021, Statewide Intake received 773,919 contacts—on average
more than 2,000 contacts per day. This is a 5% increase from FY 2020, during which Statewide
Intake received 736,777 contacts.

Figure 1 2 depicts Statewide Intake year-over-year trends in total abuse/neglect calls received,
handled and abandoned, from FY 2019 through FY 2021. During FY 2021, Statewide Intake
received and handled slightly more calls than in FY 2019 (1.6% and 2.7%, respectively) and
slightly fewer calls abandoned (2.5%). 3

2 Data Source: SWI 01/03. Data set excludes Youth Hotline and Supervisor calls because their inclusion
materially alters performance metrics related to abuse/neglect call handling and abandon rates. Youth
Hotline calls are typically from parents and teens who need local prevention services (e.g., concerning
runaway incidents, substance abuse, suicidal ideations, depression, conflicts within the home).
Supervisor calls are almost exclusively internal calls from intake specialists to supervisors for assistance
with assessment decisions. Presumably, Statewide Intake received fewer intakes in FY 2020 because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. As intakes return to numbers seen historically (and potentially increase further
still), hold times are likewise increasing. Once Statewide Intake is fully staffed, DFPS anticipates hold
times will again decrease.
3 DFPS determines the abandonment rate by dividing the total number of calls abandoned by the total

number of calls that navigated the phone system’s Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and were placed into
queue. Calls abandoned prior to completing the IVR navigation are not included in abandonment
numbers as the caller was never required to hold and may have disconnected due to information heard in
the IVR process informing the caller of the Internet reporting system.

8
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 55

Figure 1. Statewide Intake Calls, FY 2019 – FY 2021

Statewide Intake Calls: FY 2019 – FY2021

589,629 599,248
569,775

470,752 477,403 483,335

118,877 115,913
92,372

FY19 FY20 FY21

Total Calls Total Calls Handled Total Calls Abandoned

Figure 2 4 depicts FY 2021 Statewide Intake abuse/neglect call trends. During FY 2021, Statewide
Intake received 599,248 calls reporting suspected abuse/neglect. Of these, 483,335 calls were
handled (81%) and 115,913 calls abandoned (19%). On average, callers waited 4.3 minutes before
the call was handled and 4 minutes before abandoning the call.5 Based on a recent Statewide
Intake analysis of FY 2021 calls, on average, 63% of abandoned calls dropped between 0 and 5
minutes; 27% dropped between 5 to 10 minutes and 10% dropped after holding for more than 10
minutes. 6 During FY 2021, the longest wait times before a call was either handled or abandoned
occurred on December 4, 2020, a day during which Statewide Intake experienced long telephone
and application downtimes.

Between January and June 2021, Statewide Intake received 306,267 calls reporting suspected
abuse/neglect. Of these, 239,384 calls were handled (78%) and 66,883 calls abandoned (22%).

4 Supra note 2. Including Youth Hotline and Supervisor calls would result in a FY 2021 total of 700,333
calls, 574,120 calls handled (82%) and 126,213 (18%) calls abandoned.
5 Id.
6 This data is based on Statewide Intake’s analysis of a FY 2021 report that provides data at the day level,

not at the individual call level. Consequently, data is based on daily averages. For example, if 9 callers
abandoned at one minute and one caller abandoned at 11 minutes, the average hold time before a call
abandoned would be two minutes.

9
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 55

Figure 2. Statewide Intake Calls by Month, FY 2021

Total Handled and Abandoned Calls - FY 2021

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0

# Total Calls Handled + Abandoned # Calls Handled # Calls Abandoned

Figure 3 7 illustrates the proportion abuse/neglect calls Statewide Intake received during FY 2021
by call type. Most Statewide Intake abuse/neglect calls received during FY 2021 were routed
through the AbuseHotline – English call queue.
Figure 3. Statewide Intake Call Types, FY 2021

Call Types - FY 2021

AbuseHotline - English AbuseHotline - Spanish Community Center
Law Enforcement Support Staff Other
1%
5%
13%
4%
2%

75%

7 Supra note 2.

10
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 55

The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) sets certain performance measure targets for Statewide
Intake. For example, Statewide Intake must maintain an annual average hold time of 7.4 minutes
or less for calls in the English Queue. In FY 2021, the average hold time for Statewide Intake’s
English queue was 5.2 minutes, a 13% increase compared to the previous year, 8 but 2.2 minutes
less than the LBB’s performance measure target of 7.4 minutes or less.

Statewide Intake LEAN Initiative

In 2019, Statewide Intake and the DFPS Center for Learning and Organizational Excellence
developed and launched a “LEAN” efficiency initiative that streamlined the intake process,
allowing Statewide Intake to handle more calls in less time, and help more clients. This initiative
included quick win policy updates/clarifications, a redesigned interview process, tools to help
staff track and plan their work and a toolbox of resources and skills to reduce call-handling time.
LEAN has been widely recognized for its success and other states (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois
and Michigan) have explored whether LEAN can help improve their processes as well.

Statewide Intake staff continue to apply the LEAN concepts learned in 2019 and in related staff
trainings, with all staff averaging more than 1.8 calls per hour during the previous year. To
supplement this effort, Statewide Intake is developing a new set of best practices for its workforce
management team to ensure intake staff are assigned to the most appropriate workload queues
at any given moment to promote call efficiency. Since August 2021, Statewide Intake has
graduated two intake specialist training classes, with a third training class underway.

Statewide Intake Legislative Appropriations Requests

During the 86th Texas Legislature (Regular Session, 2019), DFPS requested and received $4.3
million for Statewide Intake frontline staff compensation alignment, a staff retention initiative
designed to promote salary equity with CPS and other staff performing similar jobs in Texas.
These additional funds were also intended to improve Statewide Intake staff performance
through reductions in call hold times and call abandonment rates and increases in the numbers
of calls handled.

Residential Child Care Investigations

The DFPS Residential Child Care Investigations program is responsible for investigating
allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation of children and youth in 24-hour residential child
care in Texas that is subject to regulation by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission
(HHSC). This includes investigations of allegations in general residential operations, which

8 As noted previously herein, presumably, Statewide Intake received fewer intakes in FY 2020 because of
the COVID-19 pandemic. As intakes return to numbers seen historically (and potentially increase further
still), hold times are likewise increasing. Once Statewide Intake is fully staffed, DFPS anticipates hold
times will again decrease.

11
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 55

include residential treatment centers and emergency shelters, and child placing agencies, which
include licensed foster homes. Intake reports are assigned a priority based on Statewide Intake
policies and guidance. Priority designations include Priority 1 (P1), Priority 2 (P2) and Priority
None (PN). Table 1 includes a description of each priority designation. 9
Table 1. Statewide Intake Priority Designations
Designation Description
Priority 1 (P1) Intake report concerns either the death of a child or an immediate threat
of serious physical or emotional harm or death of a child caused by abuse
or neglect. P1 intakes may also be appropriate when an alleged
perpetrator continues to have access and present an immediate danger
to other children, even if the victim child has been removed from the
situation.
Priority 2 (P2) Intake report concerns an allegation of abuse or neglect that does not
indicate immediate risk of death or serious harm.
Priority None (PN) Intake report allegations are beyond RCCI jurisdiction or have already
been investigated in a closed investigation and the intake report does not
include new allegations (i.e., the intake involves the same incident, same
alleged perpetrator and same alleged victim that was previously
investigated)

Reclassification of Priority None Intakes

Beginning in October 2020, an RCCI intake may only be reclassified as a Priority None (PN) if the
allegations were previously investigated (same alleged victim/perpetrator and incident) or RCCI
lacks jurisdiction to investigate. Since that time, the proportion of intakes reclassified to PN has
been between 0 and 6% (Figure 4). 10 This policy and practice change immediately increased the
proportion of intakes that progressed to investigation (Figure 5). 11

9 See Statewide Intake Policy & Procedures Section 9400 RCCI Priorities et seq. Available at:
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/SWI_Procedures/Files/SWP_pg_9000.asp#SWP_9400 (accessed
December 2, 2021). See also Child Care Investigations Handbook Section 6211.1 RCCI Intake Reports
Determined Appropriate for Priority None (PN) and Section 6221 Assessing an Intake Report for Type of
Investigation et seq. Available at:
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CCI/Files/LPPH_pg_6000.asp#LPPH_6221 (accessed December
2, 2021).
10 Source: RO3.1 RCI and CPI Intakes

11 Source: Data Warehouse reports int_01, ted_01

12
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 17 of 55

Figure 4. Intakes Reclassified to PN, FY 2021 – FYTD 2022

PMC – Intakes Reclassified to PN

FY 2021 – FYTD 2022
100%

80%

60%

40%

20% 12%
2% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 6% 2% 5%
0%
0%
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Figure 5. RCCI Monthly Intakes vs. Open Investigations, FY 2019 – FYTD 2022

RCCI Monthly Intakes vs Opened Investigations

FY 2019 – FYTD 2022
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Intakes Opened Inv

During the previous three fiscal years, the rate of abuse/neglect reports to Statewide Intake have
remained steady; yet, the number of abuse/neglect intakes that have progressed to investigation
has more than doubled. From FY 2019 to FY 2021, the number of intakes has decreased by 7.5%

13
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 18 of 55

while the number of opened investigations has increased by 110% (Figure 6). 12 Between January
and June 2021, 93% of intakes progressed to investigation (2,572 of 2,779 intakes).
Figure 6. RCCI Annual Intakes vs. Opened Investigations, FY 2019 – FY 2021

RCCI Intakes vs Opened Investigations

FY 2019 – FY 2021
5589 5605
5172
4774

3334

2272

FY19 FY20 FY21

Intakes Opened Inv

RCCI Staffing Patterns

As indicated in Figure 7, since September 2018, the number of RCCI FTEs has increased by almost
150%; however, the number of case carrying RCCI staff struggles to keep pace. 13 RCCI has taken
several actions to increase the number of case carrying staff, including aggressively filling 20
investigator positions by April 2021, partnering with the DFPS Center for Learning and
Organizational Excellence to add Basic Skills Development training sessions in FY 2021 Q3 and
FY 2022 Q1, quickly training newly hired investigators, and continuing to recruit and train
mentors to increase the number of trainees with dedicated mentor support. Increasing the
number of tenured staff should also lead to downstream improvements in both caseloads and
investigation quality.

