BH_Joint Status Report_11-14-25_Dkt 897.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

B.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v.

HEIDI E. MUELLER, Director, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Defendant.

) No. 88 C 5599 ) Hon. Jorge L. Alonso ) Judge Presiding

JOINT STATUS REPORT ON THE SUPERSEDING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Plaintiffs and Defendant, in consultation with the Expert Panel, submit the following report regarding the status of the Superseding Implementation Plan, Supplemented (Dkt. 834-1, the

“SIP”). This report provides further context for three data reports filed pursuant to the SIP on

November 7, 2025. See Dkt. 894, October 2025 Overarching Outcome Report; Dkt. 895, October

2025 Progress Report; Dkt. 896, October 2025 Integration Report.

The Parties and Expert Panel agree that it is time for the Department to adjust its implementation strategies based on the results of more than two years of work under the SIP. This

Report provides the bases for this conclusion. First, it provides a high-level overview of the results of the Department’s SIP implementation efforts to date. See Part I, infra. That is followed by a broad outline of how the Department intends to modify several of its SIP implementation strategies, including reducing maltreatment in care; increasing permanency exits from long-term care to reunification, guardianship, and adoption; and plans for improving outcomes for a specific subset of youth with significant psychological, behavioral or emotional challenges (“YNI”).1 In

1The YNI population consists of youth in care who have experienced four or more living arrangement moves—one which involves psychiatric hospitalization – in a one-year period. Dkt. 834-1 at

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:8847 addition, the Expert Panel is recommending solutions to improve oversight of data integrity, statistical analyses, and research studies conducted by outside contractors.

As shown below, the Parties and the Expert Panel are continuing to evaluate the results from the Department’s initial work under the SIP and are considering how the Department should be refocusing its implementation efforts. The Parties and Expert Panel anticipate providing the

Court with agreed paths forward at or before the January 2026 SIP status hearing.

I. Overview of the Status of SIP Implementation.

The SIP called for implementation of its Interventions using an “experimentalist” approach.

Dkt. 834-1 at 2. DCFS was to “pilot test and evaluate” strategies for integrating the SIP

Interventions to determine their overall effectiveness before implementing the integrated model statewide. Id. at 6.2 This testing and evaluation was to occur by integrating six of the seven

Interventions, synergistically referred to as the Meta Model, in select pilot teams (now referred to as “Partner Teams”) and then monitoring the implementation outputs and intervention outcomes to see whether the Partner Teams’ performance on these measures exceeded the performance of a set of comparable “Comparison Teams.”3 Id. at 6-7. The Partner Teams were to be given support in a variety of ways, including enhanced training and coaching in collaborative problem solving with youth and families.

36. Prior analyses conducted by the Expert Panel using Medicaid claims data identified this group of youth as being at particularly high risk of aging out of care without a legally permanent relationship to a capable adult who can guide and support their transition to responsible adulthood. The Expert Panel calculates that approximately 400 additional youth meet this threshold for intervention each fiscal year.

2 The Experimentalist Approach, adapted from Sabel and Simon (Harvard Law Review, 2004), proceeds through three interrelated phases: 1) negotiation—the parties come together to negotiate an implementation plan to achieve the desired results; 2) transparency—stakeholders commit to outcome measures that are relatively specific and to a process of rigorous evaluation that facilitates disciplined comparisons to past performance, similar units, and, whenever possible, matched or randomized comparison groups; and 3) quality review—formal interventions are piloted, regularly evaluated, and scaled-up if confirmed, revised with further piloting locally, or discontinued if ineffective.

3 The seventh intervention, Residential Monitoring, was not piloted in the Partner Teams.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 2 of 29 PageID #:8848

The plan for integration under the SIP depended on improving the quality of practice in the

Partner Teams using the Department’s Core Practice Model (“Model”). The Department developed and adopted its practice Model in 2016 under the implementation plan that predated the

SIP.4 As set forth more fully below (see infra at 7-10), the Model emphasizes the use of “Child and Family Teams” to deliver family-engagement, family-centered, trauma-informed, and strengths-based approaches to improve outcomes for children and families. The 2023 SIP brought forward the practice Model as the underlying framework for implementing and integrating the SIP interventions in the selected Partner Teams. The intent was that the Partner Teams would be integrating the SIP Interventions into their ongoing work using Child and Family Team practice techniques under the Department’s practice Model. Determination of whether integration of the

