1. Introduction:
The Department of Children and Family Services provides care for 3,187,332
children in the United States. In the State of Illinois there are 19,300 children living in
state care. And in the county of Cook there are 3,702 children living in substitutive care,
2,122 in foster homes, and 1,074 with a relative, and 506 children living in institutions or
group homes. Yet, the Department of Children and Family Services has been repeatedly
criticized by outside groups like the ACLU and various Media sources focusing on the
rare occurances rather than the reality that the Department of Children and Family
Services is providing quality care for the children in need of its services. Consequently,
the misleading information that is circulating about the Department of Children and
Family Services is creating great mistrust among sources that fund the department.
Resultantly, public support for the agency, both moral and financial, is on the decline.
Therefore, in an effort to discover the facts about the Department of Children and Family
Services and the services the children receive while in state care, statistics and literature
will be reviewed. Additionally, several interviews of employees of the agency will be
conducted which offers a perspective into the agency that might otherwise be ignored.
However, in order to provide the reader with the most accurate information the general
information about the agency must first be detailed.

2. Literature Review:
The Department of Children and Family Services is directed by Brian Samuels.
Brian Samuels (2003) introduces the agency by boasting about the about the state of
Illinois being, “the nation’s largest state welfare agency to earn accreditation from the
Council of Accreditation for Children and Family Services (COA.)” Samuels also details
how the Department of Children and Family Services is structured detailing its six
geographic divisions; Cook, North Cook, Cook Central, Cook South, Northern, Southern,
and Central regions. Additionally, Samuels (2003) details the various departments
involved in caring for the children listing; The Department of Child Protection,
Placement Permancy, Field Operations, Guardian and Advocacy, Clinical Practice and
Professional Development, Service Intervention, Budget and Finance, Planning and
Performances, and Communications.
According to Doreen Kinsella(2003), the Department of Child Protection is
responsible for, “the provision of an advisory and consultancy service to education
establishments, officers, governors, advisers and support services on policies, and
procedures and practices relating to child protection. Placement Permancy is the
department that reviews whether or not a permanent home is suitable for a child’s
situation and how to place a child in a permanent home. The Field Operations division is
responsible for investigating calls into the Child protection Hotline. The Guardian and
Advocacy division is responsible for advocating on behalf of the children in state care.
This includes being present at important court, doctor, school, and other appointments
that are related to an individual child’s case. The department of Clinical Practice and

3. Professional Development is responsible for researching and implementing new and
improved ways of taking care of children and setting new standards for employees of the
Department of Children and Family Services. The department of Service Interventions is
responsible for following up all situations that require intervention like, suicidal behavior,
runaways, drug intervention, and abuse. The department of Budget and Finance is
responsible for proposing, allotting, and distributing all finances necessary for caring for
the children in state care. The Department of Planning and Performance oversees the
development of new facilities and programs. The department of communications is
responsible for relaying to the public and its interests what is going on in the Department
of Children and Family Services and defending the Department of Children and Family
Services from accusations or stories that may be circulating about the agency, its
employees, or children.
According to the State of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services
website, “as of January of 2004 there were 19,338 children living in substitutive care,
foster care, or institutions because of abuse, neglect, or chemical dependency.” The goal
of the State is these situations is to first of all protect the children, provide the necessary
services for the child in need, and then if at all possible re-unite families if at all possible
once a home or situation has been deemed safe. The Department of Children and Family
Services is not intended to be a permanent situation for all children. The ultimate goal,
aside from protecting children, is to keep families together whenever possible. However,
in the interim children in need of foster care or other state care are said to be placed in or
have access to various services that include; “Foster Family care, Relative Care, Group
Home or Institutional Care, Independent Living arrangements, Protective Day Care