12 Id.
13 Source: Data Warehouse report ted_01, Hiring Funnel.

14
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 19 of 55

Figure 7. RCCI FTEs: Filled vs. Case Carrying Positions, FY 2019 – FY 2021

RCCI FTE Positions, Filled Positions and Case Carrying Staff

140 FY 2019 – FY 2021
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

FTE Positions Filled Positions Case Carrying Staff

RCCI Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement Activities

RCCI has implemented a number of activities designed to improve investigation quality and
timeliness. Quality efforts have focused on promoting safety decision-making, gathering critical
information; thoroughly documenting; issue spotting; and conducting trend analysis, while
timeliness efforts have focused on holding staffings between investigators and supervisors earlier
in the investigation. Specific activities include:

• RCCI Quality Assurance Team Case Reviews

• Complex Investigation Division case staffing observations
• Secondary approval process for certain investigations
• Administrative Review of Investigation Findings (ARIF)
• IMPACT Multiple Referral (M-Ref) Indicator
• RCCI staff training

In addition to these activities, DFPS has leveraged the comments and observations within the
Monitors three comprehensive quality reviews14 of RCCI investigations to guide RCCI’s quality

14The Monitors’ first review found 71.4% of the sampled investigations were appropriately investigated
and dispositioned. Their second review was more favorable, finding 82% of the sampled investigations
were appropriately investigated and dispositioned. Upon receiving this feedback, DFPS undertook an
extensive analysis of the remaining investigations the Monitors determined were inappropriately
dispositioned and/or inadequately investigated. For 65% of these disputed investigations, DFPS either
fully agreed with the Monitors’ conclusions or agreed with the Monitors that the investigations were
deficient, and that the disposition should have been changed even though the Monitors concluded an

15
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 20 of 55

improvement efforts. The Third Report of the Monitors included a review and discussion of 39
RCCI investigations the Monitors believe were incorrectly dispositioned and/or the investigation
was deficient. RCCI swiftly analyzed these disputed investigations, carefully considering the
Monitors’ comments and analyses. RCCI agreed with the Monitors’ analysis as to 22 of the
disputed investigations (56%), partially agreed as to four (10%) and disagreed as to 13 (33%).
Because RCCI investigations that do not involve a fatality/near fatality are confidential, DFPS did
not file this detailed analysis with the Court and instead provided it directly to the Monitors.

The Third Report of the Monitors further noted that the majority of the 39 disputed investigations
were not timely completed, in violation of Remedial Order 10. While the Court makes the ultimate
determination regarding compliance, DFPS notes these investigations closed between January
and April 2021. Following the investigation backlog project which ended in April 2021, the
prevalence of timely investigation completions has substantially improved. Between April 2021
and August 2021, 74% of closed investigations were completed timely (511 out of 688 closed
investigations). During this same time period, 86% of open investigations remained timely (i.e.,
were not in an overdue status). Despite this marked improvement, DFPS acknowledges that
additional work remains and as discussed further herein, DFPS is committed to achieving and
maintaining timely investigation completions going forward.

RCCI Quality Assurance Team Case Reviews

In August 2019, RCCI established a quality assurance team to evaluate the timeliness and quality
of RCCI investigations and develop performance reports to guide practice improvements and
field staff development. The RCCI quality assurance team shares case read reports with field staff
who review their findings on a monthly basis to understand why any deficiencies were noted
and make targeted improvements to investigative practice. In October 2021, the RCCI quality
assurance team refined its case read tool, using the Monitors’ comprehensive quality reviews as
a guide to ensure the tool included questions designed to evaluate staff performance relating to
certain quality metrics, including interviewing all parties; investigating new allegations;
assessing adherence to safety plans; obtaining and reviewing all documents/records; seeking
evidence to reconcile inconsistencies; reviewing prior incidents; and conducting quality
interviews. As discussed further herein, RCCI has implemented a number of quality
improvement initiatives focused on promoting safety decision-making, gathering critical
information; thoroughly documenting; issue spotting; and conducting trend analysis. RCCI will
closely monitor ongoing performance to evaluate whether these initiatives are positively
impacting investigation quality. To the extent that further improvement initiatives are needed,
RCCI is committed to pursuing those additional efforts.

appropriate disposition could not be determined. The Monitors’ third review was more favorable still,
finding 85.3% of the sampled investigations were appropriately investigated and dispositioned.

16
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 21 of 55

Complex Investigation Division (CID) Case Staffing Observations

Case staffings are required throughout an investigation to ensure allegations are thoroughly
investigated and tasks are completed prior to the investigation being submitted to the supervisor
for approval. To evaluate the effectiveness of case staffings and whether appropriate guidance
was provided, a CID workgroup was assembled in July 2021 to observe a random sample of case
staffings between RCCI supervisors and investigators. During these case staffing observations,
CID staff evaluated whether all pertinent information was identified and discussed, whether
supervisors provided clear and appropriate direction to investigators, and how follow up case
actions and tasks were evaluated. CID staff also evaluated how supervisors organize and manage
case staffings (to identify efficiencies) and looked for regional variations in both the content and
quality of case staffings (to ensure consistent application of quality investigative practices).

CID staff provided feedback to the RCCI supervisors and program administrators, highlighting
both strengths and development needs. Through their observations, CID staff determined that
case staffings were often timely but deficient. For example, CID staff noted that less tenured
supervisors often should have asked more probative questions, solicited more information, better
understood the allegations and provided better guidance to the investigator about completing
investigative tasks and why those tasks are essential to an investigation’s outcome.

CID staff conduct case staffing observations every six months or more often, upon request. The
next round of case staffing observations will occur in January 2022, then again in July 2022.
Following these case staffing observations, CID staff will continue to provide feedback to the
RCCI supervisor and program administrator concerning any identified strengths and
development needs.

Secondary Approval Process for Certain Investigations

RCCI CID staff conduct secondary approvals to ensure investigations are thoroughly investigated
and appropriately and consistently dispositioned. RCCI investigators may request CID staff to
conduct a secondary review of any investigation. However, secondary approvals are required for
investigations involving:
• child fatalities and near fatalities;
• physical abuse with serious injuries;
• sexual abuse cases with an RTB finding;
• cases with an Unable to Determine (UTD) finding;
• all cases with a prior consult with CID; and
• all cases that received an M-Ref review (defined and discussed further herein) at the onset
of the case.
During the secondary review process, CID staff and the investigator discuss the evidence and the
appropriate disposition before the investigation is submitted to the investigative supervisor for
first line approval. Between June and November 2021, CID staff completed secondary approvals
for 120 investigations.

17
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 22 of 55

IMPACT Multiple Referral (M-Ref) Indicator

In July 2021, DFPS implemented an IMPACT indicator to alert RCCI staff when a general
residential operation (GRO) has an apparent pattern of investigations based on the number of
investigations a GRO receives during a six-month period 15. In this event, IMPACT will generate
a notice flagging the investigation for “M-Ref review.” If an investigation is flagged for M-Ref
review, the RCCI supervisor will send an email to the RCCI Complex Investigation Division (CID)
mailbox upon receipt of the intake report from Statewide Intake, notifying CID staff that an M-
Ref review is required. Within 5 calendar days from the date the intake report was received from
Statewide Intake, CID staff must document their M-Ref review findings as an IMPACT contact,
which the RCCI investigator and supervisor will review. These M-Ref review findings will
include:

• a detailed history of the operation, including any regulatory or contract actions, prior
Reason to Believe (RTB) or Unable to Determine (UTD) dispositions, and heightened
monitoring status;
• a pattern analysis;
• specific concerns the investigator should evaluate; and
• a determination whether the operation’s administrator and/or signatory authority must
be included as an alleged perpetrator in the investigation (for failure to address systemic
and ongoing issues).
As appropriate, CID staff will add the operation administrator and/or signatory authority as an
alleged perpetrator for neglectful supervision (NSUP) to the IMPACT person list. 16 Upon
reviewing the CID staff’s M-Ref review findings, the RCCI investigator must review the IMPACT
person list and follow the CID staff’s directives. Once the RCCI supervisor approves the
investigation, it is sent to CID for secondary approval.

RCCI Administrative Review of Investigation Findings (ARIF)

Upon a designated perpetrator’s request, the DFPS RCCI division 17 conducts an administrative
review of investigation findings (ARIF) when evaluating whether an individual was
appropriately designated a perpetrator of abuse, neglect, or exploitation according to RCCI

15 This IT enhancement applied prospectively. As the initial six-month lookback period began in July 2021,
investigations involving GROs having an apparent pattern of investigations will start being flagged in
December 2021.
16 For operation administrators and/or signatory authorities whom CID staff has identified as an alleged

perpetrator during the M-Ref review, the investigator will assess NSUP based on 40 TAC §707.801(b)(1)(K),
(L), and (M).
17 As of December 1, 2021, the RCCI Investigation Review Specialist staff who conduct ARIFS transitioned

to the DFPS Office of Internal Affairs. This transition was designed to eliminate any perceived conflicts of
interest and to promote fair and objective administrative reviews.