SIP Interventions had occurred in the Partner Teams was to be measured using selected scoring for their performance under the DCFS’s bi-annual “Administrative Case Review” process. The score chosen for this purpose addresses whether Partner Team caseworkers were conducting Child and

Family Team Meetings (“CFTMs”) – an indicator of appropriate Child and Family Team practice

– with the required quality and content.5

The Partner Teams did achieve improvements in CFTM rating scores, but the effects of that performance did not have the intended impact on all proximate and distal outcomes as expected. Partner Teams’ performance did not exceed Comparison Team Performance for all

Interventions. Dkt. 896 [October 2025 Integration Report] at 2-5. Further, it was unexpected that for several output and outcome areas, the Comparison Teams performed significantly better than the Partner Teams. Id.

4 See Amended and Revised Implementation Plan, Dkt. 531 at 29-30.

5 The Initial Benchmark for Partner Teams’ improvement was to increase the percentage of youth in the Partner Teams with an Administrative Case Review CFTM quality rating score of 1 or 2 for CFTMs within the applicable 6-month period of review to above 50%. Dkt. 834-1 at 24.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 3 of 29 PageID #:8849

The “Summary Assessment Table” below provides a summary comparing the Partner and

Comparison Teams’ respective performance on critical measures under the SIP. Green signifies differences that are statistically significant in favor of the Partner Teams at p<.05 (expected);

yellow signifies not statistically significant; and red signifies statistically significant in favor of the Comparison Teams at p<.05 (not expected):

Summary Assessment Table: Implementation Benchmarks and Satisfaction Standards in Partner and Comparison Teams

Benchmarks/ Standards

Output/ Outcome

Partner Teams

Comparison Teams Difference

Benchmarks A Increase adherence to CFTM fidelity standards 27% 17% 10%

Improved CFTM quality 55% 41% 14%

Benchmarks B

Increase # and % of youth with IPS

97 youth 10% 96 youth 12% -2%

Expanded use of Flex Funds $101,908 Data not yet available NA

Benchmarks C

Increase % of caseworker contacts rated as ‘strength’ 91% 95% -4%

Increase % of case plan development rated as ‘strength’

21% 30% -9%

Benchmarks D

Increase # and % of apps submitted w/in 120 days

27 46 12% 28% -16%

Increase # and % of apps licensed w/in 270 days

38 48 16% 27% -11%

Benchmarks E

Increased assigned guardianship permanency goals

56 youth 33 youth

6% 4% 2%

Improve number of youth in care for 24+ months discharged through subsidized guardianship

4 youth 0 youth

1.39% 0.00% 1.39%

Benchmarks F Increased attendance and participation in the ACR

Youth (12 and older) 11%

Youth (12 and older) 21% -10%

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 4 of 29 PageID #:8850

Benchmarks/ Standards

Output/ Outcome

Partner Teams

Comparison Teams Difference

Mother 36% Mother 39% -3.0%

Father 29% Father 26% 3.0%

Improved quality case planning 56% 67% -11%

Improved quality in-person contacts 81% 91% -10%

Improved quality family visits 73% 73% 0%

Improved quality supervision 73% 75% -2%

Satisfaction Standard 1

Maltreatment in care incidents per 100,00 days in care

18 per 100,000 26 per 100,000 8 per 100,000

Satisfaction Standard 2

Permanency within 12 months for children in care 24+ months at team assignment

20% 22% -2%

Satisfaction Standard 3

Decrease # of living arrangement moves for WIRL Youth

4.53 moves 5.22 moves -0.69

In the Expert Panel’s opinion, the mixed results in outcomes for the Partner Teams suggest that the scope of the Department’s attempted integration of six Interventions – increasing permanency through subsidized guardianship, reducing the number of unlicensed relative caregivers, improving quality of case planning, and reducing youths’ time to permanence – may simply have been too broad in light of existing systemic barriers to change. In addition, it was necessary to grapple with the unavoidable reality that the composition of workers, supervisors, and children is in constant flux. Even though these challenges beset the Comparison Teams as well as the Partner Teams, the Experts consider their collective impact to have been particularly detrimental in the Partner Teams because worker and supervisory personnel turnover diluted the impact that Partner Teams’ attempted changes in practice could have on youth. This incomplete

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 5 of 29 PageID #:8851 delivery of services weakens the ability to draw valid inferences about whether the changes being tested are having the desired positive impact. In retrospect, the results for the Partner Teams suggest that when DCFS began implementing the Meta Model in the 2023 SIP, it likely was incorrect for the Parties and Expert Panel to assume that Child and Family Teams themselves were functioning as the practice Model intends and requires. Moreover, it appears that by choosing to measure whether CFTMs were or were not being conducted appropriately, the Parties and Expert

Panel chose an inadequate proxy for what should have been measured: Whether effective Child and Family Team practice was occurring in the Partner Teams.