4. Homemakers, Counseling, Psychological assessments, Health Care, Crisis Intervention,
Aid for Pregnant or Parenting teens, and Preparation of Youth or Independent Living.”
According to the National Child Watch Program (2003) of the 3,187,332 children
that were state care the reasons that warranted the removal included physical abuse,
sexual abuse, neglect, and other reason. Statistically, 11.37% of the children had suffered
physical abuse before entering into the system, 48.28% of the children had suffered from
neglect or deprivation, 11% had suffered from sexual abuse, 1.29% had suffered from
psychological or emotional abuse, and 43.24 % of the children had been removed from
homes. The cost to care for the children that had been removed according to CPS varies
because of the different types of care that a child may require. For children living in
regular foster care the cost is about $11,957 for each child. For a child living in relative
care the cost is estimated at, $11, 231. For a child living in specialized care the cost is
estimated to be $32,536. For children living in unlocked multiple facilities the cost is
estimated at $86,271. For all of the children living independently the cost is estimated at
$46,252. The average cost of a child is estimated at being $16,425.
Despite theses facts, knowingly or unknowingly, some researchers claim that the
Department is inefficient and neglectful. According to Trudy Festinger, a researcher and
head of the Department of Research at the New York University School of Social Work,
“…nationally, 28% of the children in state care had been abuse while in the system.”
Additionally, The Children’s Right Project is documented as saying, “there are a lot of
injuries, a lot of abuses. The most significant thing is the psychological deaths of so
many of these kids. Kids are being destroyed everyday, destroyed by a government
funded system set out to help them.” (1998) Furthermore, John Hagedorn (1998)

5. believes that the system is not set up in a manner to help children. Rather, the system is
set up in a manner is exists exclusively for the benefit of the upper portion of the
hierarchy, top officials and executives. Media Resources like the Associated Press
comments about the efficiency of the agency saying, “in nearly half of the states, cases
take years to come to completion as agencies repeatedly fail to investigate abuse reports
in a timely fashion, find permanent homes for children, or even keep track of those
children under their care and custody.” (1998)
On a relatively consistent basis newspapers publish stories about cases of abuse
and neglect in a manner that suggests the cases reflect what happens with a child when
they are placed in the system. One example of such an incident is the publication of a
story about a child by the name of Tara M. who while in foster care was, “forced to strip
by her foster parents in the bathtub and was doused with buckets of scalding water as a
form of punishment.”(1998) Also, in California there was a story published about a, “23-
month old child that was allegedly beaten to death over toilet training by the foster
mother of the boy.” (1998) Again, additionally stories have been published by media
sources that depict children being removed from their biological parents and denied the
services that the institution claims to provide. In this particular case, Juan and Julie,
fraternal twins, were denied medical treatment while in the care of their foster parents for
physical abuse they had suffered before entering into the system. Sadly, and ultimately
the children both died. Without denying these allegations and victimizing these children
again, one must remember that the media sources that have published these stories have
so in a manner that gives the reader the impression that this type of treatment is common
among children in the care of the state. Most representative of this notion is the fact that

6. in the case of Juan and Julie, both of the children were removed to the care of the
hospital. After a few weeks the hospital sent the children home without fully treating the
children. The decision that the children were able to go home was made by a doctor.
Resulting in the death of both children because of an infection that was overlooked by the
doctor, not because of the care the children received while in foster care.
Publications of such material in such a manner have resulted in a loss of moral
and financial support. Statistics show that in 2001, support of the agency from private
citizens declined from, “$31,740 to $23,421 in 2002.” And, the money allotted to DCFS
from various locations also declined from 416,000,600 dollars in 2002 to $410,000,300.”
Important to remember is that the federal government allots each state $68,000,000 a year
for taking care of children in need. An increase in funds used to take care of children is
achieved by states allotting more funds each state feels is necessary. These funds come
from private and public sectors that may include citizens, businesses, or the state fund.
Despite the decline in support and negative statements that the system is inefficient and
does not appropriately take care of children, evidence proves otherwise.
The reality is that there have been many programs set into place to ensure that
children in state care are being taken care of in the best possible manner. According
documents, the Federal government instituted a law as of April 1, 1997 that required all
government employees, caregivers, teachers, and social service workers to be given a
mandatory background check to ensure the safety of the children in state care. The
amendment came into effect as of January, 1, 2004. The law details the process an
organization, an institution, or a private citizen must complete in order to be a state
qualified caregiver. Additionally according to the article, “The human Rights Update:

7. Settlement promises improvement for Illinois Kids,”(1991) there was a reduction in the
number of cases a case-worker could take in that was placed into effect in 1997. Further,
a system called the IDCFS Integrated System was developed by the University of
Chicago. This system integrated the current systems, the Child abuse and neglect
Tracking System and the Child and Youth Centered informational system, creating a
system that tracks all kids in a better manner. Not to mention, the system can tell
whether a kid is under state control which furthers the monitoring abilities of state
officials on the children in substitutive care. Additionally, there have been major changes
in the way the state looks after children in relative care.
Looking after and caring for children in state care is very challenging. However,
according to the “Children in Youth Services Review” children that have been placed in
“kinship” care are even more difficult to follow. That is, until recently, there have not
been any type of restrictions placed on relatives who agree to take care of removed
children resulting in tragedy. However, in an attempt to squash this problem the federal
government is now placing the same standards on a the relatives that agree to take care of
a removed child as they would place on a person that is a qualified state caregiver. Not
only did this result in better care of the children in kinship care, but it resulted in greater
support of families that agree to care for a kin, however, as the Review states, “not all the
states followed and implemented the statuses of the amendment. “In a study, there were
only 10 states that enforced the same rules on a relative that agreed to take care of a kin
and government qualified caregivers. The other 41 states offer kin at least one other
assessment standard that is different than non-kin standards. Of these 41, 25 states
provided foster care payments to the kin meeting the different standards. Also, there

8. were 39 states that placed a child in the care of a kin without seeking state custody.”
(2002). Not seeking state custody of children before they are placed with a relative is a
big problem. These Children face greater hardships like poverty and continued abuse
while in the care of a relative.
The state of Illinois continues to improve the Department of Children and Family
Services. Governor Blagoavich allotted an additional $169,200,000 to the agency for
2005. The money will be used to improve the Integrated Assessment Program, educating
wards of the state, a new residential monitoring system, and providing better mental
health care for all of the children in the state of Illinois.
Some critics of the federal government have created and proposed better systems
that they believe are more efficient in time, effort, and money. An Article written by
Phillip Garnier titled, “Using Administrative Data to Access Child Safety in Out of the
Home Care” believes that “the current system could be improved if a national system was
set into place that could identify all children in the system and connect every state’s
reports of child abuse.” Additionally, many theorists believe that one way to improve the
system is to rely more heavily on and use family members to take care of children that
have been removed from their parent or parents. However, according to Jennifer Ehrle
and Rob Green in their study that is not an answer.
In a study conducted by Jennifer Ehrle and Rob Green in an effort to research
whether or not relatives of children can be relied on for caring for removed children,
three groups were studied, children in non-kin foster care, children in kinship care, and
children in voluntary kinship care. The children that are in voluntary kinship care are
placed in the care of a relative but without the state being involved. The findings

9. suggested, “children in kin arrangements faced greater hardships than those in non-kin
care. They more often lived in poor families and experienced food insecurity. They were
more likely to live with a non-married caregiver who is not working and does not have a
high school degree.
Research Design:
In my research I used the program/site evaluation design. This design required
that I review many different sources to become more informed about the Department of
Children and Family Services. Additionally, in order to properly access whether the
agency is living up to the goal of protecting, caring, and reuniting children and families,
statistics were analyzed and employees were interviewed.
Data and Methods:
Name Position How I got Access Location of Interview
Respondent 1 Social Worker/Lawyer Family Member 5209 Fredrick Ct
Respondent 2 Psychologist Family Friend Lisle Illinois
Respondent 3 Social Worker Family Friend Oak Park Library
Respondent 4 Administrator Walk-in Respondents office
Respondent 5 Administrator Walk-in Respondents office

10. Findings:
The Department of Children and Family Services is criticized on a daily basis.
Critics like the ACLU, media sources like the Associated Press, and people like Trudy
Festinger and John Hagedorn are documented critics of the Department of Children and
Family Services and are a few sources perpetuating negative images of the agency.
However, after reviewing literature and statistics about the Department of Children and
Family Services the comments by these critics are not warranted and are inaccurate.
Facts show that the current system that is set in place is constructed in a manner that
protects and cares for the children in need of state care. In an effort to prove this assertion
an analysis and comparison of five interviews will be complete. All of the interviews
will ask each respondent about his or her job, whether or not he or she believes the
negative publicity is an accurate description of the system, about the children in state
care, why cases like Tara M. and Juan and Julie are present in the system, what reforms if
any need to be done to the current system, and whether or not a complete demise of the
system is necessary and would benefit the children in the care of the Department of
Children Services. Most importantly however, is the united belief shared by each
respondent that the system that is set into place is not responsible for abusing and
neglecting children. But rather, individuals that have or currently work for the
department are responsible. Furthermore, getting rid of the current system in favor of a
completely different system is irresponsible and will hurt children more than if people
work on and improve the current system.