18
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 23 of 55

policy, administrative rules, and applicable statutes. 18 Since FY 2019, the total number of ARIFs
has decreased by 28% and the total number of ARIFs resulting in a disposition change has
decreased by 66%. Table 2 includes the total number of ARIFs RCCI conducted between FY 2019
– FY 2021 and the number and percent of ARIFs resulting in a disposition change. 19
Table 2. RCCI Administrative Reviews of Investigation Findings, FY 2019 – FY 2021

Fiscal Year Total ARIFs ARIFs Resulting in Percent Resulting

(by case) Disposition in Disposition
Change Change
2019 271 29 11%
2020 254 15 6%
2021 194 10 5%

To ensure that DFPS and HHSC are appropriately collaborating when abuse/neglect findings
and/or citations are overturned following an administrative review, DFPS and HHSC have
developed mutual policies requiring notice to the other. 20 In June 2021, DFPS shared these policies
with the Monitors along with a flow chart illustrating the process by which DFPS and HHSC
collaborate under these circumstances. 21

RCCI Staff Training

RCCI has scheduled and coordinated several staff training events designed to improve the quality
of investigations. In July 2021, approximately 95% of RCCI staff participated in the SPARK 2021
conference. Presenters included child abuse experts from the medical, legal, and law enforcement
fields whose presentations addressed differentiating between accidentally and intentionally
inflicted injuries, recognizing signs of human trafficking, working with multi-disciplinary teams
and using interviewing techniques to maximize interviews with alleged perpetrators.

In October 2021, the RCCI division held a three-day all-staff training event. Training topics
included writing effective investigation reports, note taking and conducting field interviews. CCI

18 See DFPS Child Care Investigations Handbook Section 7710 Administrative Reviews. Available at:
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CCI/Files/LPPH_pg_7600.asp#LPPH_7710 (accessed November
20, 2021).
19 Source: DRIT 104147-ARIF Totals by Case.

20 See DFPS Child Care Investigations Handbook Section 7717.3 Notifying Child Care Licensing When the

Administrative Review Overturns or Changes the Investigation Finding. Available at:

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CCI/Files/LPPH_pg_7600.asp#LPPH_7717_3 (accessed December
1, 2021). See also HHSC Child Care Regulation Handbook Section 7718 Notifying DFPS of an Overturned
Citation for Abuse, Neglect or Exploitation. Available at: https://www.hhs.texas.gov/handbooks/child-
care-regulation-handbook/7000-voluntary-actions-enforcement-actions#7718 (accessed December 1, 2021).
21 Email from Heather Bugg to Deborah Fowler and Kevin Ryan ARIF Communication between DFPS and HHSC

(June 6, 2021).

19
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 24 of 55

is planning a one-day follow up training event in February 2022 focused on quality report writing,
including disposition writing.

In addition to these targeted trainings, CCI is working with the DFPS Center for Learning and
Organizational Excellence to enhance the CCI Basic Skills Development curriculum to better align
with current practice and investigation workflows and incorporate targeted training, including
quality report writing.

RCCI Legislative Appropriations Requests

During the 86th Texas Legislature (Regular Session, 2019), DFPS requested and received $1.7
million for 13.0 FTEs to reduce the average investigation caseload and facilitate quality
investigations and timely investigation closures. In addition, DFPS requested and received $1.1
million for 7.0 FTEs to improve the timeliness and quality of screening of certain Priority 2 intakes.

In September 2019, DFPS requested and received authority to create the following positions using
existing legislative appropriations:

• 17.0 additional RCCI FTEs to facilitate timely face-to-face contacts with alleged victims,
reduce the investigation backlog and handle increasing numbers of intakes and
investigations; and
• 13.0 RCCI FTEs to promote quality investigations through improved screening and
qualitative case reviews.

During the 87th Texas Legislature (Regular Session, 2021), DFPS requested and received $8.1
million for 58.0 FTEs to address a 31% increase in investigations resulting from the change in
policy regarding Priority None intake classifications. 22 Although these FTEs are required to
support an increase in the number of investigations, it is anticipated that the addition of staff will
positively impact outcomes related to the other RCCI remedial orders, including timely
investigation initiations, face-to-face contact and investigation completions.

22In October 2020, DFPS implemented a policy and practice change that narrowly limited the
circumstances in which an intake may be reclassified as a Priority None. Following this change, intakes
may only be reclassified as a Priority None if the allegation was previously investigated or is not within
RCCI’s jurisdiction.

20
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 25 of 55

Timeliness of RCC Investigations: Remedial Orders 5

Through 11; 16 and 18

Remedial Orders 5 and 6: Timely Investigation Initiations

Remedial Order 5: Within 60 days and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in accordance with existing DFPS
policies and administrative rules, initiate Priority One child abuse and neglect investigations involving
children in the PMC class within 24 hours of intake. (A Priority One is by current policy assigned to an
intake in which the children appear to face a safety threat of abuse or neglect that could result in death or
serious harm.)

Remedial Order 6: Within 60 days and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in accordance with existing DFPS
policies and administrative rules, initiate Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations involving
children in the PMC class within 72 hours of intake. (A Priority Two is assigned by current policy to any
CPS intake in which the children appear to face a safety threat that could result in substantial harm.)

In January 2021, DFPS modified its practice to count an investigation initiation as timely only if
all alleged PMC victims had face-to-face contact within required timeframes. For Priority 1
investigations, an initial contact is considered timely if it is made within 24 hours. For Priority 2
investigations, an initial contact is considered timely if it is made within 72 hours. DFPS submits
monthly RCCI investigation reports to the Monitors that include an indicator for whether all
initial contacts for all alleged victims in PMC for the investigation stage are timely. During FY
2021, 82% of Priority 1 investigations were timely initiated. The prevalence of timely Priority 1
investigation initiations was highest in January 2021 (100%) and lowest in March 2021 (72%).
Since March 2021, Priority 1 investigation timeliness has predominantly improved, from 72% in
March to 92% in August (Figures 8 and 9). 23

Between January and June 2021, 79% of Priority 1 investigations were timely initiated.

23 Source: FCL report RO3.2 RCI Investigations

21
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 26 of 55

Figure 8. RCCI Timely Investigation Initiation by Priority Level, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Timely Initiation by Priority Level

FY 2021 87%
82%

P1 P2

Figure 9. RCCI Timely Priority 1 Initiations, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Timely P1 Initiations

FY 2021
100%
92% 94% 92%
83% 83% 83%
78% 75% 78%
73% 72%

Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

During FY 2021, 87% of Priority 2 investigations were timely initiated. The prevalence of timely
Priority 2 investigation initiations was highest in October 2020 and June 2021 (91%) and lowest in
December 2020 (78%); Since March 2021, Priority 2 investigation timeliness has been between 86%
and 91% (Figures 8 and 10). 24

Between January and June 2021, 86% of Priority 2 investigations were timely initiated.

24 Id.

22
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 27 of 55

Figure 10. RCCI Timely Priority 2 Initiations, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Timely P2 Initiations

91% FY 2021 91%
89%
87% 87% 87%
86% 86% 86%
84%
82%

78%

Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

Remedial Orders 7 and 8: Timely Face-to-Face Contact

Remedial Order 7: Within 60 days and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in accordance with DFPS policies
and administrative rules, complete required initial face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim(s) in
Priority One child abuse and neglect investigations involving PMC children as soon as possible but no
later than 24 hours after intake.

Remedial Order 8: Within 60 days and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in accordance with DFPS policies
and administrative rules, complete required initial face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim(s) in
Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations involving PMC children as soon as possible but no
later than 72 hours after intake.

For Priority 1 investigations, a contact is considered timely if it is made within 24 hours. For
Priority 2 investigations, a contact is considered timely if it is made within 72 hours. During FY
2021, 85% of Priority 1 investigations had timely face-to-face contacts. The prevalence of timely
face-to-face contacts in Priority 1 investigations was highest in January 2021 (100%) and lowest in
March 2021 (77%). Since March 2021, face-to-face contact timeliness in Priority 1 investigations
has predominantly improved, from 77% in March to 94% in August (Figures 11 and 12). 25

Between January and June 2021, 83% of Priority 1 investigations had timely face-to-face contacts.

25 Id.

23
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 28 of 55

Figure 11. RCCI Timely Face-to-Face Contact by Priority Level, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Timely Face-to-Face Contact by Priority Level

FY 2021
85% 88%

P1 P2

Figure 12. RCCI Timely Priority 1 Face-to-Face Contact, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Timely P1 Face-to-Face Contact

FY 2021

100%
94% 95% 94%
89% 86% 89%
83% 79% 82% 83%
77%

Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

During FY 2021, 88% of Priority 2 investigations had timely face-to-face contact. The prevalence
of timely face-to-face contacts in Priority 2 investigations was highest in June 2021 (92%) and
lowest in December 2020 (80%). Since December 2020, face-to-face contact timeliness in Priority 2
investigations has been between 87% and 92% (Figures 11 and 13). 26

Between January and June 2021, 88% of Priority 2 investigations had timely face-to-face contacts.

26 Id.

24
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 29 of 55

Figure 13. RCCI Timely Priority 2 Face-to-Face Contact, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Timely P2 Face-to-Face Contact

FY 2021

91% 92%
90% 90%
89%
88% 88% 88%
87% 87% 87%

80%

Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

Remedial Order 9: Tracking and Reporting on Timely Face-to-

Face Contact
Remedial Order 9: Within 60 days and ongoing thereafter, DFPS must track and report all child abuse
and neglect investigations that are not initiated on time with face-to-face contacts with children in the PMC
class, factoring in and reporting to the Monitors quarterly on all authorized and approved extensions to
the deadline required for initial face-to-face contacts for child abuse and neglect investigations.