DCFS, with the assistance of the Expert Panel, will continue to assess the results from the

Partner Teams’ efforts to implement the Metal Model (see Table supra at 4-5) in order to learn which of the three “essential components of success” was responsible for mixed results from the

Partner Teams: Was it the validity of the intervention, the integrity of the implementation, or the sufficiency of the enabling context?6 For this effort, the Department will involve Chapin Hall and

UNC to respond to questions posed by the Expert Panel. In the meantime, however, there are several areas where the Partner Team experience already has provided more than sufficient information to support several significant revisions to the Department’s implementation strategies.

The proposed actions addressed here are:

• Addressing DCFS’s incomplete implementation of the Child and Family Team component of the Department’s practice Model;

• Expanding the focus of Resource Development;

• Implementing the KIND Act to support certification of kin caregivers and reduce youths’ length of time in care;

• Completion of the Residential Monitoring redesign, testing and implementation;

6A description of Implementation Science’s three “essentials for success” is provided in the Expert

Panel’s Observation and Recommendation in Support of the SIP. See Dkt. 801 at 5.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 6 of 29 PageID #:8852

• Implementing a Maltreatment in Care Review Panel to ensure child safety and well-being;

• Replacement of the WIRL program for YNI youth in the Partner Teams and, eventually, statewide;

• Institutionalizing a process to ensure data integrity, sound data analysis, and an ongoing child welfare research agenda.

DCFS has already implemented some of the strategies for resolving these issues and they are being monitored for effectiveness. In other areas, DCFS is still developing responsive strategies. In all instances, however, the Department’s efforts remain focused on full implementation of the SIP

Interventions and achievement of the SIP Satisfaction Criteria.

II. Revised and Updated Implementation Strategies

A. Implementing Child and Family Teams (a component of the Department’s Practice Model).

Rationale for Change:

DCFS cannot improve quality of care for youth or improve permanency exits without fully implementing the Child and Family Team component included in its Model for casework practice.

As discussed above, full implementation of that Model in the Partner Teams was deemed to be essential as the foundation through which other SIP Interventions were to be integrated into caseworkers’ day-to-day practice.

In the Expert Panel’s view, the CFTM intervention in the Partner Teams has highlighted a deficiency in the Department’s implementation of its Child and Family Team-based Model for casework practice statewide. The agreed-upon measure for evaluating whether Partner Team caseworkers were properly using one element of the practice Model – the Child and Family Team

Meeting or “CFTM.” That made sense, as these meetings certainly are important – but they represent just one setting in which the work of a functioning Child and Family Team is done. Child and Family Team practice under the Department’s Model emphasizes:

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 7 of 29 PageID #:8853

• engaging families as full partners in decision-making; addressing the impact of trauma on children and families;

• building on the strengths and capabilities of children, families, and caregivers;

• tailoring plans based on the unique needs and strengths of each child and family;

• using data and feedback loops to monitor progress, evaluate effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to improve practice and outcomes (i.e., the experimentalist approach);

• developing local services to meet the needs of children and families;

• allowing an efficient means of purchasing goods and services flexibly tailored to the unique needs of children and families; and

• training and coaching to ensure culturally-aware practices and eliminate biases.

The Model trains caseworkers to engage with youth and families in a continuous, rather than episodic, manner that ensures open, honest, and culturally-aware communication with children and families. This level of engagement requires seeking out and listening to the opinions and goals of the children and families, respecting and implementing their suggestions whenever possible, and providing them with essential information and education in a respectful and understandable way.

See Dkt. 531 at 32.