11. In deciding to interview people who had or are working with the Department of
Children and Family Services it became clear that it was essential to interview people
from different divisions to gain greater accuracy about the agency. The first respondent
was a female that was twenty-eight and graduated from Loyola University with a
Bachelors degree in Political Science. In continuing her studies respondent 1 went to the
Loyola’s Erickson Institute where she graduated with a master’s degree in Early
Childhood Development. In an effort to further her studies respondent 1 applied for an
internship program with the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. In Washington
respondent 1 worked on legislation to improve the current child welfare system. It was in
Washington that respondent 1 became interested in the legalities of the agency and
concluded that she was going to pursue a J.D. After applying five Universities she was
accepted into the University of Michigan’s combined J.D./PH.D program where she
completed her studies in 2003. In March of 2003 respondent 1 accepted a job with the
legal department of the Department of Children and Family Services. She has been
working with the agency for a little over a year when this interview took place on March
14, 2004. Her duties included defending children and prosecuting parents, institutions,
and organizations in abuse and neglect cases.
Respondent 2 is a female that is thirty-six years old. She graduated from the
University of Illinois in Champaign where she earned an undergraduate degree in
psychology. After she completed her studies respondent 2 accepted a position at an
institution named “Mooseheart the Child City.” After two years of working at
Mooseheart and working on a graduate degree in social work at the University of Illinois
at Chicago, respondent 2 pursued a PH.D at the same university. At the age of twenty-

12. nine respondent 2 applied for a position with the Department of Children and Family
Services and began working there in 1996. Currently she is working with the department
and believes that she will continue her work with the department as long as she can.
When asked what her duties were respondent 2 replied, “I am to treat the children who
have been placed in state care. I address problems like transitioning into the system,
behavioral disorder, sex abuse, physical abuse, neglect, depression, and many other
disorders…”
Respondent 3 is a male social worker that is thirty three years old. He obtained an
undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a graduate degree in
social work. Respondent 3 obtained a job with the Department of Children and Family
Services in 1995 and has worked with both children and adults in state care. When asked
about his job requirements he stated, “I am a social worker in the department that has
worked with both children and adults. When I am working with children I create a plane
of action that fits the needs of each child. Depending on the type of service the child
requires, I work with different people to ensure that the child’s needs are being met.
Most importantly however is trying to find a suitable permanent residence for each
child.”
Respondent 4 is an administrative assistant in the Field Work division. She is
fourty-two years old. She graduated with an undergraduate degree in business and
obtained a job with the Department of Children and Family Services in their
communications division where she worked for 10 years. After obtaining a graduated
degree in social work from Loyola University she transferred over to the Field Work
Division where she has been working for 6 years. When asked about her duties she

13. responded by saying “I am responsible for organizing the Field Work Department. I
oversee each social workers cases and relay them to other departments. Additionally, I
try to keep the field workers on task and make sure they do their job ethically and
completely.”
Respondent 5 is a female that is thirty eight years old. She graduated with an
undergraduate degree in sociology from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1990.
She has been working with the Department of Children and Family services for about
fourteen years. She started her career with the agency and has worked in 3 divisions.
Currently, she is an administrator in the Child Protections division. Her duties include,
“following all reports and calls founded and unfounded to the agency. Additionally she
works with the University of Chicago in connecting reports made to the center and
reports about children that are in the care of the state.”
After getting acquainted with each of the respondents and their positions, duties,
views about the children in state care, and whether or not they believe the negative
publicity to be accurate, similarities and difference began to emerge. Similarly speaking,
all of the respondents are currently working with the Department of Children and Family
Services.