As noted previously herein, in January 2021, DFPS modified practice to count an investigation
initiation as timely only if all alleged PMC victims had face-to-face contact within required
timeframes. DFPS submits monthly RCCI investigation reports to the Monitors that include
indicators for:
• whether the face-to-face contact documented in IMPACT on a closed investigation was
timely or untimely;
• the date and time of the first face-to-face contact with the alleged victim in PMC; and
• whether all initial contacts for all alleged victims in PMC for the investigation stage were
timely.

Remedial Order 10: Timely Investigation Completions

Remedial Order 10: Within 60 days, DFPS shall, in accordance with DFPS policies and administrative
rules, complete Priority One and Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations that involve children
in the PMC class within 30 days of intake, unless an extension has been approved for good cause and
documented in the investigative record. If an investigation has been extended more than once, all extensions
for good cause must be documented in the investigative record.

25
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 30 of 55

DFPS submits monthly RCCI investigation reports to the Monitors that include indicators for:
• the date the investigation stage was closed in IMPACT;
• the date the investigator first submitted the investigation for supervisor approval and
closure in IMPACT;
• the date the supervisor approved and closed the investigation in IMPACT;
• the total number of days in which a caseworker has to complete an investigation (30 days
plus any approved extension days); and
• whether the investigation was completed timely (if total days to completion is equal to or
less than 30 days plus any approved extension days).

During FY 2021, 66% of closed investigations were completed timely (1,298 out of 1,953 closed
investigations) (Figure 14). 27 Between January and June 2021, 59% of closed investigations were
completed timely (710 out of 1,210 closed investigations). Following the investigation backlog
project discussed further herein and which ended in April 2021, the prevalence of timely
investigation completions has substantially improved. Between April 2021 and August 2021, 74%
of closed investigations were completed timely (511 out of 688 closed investigations). During this
same time period, 86% of open investigations remained timely (i.e., were not in an overdue
status).
Figure 14. Timeliness of RCCI Investigations Closed, FY 2021

PMC – Timeliness of Investigations Closed by Month

FY 2021

230

40 80 88 82 21 32 47 50
66 213 27
23 118
90 69 71 70 88 113 108 88 84
55
Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

Timely Untimely

In November 2019, RCCI launched what would become an almost 18-month case closure project.
Initially, the project was designed to assist regions experiencing a high backlog of investigations.
However, the project soon became a statewide effort, requiring the temporary reassignment of
staff from other program areas to help close overdue investigations and begin working new
investigations. In December 2019, the backlog reached a high of 769 delinquent cases (Figure

27 Id.

26
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 31 of 55

15). 28, 29 Owing to the enduring efforts of the many staff throughout Texas who were temporarily
reassigned to work the overdue cases, between December 2019 and September 2020, the
investigation backlog decreased by 75%, from 769 to 190, respectively. In October 2020, the
investigation backlog again began to climb following the policy and practice change limiting the
reclassification of intakes to Priority None. The number of delinquent investigations grew from
190 in September 2020 to 408 in December 2020, a 115% increase. Since December 2020, the
backlog has decreased by 80% and DFPS continues to carefully monitor investigations to ensure
they are timely completed.

Figure 15. RCCI Monthly Count of Open vs. Delinquent Investigations, FY 2019 – FY 2021

Between January and June 2021, the proportion of delinquent investigations was between 5% and
49%. By April 2021, 5% of open investigations were delinquent, a considerable improvement from
a high of 76% delinquent investigations in December 2019. Since April 2021, the proportion of
delinquent investigations has been between 10% and 20%.

Although the number of delinquent investigations has slightly increased since April 2021, RCCI
is taking several actions to prevent future investigation backlogs, including:

28Source: Data Warehouse reports inv_04_05_06_07, inv_lic_01

29An investigation is considered timely completed if the total days to completion is equal to or less than
30 days plus any approved investigation extension days. Likewise, an investigation is considered
delinquent if the total days to investigation completion is greater than 30 days plus any approved
investigation extension days.

27
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 32 of 55

• Beginning in August 2021, RCCI supervisors and investigators must conduct an

additional case staffing by the 20th day of the investigation. This earlier staffing allows the
supervisor and investigator to discuss the progress of the investigation well in advance of
the 30th day and allows the investigator time to conduct any outstanding tasks prior to the
investigation being submitted for approval.
• In an effort to identify and provide additional support to staff with development needs,
RCCI is analyzing FY 2021 investigation data to identify trends in case rejection rates,
including staff with multiple case rejections and common rejection reasons. In addition to
improving staff performance, this activity should lead to fewer case rejections and fewer
delinquent investigations. Following this initial review, data will be analyzed monthly, as
needed. In addition, RCCI quality assurance staff modified its case reading tool to include
case rejection data.
• RCCI leadership regularly reviews the investigation dashboard to identify and address
concerning trends (e.g., triaging other units to assist with overdue cases due to staff
shortages, addressing investigation extensions before they expire). 30
• In August 2021, RCCI began conducting exit surveys to identify common staff departure
reasons, elicit detailed, program-specific feedback and address staff concerns.
• Beginning in October 2021, RCCI supervisors must provide weekly status reports for all
delinquent investigations, including a summary of the investigation, reason(s) the
investigation is delinquent and a closure plan.
• Beginning in October 2021, RCCI instituted mandatory overtime for investigators and
supervisors with delinquent investigations.

Remedial Order 11: Tracking and Reporting on Timely

Investigation Completions
Remedial Order 11: Within 60 days and ongoing thereafter, DFPS must track and report monthly all
child abuse and neglect investigations involving children in the PMC class that are not completed on time
according to this Order. Approved extensions to the standard closure timeframe, and the reason for the
extension, must be documented and tracked. If an investigation has been extended more than once, all
extensions for good cause must be documented in the investigative record.

DFPS submits monthly RCCI investigation reports to the Monitors that include indicators for:
• whether the investigation was completed timely;
• the date an investigation extension was approved;
• the reason an approved extension was requested; and
• the extension timeframe.

30The investigation dashboard launched in November 2020. As a result of recent staff infusions and
realignments (i.e., additional investigator, supervisor and program administrator positions (thereby
reducing staff span of control) and new deputy director and manager positions to increase oversight of
field staff), RCCI has additional support and oversight to better utilize and more readily act upon trends
identified by the dashboard.

28
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 33 of 55

Remedial Order 16: Timely Investigation Documentation

Remedial Order 16: Effective immediately, the State of Texas shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any
successor staff, complete and submit documentation in Priority One and Priority Two investigations on
the same day the investigation is completed.

RCCI policy and practice requires all documentation pertaining to the investigation to be
completed by the date the investigation is completed, which is the same date the investigation is
submitted to the supervisor in IMPACT for approval.

Remedial Order 18: Timely Notification Letters

Remedial Order 18: Effective immediately, the State of Texas shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any
successor staff, finalize and mail notification letters to the referent and provider(s) in Priority One and
Priority Two investigations within five days of closing a child abuse and neglect investigation or
completing a standards investigation.

Within 5 calendar days of the investigation being closed in IMPACT, the investigator sends
notification of the completion of the investigation to the reporter(s) by generating a CCI Reporter
Letter in IMPACT. 31 Likewise, within 5 calendar days after the supervisor or secondary approver
approves an investigation in IMPACT, CCI administrative staff mail a notification letter to the
operation’s controlling person or designee. 32 DFPS submits monthly RCCI investigation reports
to the Monitors that include indicators for:
• whether the reporter was provided notice from IMPACT within five days of the
investigation being closed;
• the date the reporter was provided notice;
• whether the reporter was anonymous;
• whether the provider was given notice within five days of the investigation being closed;
and
• the date the provider was given notice.

During FY 2021, 84% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the reporter (Figures 16
and 17). 33 The prevalence of timely notifications sent to the reporter was highest between

31 See 40 Tex. Admin. Code § 707.745. See also DFPS Child Care Investigations Handbook Section 6633
Notifying the Reporter of Investigation Results. Available at:
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CCI/Files/LPPH_pg_6600.asp#LPPH_6630 (accessed December
4, 2021). The investigator is not required to send notice to the reporter if there is a reasonable likelihood
that notifying the reporter will jeopardize the reporter’s safety; DFPS does not have the reporter’s mailing
address; or the reporter is anonymous.
32 See DFPS Child Care Investigations Handbook Section 6630 Notifying Relevant Parties of the Results of

an Investigation. Available at:

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CCI/Files/LPPH_pg_6600.asp#LPPH_6630 (accessed December
4, 2021).
33 Supra note 24.

29
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 34 of 55

September through December 2020 (97-98%) and was the lowest in May 2021 (74%). Since May
2021, the prevalence of timely notifications sent to the reporter has been between 81% and 85%.

Between January and June 2021, 80% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the
reporter.

Figure 16. RCCI Notifications Sent within Five Days of Investigation Closure, FY 2021

RCCI Notifications Sent within 5 Days of Investigation Closure

FY 2021
84%
72%

Reporter Timely Provider Timely

Figure 17. RCCI Notifications Sent to Reporter within Five Days of Investigation Closure, FY 2021

RCCI Notification Sent to Reporter within 5 Days of Investigation

Closure
FY 2021
98% 97% 98% 97%
85% 87% 83%
81% 85% 81%
76% 74%

Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

During FY 2021, 72% of investigations included timely notice to the provider (Figures 16 and
18). 34 Between January and June 2021, 70% of RCCI investigations included timely notice to the
provider. Performance appeared to dramatically decrease in March 2021 due to a data lag

34 Id.

30
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 35 of 55

following a process change in mid-March requiring staff to select a new purpose code in IMPACT
when entering documentation that the provider notification letter was sent. On June 25, 2021,
DFPS alerted the Monitors of this data issue.35 Since May 2021, the prevalence of timely
notifications sent to the provider has been between 90% and 94%.

Figure 18. RCCI Notifications Sent to Provider within Five Days of Investigation Closure, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Notification Sent to Provider within 5 Days of

Investigation Closure
FY 2021
92% 92% 92% 94%
90%
80% 82% 83% 79% 78%
70%

42%

Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21

Remedial Order A6: Points of Contact for Reporting

Remedial Order A-6: Within 30 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS shall ensure that caseworkers provide
children with the appropriate point of contact for reporting issues relating to abuse or neglect. In complying
with this order, DFPS shall ensure that children in the General Class are apprised by their primary
caseworkers of the appropriate point of contact for reporting issues, and appropriate methods of contact, to
report abuse and neglect. This shall include a review of the Foster Care Bill of Rights and the number for
the Texas Health and Human Services Ombudsman. Upon receipt of the information, the PMC child’s
caseworker will review the referral history of the home and assess if there are any concerns for the child’s
safety or well-being and document the same in the child’s electronic case record.

The CPS Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care document includes contact information for
the Statewide Intake abuse/neglect hotline and the Foster Care Ombudsman. In accordance with
state law and CPS policy, caseworkers are required to provide the Rights document to all children
and youth in CPS foster care and review the document with the child and caregiver within 72
hours of the child coming into foster care. 36 Children and youth also receive the Rights document

Email from Heather Bugg to Deborah Fowler and Kevin Ryan RO18 Reporting (June 25, 2021).
35

See Tex. Fam. Code § 263.008. See also Child Protective Services (CPS) Handbook Section 6420 Rights of
36

Children and Youth in Foster Care. Available at:

31
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 36 of 55

each time their plan of service is updated and upon placement into a DFPS foster/adoptive
home. 37 Upon completing the review, the child or youth, caregiver and DFPS staff must each sign
the document. Once reviewed and signed, the Rights document must be uploaded into OneCase.

CPS caseworkers also provide children ages 10 and older with a copy of the Texas Foster Care
Handbook for Children, Youth & Young Adults when they enter foster care or turn age 10 while
in foster care. This handbook includes the CPS Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care.
Additionally, residential child care providers must post Foster Care Ombudsman posters in
residential facilities, including GROs and foster homes, which is verified through DFPS contract
monitoring. 38

The CPS CVS quality assurance team conducts qualitative case reads to evaluate whether the
Foster Care Bill of Rights is consistently provided and uploaded to OneCase. During FY 2021,
86% of cases the CVS quality assurance team reviewed (1,548 out of 1,798 cases) included a signed,
uploaded Rights document. Between Q1 FY 2021 and Q4 FY 2021, the prevalence of cases that
included a signed, uploaded Rights document improved by 19%. Table 3 includes detailed FY
2021 quarterly care read data.
Table 3. CPS CVS Quality Assurance Case Reads – Rights Document, FY 2021

Reporting Period Cases Read Cases with Signed Percent of Cases with
Rights Document Signed Rights Document
Q1 FY 2021 392 293 75%
Q2 FY 2021 430 373 87%
Q3 FY 2021 508 441 87%
Q4 FY 2021 468 441 94%

The Third Report of the Monitors noted that “[o]f youth interviewed who were without an
authorized placement, also known as Children Without Placement (“CWOP” or “CWOP
Settings”), most knew that they could call the SWI hotline to report abuse, neglect, or exploitation.
However, a smaller percentage knew how to reach the hotline if needed. Far fewer children were
familiar with the Foster Care Ombudsman (“FCO”) or how to reach the FCO to make a complaint.
Because CWOP Settings are unlicensed, the State has not required posters with FCO and hotline
numbers to be posted.” DFPS has now placed Foster Care Ombudsman and Statewide Intake
abuse/neglect hotline information in all CWOP settings.

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_6400.asp#CPS_6420 (accessed December 5,

2021).
37 Id.

38 See DFPS 24-Hour Residential Child Care Requirements – Residential Contracts (RCC), Sections 1110,

3300 and 3400. Available at:

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Doing_Business/Purchased_Client_Services/Residential_Child_Care_Contra
cts/ (accessed December 5, 2021).

32
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 37 of 55

Remedial Order B5: Caseworker Notification of

Abuse/Neglect Allegations
Remedial Order B-5: Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that RCCL, or any successor entity,
promptly communicates allegations of abuse to the child’s primary caseworker. In complying with this
order, DFPS shall ensure that it maintains a system to receive, screen, and assign for investigation, reports
of maltreatment of children in the General Class, taking into account at all times the safety needs of children.

Prior to December 2019 and in accordance with RCCI policy, RCCI staff were required to notify
CPS CVS caseworkers via email or phone of an abuse or neglect intake involving a child on their
caseload. RCCI quarterly qualitative case reviews evaluated whether notification practices
consistently aligned with policy. To improve agency practice, tracking and compliance reporting,
DFPS deployed an IMPACT enhancement in December 2019 by which RCCI staff provided an
automated alert to caseworkers and supervisors of an abuse or neglect intake involving a child
on their caseload. Once an alert appeared on the caseworker’s IMPACT work list, the caseworker
was required to review the allegation information in IMPACT. Following the September 2020
show cause hearing, DFPS began evaluating additional technology enhancements to further
streamline the IMPACT caseworker notification alerts. In December 2020, the Court held
Defendants in contempt of RO B-5, noting that RO B-5 “requires that the State “promptly
communicates” the allegations, themselves, including their substance, to the caseworkers.”

In January 2021, DFPS deployed a short-term solution to ensure that allegations of abuse or
neglect were promptly and substantively communicated to the child’s CPS caseworker.
Specifically, when Statewide Intake (SWI) received an intake with a report of abuse or neglect of
a child in care, SWI created an information and referral (I&R) notification and sent it to the child’s
CPS caseworker. 39 The I&R included the child’s IMPACT person ID, information about the
alleged victim and alleged perpetrator and a narrative including the substance of the
allegation(s). The I&R was prominently displayed at the top of the caseworker’s IMPACT
workload. The CPS caseworker immediately reviewed the intake, discussed the intake with the
supervisor and as needed, contacted the investigator for further information. By the next business
day, the CPS caseworker was also required to consult with the program director and document
the contact as an I&R notification staffing in the child’s electronic case record. The documentation
was required to include a copy of the I&R, discussions with the supervisor and program director,
consideration of the child’s safety needs and any related actions, and any plans for future actions.

In April 2021, DFPS sent the Monitors a description of a long-term IT solution with screen shots
demonstrating how the notification would appear on the caseworker’s IMPACT workload and
invited the Monitors to provide feedback. Following deployment of the long-term IT solution in

39 As a redundancy, SWI staff also notified caseworkers of intakes via email.

33
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 38 of 55

October 2021, when a caseworker receives an alert on his/her workload and clicks on the alert, a
pop-up window appears with a list of intakes involving the child. When the caseworker selects
an intake, intake information displays, reducing the time required for a caseworker to access and
assess the child’s history.

DFPS submits monthly RCCI intake reports to the Monitors that include indicators to enable the
monitoring team to calculate whether notice was provided within 24 hours of intake. 40 During FY
2021, 92% of intakes included notice to the child’s caseworker within 24 hours (Figure 19).41
Between January and June 2021, 92% of intakes included notice to the child’s caseworker within
24 hours.
Figure 19. Intakes with Notice within 24 Hours, FY 2021

PMC – Intakes with Notice within 24 Hours by Month

FY 2021
95% 95% 96% 94%
100% 90% 92% 91% 90% 92% 92% 91%
89%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Third Report of the Monitors—Performance Validation

The Third Report of the Monitors noted that “[o]f the 654 RCCI intakes reviewed for the sample
period, the monitoring team found an I&R Notification Staffing contact in IMPACT in 406 (62%).”
CPS staff reviewed intake data provided to the Monitors during the monitoring period, which
included 1,093 intakes. Of these, 774 were already identified in the Third Report of the Monitors
as having an I&R intake documented. Consequently, CPS staff conducted case reads for the

40 The RO3.1 RCI and CPI Intakes report includes fields for “Auto Notice to CVS Caseworker and
Supervisor” and “Intake Start Date and Time.” Subtracting “Auto Notice to CS Caseworker and
Supervisor” from “Intake Start Date and Time” yields the time to auto notice (in days), from which staff
may calculate the prevalence of auto notice within 24 hours.
41 Supra note 11.

34
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 39 of 55

remaining 319 RCCI intakes and determined that 115 I&R staffings were documented; 42 were
correctly documented as an I&R A/N Notification Staffing and 73 were incorrectly documented
(e.g., either as an incorrect contact type or in the wrong stage of service). Taken together, CPS
staff concluded that of the 1,093 intakes during the monitoring period, an I&R Notification
Staffing contact was documented in IMPACT in 889 (81%).

The Monitors’ report also noted that “the monitoring team found an I&R Notification Staffing
contact in only 110 of 373 (29%) of the intakes. Similarly, of the PI intakes reviewed, the
monitoring team found an I&R Notification Staffing in only 47 (40%) of intakes. CPS staff
reviewed intake information provided to the Monitors during the monitoring period, which
included 547 CPI intakes. Of these, 263 had a documented I&R Notification Staffing; 196 were
correctly documented as an I&R A/N Notification Staffing and 67 were incorrectly documented
(e.g., either as an incorrect contact type or in the wrong stage of service). Taken together, CPS
staff concluded that of the 547 CPI intakes during the monitoring period, an I&R Notification
Staffing contact was documented in IMPACT in 263 (48%).

Following this review, CPS determined to take the following actions:

• A revised communication will be sent to staff detailing required Remedial Order B5

processes.
• CPS staff will review intake data on a weekly basis to verify the I&R staffing
documentation contact is correctly recorded in IMPACT.
• CPS staff will develop monthly reports identifying noted strengths, gaps and
improvement needs and share this report with CPS regional directors.
• CPS, CPI and Statewide Intake will work together to refine the process by which CPS CVS
caseworkers/supervisors are notified of new intakes.

Remedial Order 37: Home History Reviews

Remedial Order 37: Within 60 days, DFPS shall ensure that all abuse and neglect referrals regarding a
foster home where any PMC child is placed, which are not referred for a child abuse and neglect
investigation, are shared with the PMC child’s caseworker and the caseworker’s supervisor within 48 hours
of DFPS receiving the referral. Upon receipt of the information, the PMC child’s caseworker will review
the referral history of the home and assess if there are any concerns for the child’s safety or well-being, and
document the same in the child’s electronic case record.

As mentioned previously herein, as of October 2020, an intake may only be reclassified as Priority
None under limited circumstances (i.e., previously investigated allegations or RCCI lacks
jurisdiction). As a result of this policy and practice change, the number of intakes reclassified as
Priority None and the number of corresponding home history reviews have precipitously
decreased.

35
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 40 of 55

In January 2021, the process for reviewing a foster home’s history transferred from CPS to the
Statewide Intake division. When Statewide Intake staff designates an intake as Priority None (PN)
related to a foster home in which a child in DFPS managing conservatorship is placed, the
Statewide Intake staff immediately notifies all primary CPS caseworkers and supervisors
assigned to all children placed in the foster home. 42 The notification is generated in IMPACT as
an alert on the caseworker and supervisor’s to do list in the child’s SUB stage, and an alert icon
also displays on the caseworker’s IMPACT workload. 43

Statewide Intake staff who designate an intake as a PN must review the foster home’s history
concerning compliance with minimum standards and abuse or neglect investigations, write a
report detailing the home’s history and email the report to each caseworker, supervisor and
regional director assistant, so they may assess whether there are concerns for the child’s safety or
well-being. 44 Following a recent policy change, if a PN is designated on an abuse/neglect
allegation in an out-of-state foster home, Statewide Intake staff will request an out-of-state history
on the foster home and complete the home history review. 45

Upon receiving the home history review report, the caseworker and supervisor will review the
report, assess whether there are any concerns for the child’s safety or well-being and document
in IMPACT a summary of the report, assessment of safety and well-being, and any decisions
resulting from the staffing. 46 The caseworker must also file the report in each child’s electronic
case record. 47 The entire home history review process should be completed within 48 hours.

The CPS CVS quality assurance team conducts quarterly case reads for all Priority None intakes
involving PMC children placed in a foster home at the time of review. The quarterly case reads
are designed to determine if the RCCI screeners completed reviews of all Priority None intakes
received on children in foster care placements and to determine if, upon receipt of the information
in the home history review, the child’s caseworker reviewed the home’s referral history, assessed
with the supervisor whether there were any concerns for the child’s safety or well-being, and
documented the staffing in IMPACT. Table 4 includes a summary of the CPS CVS quality
assurance team’s FY 2021 case reviews. CPS CVS quality assurance staff provided technical

42 See CPS Handbook Section 4221.1 RCCI Notifying CPS of Alleged Abuse or Neglect in Foster Homes.
Available at: https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_4000.asp#CPS_4221_1 (accessed
November 21, 2021). For intakes received outside of normal business hours, the Statewide Intake staff
must also notify the on-call caseworker and on-call supervisor for the child’s region. The on-call
caseworker and supervisor will perform an immediate safety assessment and document in IMPACT a
summary of the report and the assessment and decisions made as a result of the staffing.
43 Id.

44 Id.

45 See CPS Handbook Section 4221.1 RCCI Notifying CPS of Alleged Abuse or Neglect in Foster Homes.

Available at: https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_4000.asp#CPS_4221_1 (accessed

January 4, 2022).
46 Supra note 42.

47 Id.

36
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 41 of 55

assistance as needed (e.g., to update documentation to include an accurate summary of the home
history review or details of decisions or actions taken by the caseworker).
Table 4. CPS CS Quality Assurance Case Reads – Home History Reviews, FY 2021

FY 2021 Q1 FY 2021 Q2 FY 2021 Q3 FY 2021 Q4

# HHRs required 4 2 0 3

# HHRs completed 4 2 3

# HHRs timely completed N/A – pre- N/A – pre- 3

(within 24 hours of intake) dates new dates new
timeframes 48 timeframes

HHR staffing held and N/A – pre- N/A – pre- 89% 49

documented within 48 dates new dates new
hours of intake timeframes timeframes

Staffing narrative contained 75% 33% 50%

accurate summary of HHR
team’s review

Staffing narrative contained 100% 100% 100%

summary of staffing with
supervisor

Summary of staffing 100% 100% 88%

contained details of
decisions or actions taken
by caseworker/supervisor

Legislative Appropriations Requests

In September 2019, DFPS requested and received authority to use existing legislative
appropriations to create 3.0 FTEs to assess and review placement referral histories.

48 At the time of the FY 2021 Q2 case review, DFPS policy contemplated a seven-day time frame for the
primary caseworker and supervisor to staff and document the staffing. In January 2021, policy was
updated to require all actions to be completed within 48 hours of the intake. The quality assurance case
review process was modified to address this new timeframe.
49 Nine children were placed within the three homes. Eight of the nine staffings (89%) were held and

documented timely.

37
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 42 of 55

Organizational Capacity

Remedial Order 1: CPS Professional Development

Training
Remedial Order 1: Within 60 days, the Texas Department of Family Protective Services (“DFPS”) shall
ensure statewide implementation of the CPS Professional Development (“CPD”) training model, which
DFPS began to implement in November 2015.

Since 2015, the Core Professional Development (CPD) training model has been implemented
statewide and all caseworkers must complete CPD training before becoming case assignable. In
Community Based Care (CBC) regions, the Single Source Continuum Contractors’ (SSCC) CPD-
equivalent training must mirror DFPS CPD training. In May 2021, CPD curriculum enhancements
deployed. These enhancements were designed to better align the CPD curriculum with current
best practice and maximize proteges’ hands on, practical experience with casework tasks. The
ratio of classroom to field training remained the same; however, the distribution of this training
across the 13-week CPD training period shifted to focus on practical application of classroom
content and casework decision-making under a mentor’s supervision.

Figure 20 50 depicts CPD completion rates among caseworkers hired between January 1, 2021 and
July 31, 2021, who were expected to complete CPD by October 31, 2021. Among the 435
caseworkers hired between January 1, 2021 and July 31, 2021, 93 were not required to complete
CPD due to leaving DFPS or transferring to a non-CVS job (68), being exempt due to transfer
status (14) or being exempt due to prior experience (11). Among the remaining 342 caseworkers
required to complete CPD, 333 (97.3%) have completed CPD. 51

50 Data Source: RO1.1 files January-July 2021; RO2.4 files December 2020-October 2021; CAPPS Training
Data and Review of Case Assignability files; Ad-hoc check of hand-tracked listing of stipend students;
Human Resources Tables; and CLOE.
51 At the time of this writing, among the nine staff who had not yet completed CPD, seven were pending

completion and two were not required to complete CPD due to leaving DFPS or transferring to a non-
CVS job.

38
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 43 of 55

Figure 20. DFPS Core Professional Development Completion – Caseworkers Hired Jan. 1, 2021 – July 31, 2021

Remedial Order 2: Graduated Caseloads

Remedial Order 2: Within 60 days, DFPS shall ensure statewide implementation of graduated caseloads
for newly hired CVS caseworkers, and all other newly hired staff with the responsibility for primary case
management services to children in the PMC class, whether employed by a public or private entity.

A new CPS conservatorship (CVS) caseworker should be assigned no more than six
children during the first month and no more than 12 children during the second month after
becoming case assignable. During the third month after becoming case assignable, the caseworker
may receive a full caseload.

Daily Caseload Tracking Tool

In January 2021, DFPS developed a daily caseload tracking tool and provided the Monitors with
a demonstration of the tool, including current and future capabilities. 52 The daily caseload tracker
allows real time caseload monitoring at the state, region, county and caseworker levels. In March
2021, a graduated caseloads indicator was added to the daily caseload tracking tool, denoting
caseworkers in their first and second months of service. CPS supervisors, program directors,
program administrators and regional directors are required to consult the tracker at least monthly
for reference during staff conferences and are encouraged to consult the tracker weekly to make

52The SSCC caseload tracker deployed in May 2021. At present, it does not have the same graduated
caseload functionality that DFPS has. However, DFPS is evaluating whether a future iteration may
include this functionality.

39
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 44 of 55

case assignments, allocate staff resources, assess case distribution and monitor compliance with
generally applicable internal caseload standards.

CPS works with Human Resources to ensure that hiring practices are informed by data from the
daily caseload tracker; regional directors meet with hiring specialists to discuss where a position
should be hired based on regional needs and information from the caseload tracker.

Exemptions from Graduated Caseload Requirements

DFPS has formalized a process to document caseworkers who are exempt from graduated
caseloads. These exemptions are granted when a caseworker has previous service with DFPS
within certain timeframes, when a caseworker transfers within the agency, or when it is necessary
to keep sibling groups with the same caseworker. Graduated caseload reports are reviewed each
month to identify any caseworkers who exceeded caseload guidelines for any amount of time.
Typically, when a caseworker exceeds caseload guidelines, he/she has a valid exemption. If a
caseworker does not have a valid exemption (e.g., if a supervisor miscalculated the timeframe for
case assignability), the caseworker is immediately returned to being within caseload guidelines.

Monthly Graduated Caseload Reports

DFPS submits monthly DFPS and SSCC graduated caseload reports to the Monitors that include
indicators for:
• the date the caseworker completed CPD and became eligible to be assigned primary on
cases;
• the count of children assigned to the caseworker on the 15th day after becoming case
assignable;
• whether the caseload is above the first month guideline of six children;
• the number of days the caseworker’s caseload was above six from the date the caseworker
became case assignable to the 30th day;
• the count of children assigned to the caseworker on the 45th day after becoming case
assignable;
• whether the caseload is above the second month guideline of 12 children; and
• the number of days the caseworker’s caseload was above 12 from the 31st day to the 60th
day.

During FY 2021, 87% of DFPS caseworkers were within graduated caseload guidelines at 30 days
and 96% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60 days. (Figure 21). 53 Between January
and June 2021, 90% of DFPS caseworkers were within graduated caseload guidelines at 30 days
and 96% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60 days.

53 Data Source: RO2.1 CVS, RO2.4 and RO1.1 DFPS CVS Grad CL and CPD grad.

40
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 45 of 55

Figure 21. DFPS Graduated Caseloads within Guidelines, FY 2021

DFPS Graduated Caseloads within Guidelines

FY 2021
99%
96% 95% 94%
90% 89%
87% 85%

Q1 FY21 Q2 FY21 Q3 FY21 Q4 FY21

30 Days 60 Days

During FY 2021, 95% of SSCC caseworkers were within graduated caseload guidelines at 30 days
and 96% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60 days. (Figure 22). 54 Between January
and June 2021, 95% of SSCC caseworkers were within graduated caseload guidelines at 30 days
and 95% were within graduated caseload guidelines at 60 days.
Figure 22. SSCC Graduated Caseloads within Guidelines, FY 2021

SSCC – Graduated Caseloads within Guidelines

FY 2021
100% 100%
94% 96% 95% 96% 95%
89%

Q1 FY21 Q2 FY21 Q3 FY21 Q4 FY21

30 Days 60 Days

54Data Source: RO1.1 CPD and Graduated Caseloads for 2INgage and OCOK (September 2020 – August
2021); data is self-reported by the SSCC.

41
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 46 of 55

Remedial Orders 35 and A-1 through A-4: CPS CVS

Caseworker Caseloads
Remedial Order 35: Effective immediately, DFPS shall track caseloads on a child-only basis, as ordered
by the Court in December 2015. Effective immediately, DFPS shall report to the Monitors, on a quarterly
basis, caseloads for all staff, including supervisors, who provide primary case management services to
children in the PMC class, whether employed by a public or private entity, and whether full-time or part-
time. Data reports shall show all staff who provide case management services to children in the PMC class
and their caseloads. In addition, DFPS’s reporting shall include the number and percent of staff with
caseloads within, below and over the DFPS established guideline, by office, by county, by agency (if private)
and statewide. Reports will include the identification number and location of individual staff and the
number of PMC children and, if any, TMC children to whom they provide case management. Caseloads for
staff, as defined above, who spend part-time in caseload carrying functions and part-time in other functions
must be reported accordingly.

Remedial Order A-1: Within 60 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS, in consultation with and under
supervision of the Monitors, shall propose a workload study to generate reliable data regarding current
caseloads and to determine how many children caseworkers are able to safely carry, for the establishment of
appropriate guidelines for caseload ranges. The proposal shall include, but will not be limited to: the
sampling criteria, timeframes, protocols, survey questions, pool sample, interpretation models, and the
questions asked during the study. DFPS shall file this proposal with the Court within 60 days of the Court’s
Order, and the Court shall convene a hearing to review the proposal.

Remedial Order A-2: Within 120 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS shall present the completed workload
study to the Court. DFPS shall include as a feature of their workload study submission to the Court, how
many cases, on average, caseworkers are able to safely carry, and the data and information upon which that
determination is based, for the establishment of appropriate guidelines for caseload ranges.

Remedial Order A-3: Within 150 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS shall establish internal caseload
standards based on the findings of the DFPS workload study, and subject to the Court’s approval. The
caseload standards that DFPS will establish shall ensure a flexible method of distributing caseloads that
takes into account the following non-exhaustive criteria: the complexity of the cases; travel distances;
language barriers; and the experience of the caseworker. In the policy established by DFPS, caseloads for
staff shall be prorated for those who are less than full-time. Additionally, caseloads for staff who spend part-
time in the work described by the caseload standard and part-time in other functions shall be prorated
accordingly.

Remedial Order A-4: Within 180 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS shall ensure that the generally
applicable, internal caseload standards that are established are utilized to serve as guidance for supervisors
who are handling caseload distribution and that its hiring goals for all staff are informed by the generally
applicable, internal caseload standards that are established. This order shall be applicable to all DFPS

42
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 47 of 55

supervisors, as well as anyone employed by private entities who is charged by DFPS to provide case
management services to children in the General class.

In December 2019, the Court approved an agreed motion by the parties requesting that in lieu of
conducting workload studies, DFPS and HHSC would establish as guidelines for the
determination of generally applicable internal caseload and investigation standards 14-17
children per conservatorship caseworker, 14-17 investigations per DFPS CCI investigator and 14-
17 tasks per RCCL inspector. 55 The Court directed that “[t]he guidelines…shall not be used or
interpreted as a “caseload cap” or an “enforced caseload range.” 56

CPS Supervisor-Level Management of Caseload Assignments

CPS supervisors should continuously monitor caseworker caseloads to ensure an equitable
number of cases among caseworkers, while also monitoring the complexity of cases when making
determinations about case assignments. To do this, supervisors use information management
tools, including INSIGHT, a daily caseload tracker (discussed further herein) and monthly
caseload reports, and regular staff meetings to discuss case assignments and workloads.

CPS Supervisors receive training on CPS Generally Applicable Internal Caseload Standards in
Supervisor Basic Skills Development (BSD) training. The BSD training curriculum is being
updated and is scheduled to go live on December 20, 2021, after which DFPS will provide Stage
II SSCCs storyboards from which to train their supervisors.

To improve CPS leadership’s ability to evenly distribute and manage caseloads, DFPS developed
a daily caseload tracking tool in January 2021 and provided the Monitors with a demonstration
of the tool’s present and future capabilities. Using the daily caseload tracker, CPS leadership can
monitor caseloads in real time, on any given day, at the state, region, county and caseworker
levels.

Monthly Caseload Reports

DFPS tracks caseloads on a child-only basis and provides the Monitors with monthly DFPS and
SSCC caseload and graduated caseload reports. The monthly caseload reports provide 33 data
elements, including:

• caseloads for all DFPS and SSCC staff who provide primary case management services
to children in the PMC class;
• the number of staff with caseloads within, below or above the 14-17 guideline;
• each staff member’s identification number, job title, supervisor, unit, county and region;
• the number of PMC and TMC children assigned to each staff member;
• secondary assignments; and

55 Order (December 17, 2019), ECF No. 722.

56 Id.

43
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 48 of 55

• each child’s name and identification number.

In addition to providing the Monitors with monthly caseload and graduated caseload reports,
DFPS and SSCC caseworkers and supervisors participate in monthly caseload verification
interviews with the Monitors’ staff. The monitoring team recently asked DFPS staff about
producing off-cycle caseload reports to validate whether data in the monthly caseload reports is
representative of caseworkers’ caseloads throughout the month. DFPS staff explained the process
by which caseload data is frozen and extracted and suggested INSIGHT may be a better and faster
data source for the monitoring team to pull and analyze a random sample of caseloads on any
given day. 57

Between FY 2019 and FY 2021, CVS caseloads have consistently decreased, from 18.0 children on
average in FY 2019 to 15.6 children on average in FY 2021. (Figure 23). 58 Between January and
June 2021, CVS caseloads were 15.4 children on average. Between April and September 2021,
caseloads steadily, albeit slightly, increased, from 15.2 to 16.1 children on average, respectively.
However, caseloads began to decrease in October 2021. (Figure 24).
Figure 23. CPS Conservatorship Caseloads, FY 2019 – FY 2021

Conservatorship Caseloads FY 2019 - FY 2021

19.0
18.0
18.0

17.0 16.8

16.0 15.6

15.0

14.0
FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

57 See Email from Ross Baxter to monitoring team RE: Caseload question (September 28, 2021).
58 Data Source: child count ted_01

44
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 49 of 55

Figure 24. CPS Conservatorship Caseloads by Month, FY 2021

Conservatorship Caseloads
16.1
FY 2021 - FYTD 2022
15.9 15.9 15.9
15.8
15.7 15.7 15.7
15.6

15.4 15.4
15.3
15.2 15.2

Figures 25 through 27 include quarterly and fiscal year aggregate caseload counts for Texas
caseworkers (including both DFPS and SSCC staff), DFPS staff and SSCC staff. 59 Both during FY
2021 and between January and June 2021, almost 60% of Texas caseworkers had caseloads of 17
or fewer children. DFPS quarterly and fiscal year aggregate caseload counts are substantially
similar. During FY 2021, SSCC caseworker caseloads experienced more variability, with between
48% and 60% of caseworkers having caseloads of 17 or fewer children. Between January and June
2021, 52% of SSCC caseworkers had caseloads of 17 or fewer children.
Figure 25. Child Only Caseloads – All Staff (DFPS and SSCC), FY 2021

ALL – Assigned Child Counts for Caseworkers with at Least 1 PMC

Child
Q1 FY21 57% 18% 17% 8% 17 or less
Q2 FY21 58% 18% 18% 6% 18-20
Q3 FY21 59% 18% 18% 5%
Q4 FY21 21-25
57% 20% 18% 5%
FY21 58% 18% 18% 6% >25

59 Data Source: RO2.1 CVS Caseloads.

45
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 50 of 55

Figure 26. Child Only Caseloads – DFPS, FY 2021

DFPS – Assigned Child Counts for Caseworkers with at Least 1

PMC Child

Q1 FY21 58% 17% 16% 8% 17 or less

Q2 FY21 59% 17% 17% 6%
18-20
Q3 FY21 60% 18% 17% 5%
21-25
Q4 FY21 57% 19% 18% 6%
FY21 >25
59% 18% 17% 6%

Figure 27. Child Only Caseloads – SSCC, FY 2021

SSCC – Assigned Child Counts for Caseworkers with at Least 1

PMC Child

Q1 FY21 49% 27% 19% 4% 17 or less

Q2 FY21 48% 22% 27% 3%
18-20
Q3 FY21 54% 21% 21% 4%
21-25
Q4 FY21 60% 22% 15% 3%
FY21 53% 23% 20% 4% >25

CPS Legislative Appropriations Requests

Maintaining adequate numbers of CVS caseworkers or even keeping pace with exits is a
challenge. Unabated, this staffing challenge may soon impact the Department’s ability to remain
within the caseworker guidelines in accordance with the Court’s remedial orders concerning
caseloads and caseworker training. Between February and July 2021, DFPS hired 319 CVS
caseworkers. During the same time period, 309 CVS caseworkers terminated their employment.
According to exit surveys CVS caseworkers submitted during 2021, 86% cited work-related stress
as a reason for terminating their employment (up from 40% in 2020); 43% cited safety concerns
(up from 23% in 2020) and 35% cited inadequate training (up from 14% in 2020).

During the 87th Texas Legislature (Regular Session, 2021), DFPS requested and received $40.2
million for 312.0 FTEs to maintain CVS caseworker caseloads within guidelines.

46
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 51 of 55

Six Month Daily Caseload Trend Analysis

In November 2021, the DFPS Office of Data and Systems Improvement (DSI) conducted a trend
analysis of caseworkers’ daily caseloads from May through October 2021. The purpose of this
trend analysis was to determine whether caseloads materially increase or decrease throughout
the month and/or at month end. The analysis included anyone identified as having a PMC child
assigned primary on their workload. Figure 28 includes the percentage of caseworkers with more
than 17 substitute care (SUB) stages 60 on each day of the month for the six months of the analysis.
With the exception of September 2021, the percentage of caseworkers with more than 17 SUB
stages remained fairly flat or trended slightly upward throughout each month of the analysis.

Figure 28. Percentage of Caseworkers with More Than 17 SUB Stages, by Day, May – October 2021

60When conducting this analysis, DSI evaluated caseload data based on stages, not children, as the data
infrastructure was not readily available to identify unique children day over day throughout the six-
month period. Generally, each SUB stage represents a unique child; however, one child may have both a
SUB and adoption (ADO) stage open. To the extent that any children have both an open SUB stage and
open ADO stage, caseloads will be slightly over-represented due to duplicated counts.

47
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 52 of 55

Remedial Orders B-1 through B-4: RCCI Investigator

Caseloads
Remedial Order B1: Within 60 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS, in consultation with and under
supervision of the Monitors, shall propose a workload study to: generate reliable data regarding current
RCCL, or successor entity, investigation caseloads and to determine how much time RCCL investigators,
or successor staff, need to adequately investigate allegations of child maltreatment, in order to inform the
establishment of appropriate guidelines for caseload ranges; and to generate reliable data regarding current
RCCL inspector, or successor staff, caseloads and to determine how much time RCCL inspectors, or
successor staff, need to adequately and safely perform their prescribed duties, in order to inform the
establishment of appropriate guidelines for caseload ranges. The proposal shall include, but will not be
limited to: the sampling criteria, timeframes, protocols, survey questions, pool sample, interpretation
models, and the questions asked during the study. DFPS shall file this proposal with the Court within 60
days of the Court’s Order and the Court shall convene a hearing to review the proposal.

Remedial Order B2: Within 120 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS shall present the completed workload
study to the Court. DFPS shall include as a feature of their workload study submission to the Court, how
many cases, on average, RCCL inspectors and investigators, or any successor staff, are able to safely carry,
and the data and information upon which that determination is based, for the establishment of appropriate
guidelines for caseload ranges.

Remedial Order B3: Within 150 days of the Court’s Order, DFPS, in consultation with the Monitors,
shall establish internal guidelines for caseload ranges that RCCL investigators, or any successor staff, can
safely manage based on the findings of the RCCL investigator workload study, including time spent in
actual investigations. In the standard established by DFPS, caseloads for staff shall be prorated for those
who are less than full-time. Additionally, caseloads for staff who spend part-time in the work described by
the RCCL, or successor entity, standard and part-time in other functions shall be prorated accordingly.

Remedial Order B4: Within 180 days of this Order, DFPS shall ensure that the internal guidelines for
caseload ranges and investigative timelines are based on the determination of the caseloads RCCL
investigators, or any successor staff, can safely manage are utilized to serve as guidance for supervisors
who are handling caseload distribution and that these guidelines inform DFPS hiring goals for all RCCL
inspectors and investigators, or successor staff.

As discussed previously herein, in December 2019, the Court approved an agreed motion by the
parties requesting that in lieu of conducting workload studies, DFPS and HHSC would establish
as guidelines for the determination of generally applicable internal caseload and investigation
standards 14-17 children per conservatorship caseworker, 14-17 investigations per DFPS CCI
investigator and 14-17 tasks per RCCL inspector. 61 The Court directed that “[t]he

61 Order (December 17, 2019), ECF No. 722.

48
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 53 of 55

guidelines…shall not be used or interpreted as a “caseload cap” or an “enforced caseload

range.” 62

RCCI Supervisor-Level Management of Caseload Assignments

RCCI supervisors are advised to assign investigations when possible using a modified round-
robin rotation method, assigning investigations in a rotational order, usually from the top to the
bottom of the list of case assignable investigators. Supervisors should continuously monitor
caseloads to ensure workload equity. When assigning investigations and monitoring caseloads,
supervisors should consider the complexity of investigations, travel, language barriers, removal
of investigators from rotation, and investigators’ tenure and experience. To do this, RCCI
supervisors use information management tools, including INSIGHT, a daily caseload tracker and
monthly caseload reports, and regular staff meetings to discuss caseloads and deadlines. In May
2021, the RCCI daily caseload tracking tool deployed and DFPS provided the Monitors with a
demonstration of the tool.

Monthly Caseload Reports

DFPS provides the Monitors with monthly RCCI caseload reports, which include:

• the number of investigations assigned to each staff member;

• whether the number of investigations is within, below or above the 14-17 guideline;
• each staff member’s identification number, job title, supervisor, unit, county and region;
• the total number of alleged victims in each investigation assigned to the staff member,
alleged victim ID, case ID and investigation stage ID; and
• secondary assignments.

Table 5 includes average daily caseloads from FY 2020 through FYTD 2022, as well as the highest
and lowest average daily caseloads during each fiscal year. 63
Table 5. RCCI Average Daily Caseload, FY 2020 – FYTD 2022

Fiscal Year Avg. Daily Highest Avg. Lowest Avg.

Caseload Daily Caseload Daily Caseload
2020 16.8 24 9.6
2021 11.3 15.2 7.6
2022 (to date) 6.7 6.8 6.6

62 Id.
63 Source: Data Warehouse report ted_01

49
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 54 of 55

Between FY 2019 and FYTD 2022, RCCI investigators’ average daily caseloads have progressively
decreased (Figure 29). 64
Figure 29. RCCI Average Daily Caseload, FY 2019 – FY 2021

RCCI Average Daily Caseload

FY 2019 – FYTD 2022
23.4 24 22.8
21.3 22.1
18.7
16.3
13.5 14.414.713.815.2
13.4
12.3
10.5 9.9 10 9.6 10.3
9.1 9
7.6 8 7.9
6.8 6.6

Between January and June 2021, 92% of RCCI investigators’ average daily caseloads were either
below 14 investigations (322 of 378) or between 14-17 investigations (27 of 378). Eight percent of
investigations were above 17 investigations (29 of 378) (Table 6). 65
Table 6. Monthly RCCI Investigator Caseloads, January – June 2021

Month Under 14 14 – 17 More Than 17 Highest

(2021) # % # % # % Caseload
January 44 71% 5 8% 13 21% 57
February 43 70% 4 7% 14 23% 46
March 57 97% 2 3% 0 0% 15
April 59 97% 2 3% 0 0% 15
May 56 86% 8 12% 1 2% 19
June 63 90% 6 9% 1 1% 20
Total 322 85% 27 7% 29 8%

64Id.
65Source: RO B.1 RCI Caseloads. For each month, data includes any individual assigned as primary to at
least one RCCI investigation on the last calendar day of the month.

50
 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 1167 Filed on 01/10/22 in TXSD Page 55 of 55

Figure 30 66 illustrates the marked increase in the number of staff with 17 or fewer investigations
beginning in mid-FY 2021.
Figure 30. RCCI Staff with 17 or Fewer Investigations, FY 2021

PMC – RCCI Staff with 17 or Fewer Investigations

FY 2021

100% 100% 98% 99% 100% 98%

86%
80% 78% 77%
76% 73%

66 Id.

51