Put simply, the CFTM is a meeting in which the results of the Team’s work are confirmed, reviewed for consistency with the permanency plan, and modified based on progress or changes in needs. But improved service to youth requires far more, including formulation of a youth and family’s plan through team discussions and then execution and follow-through on the steps set out in that team-built plan to ensure that appropriate permanency goals are set, addressed and updated;

the youth has ongoing contact with supportive family members; visitation plans are updated to remove unnecessary restrictions; and services are provided promptly and as needed to maintain youth in community settings.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 8 of 29 PageID #:8854

DCFS has been training caseworkers on Child and Family Team practice under its Model since approximately 2017.7 When experience in the Partner Teams revealed that integration of the

SIP Interventions was not proceeding at the level that the Department had expected, however, it was determined that the Partner Teams needed support in Child and Family Team practice and in conducting associated CFTMs. In November 2023, DCFS secured expert support from the

Collaborative for Implementation Practice at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

School of Social Work (“UNC”), led by Dr. Allison Metz, formerly affiliated with the National

Implementation Research Network, to assist DCFS with integration of the SIP Interventions in the

Partner Teams.8 Then, in July 2024, DCFS began utilizing the Child Welfare Program and Policy

Group (“CWPPG”) to provide expert practice instruction and coaching support to the Partner

Teams.9

Despite the assistance they received, the Partner Teams’ performance did not have the expected positive impact on all proximal and distal outcomes under the SIP, as shown above. See

Summary Table, supra at 4-5. Nevertheless, preliminary data from the Partner Teams strongly supports the Department’s ongoing commitment to its practice Model. Through evaluation of the

Partner Team results, Chapin Hall identified a higher score on the quality of CFTMs was significantly associated with better permanency exit outcomes. Specifically, every one-point increase in quality is associated with an almost two times increase in the odds of achieving permanency.10 This supports the inference that the coaching intervention in the Partner Teams to promote CFTM quality were positively associated with improved permanency. However, further

7 See First Triannual Interim Status Report on the B.H. Implementation Plan (Corrected), Dkt. 538 at 37-38.

8 Dkt. 834-1 at 3 n.2, 7 n.8.

9 Dkt. 865 at 20.

10 Chapin Hall found that the odds ratio for this finding was 1.963.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 9 of 29 PageID #:8855 analysis is needed to determine whether improved CFTM quality is a causal factor or merely a

“marker” variable that correlates with other factors (such as caseworker experience and skills to engage families and other stakeholders to create an effective Child and Family Team, permanency goal selection, and other high quality casework practices) that contribute more directly to permanency performance.

Next Steps:

The Department is asking UNC and Chapin Hall to prepare a report analyzing the Partner

Teams’ experience in attempting full integration of the SIP Interventions, including the CFTM

Intervention, and identifying issues that precluded predicted outcomes. This will include the ongoing analysis of the association between youth who have a quality CFTM and improved permanency. The Expert Panel will assist the Department in forming the questions UNC and

Chapin Hall will answer. The Expert Panel and Plaintiffs support this plan.

In addition, in the Expert Panel’s view, revision of training, policy and communication materials is needed. The revisions must reinforce the formulation and leveraging of a strong Child and Family Team for each youth that emphasizes inclusion of all people who are important to the youth and committed to their well-being. It is the Team, not the Meeting, that leads to meaningful permanency planning; timely provision of supports to youth, family, and caregivers as needed; and reduction of the youth’s time in care. The Parties agree.

Based on experience in the Partner Teams and conversations with supervisors from every region regarding these issues, DCFS has identified several factors that may be contributing to

DCFS’s ongoing difficulty in implementing Child and Family Team practice. DCFS has analyzed its current procedures, tools, communications, and training related to its practice Model and the effective use of Child and Family Teams and has identified three necessary high-level action steps it is undertaking now.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 10 of 29 PageID #:8856

First, DCFS will revamp its Child and Family Team procedure and messaging. The

Department’s policy, trainings, and resource materials demonstrate how piecemeal changes over time addressing the role of the Child and Family Team and associated meetings has resulted in disjointed instructions to DCFS and provider agency staff. An audit of the Foundations training demonstrated opportunities to clarify the required components of effective Child and Family Team practice and how to successfully facilitate productive conversations with youth and their families.

To address these issues, DCFS will re-align procedure with the goal of creating clear expectations for Child and Family Team practice and associated meetings. The B.H. Executive Administrator’s staff has started its critical review of the current resource materials to create a better approach. The revisions must reinforce the formulation and leveraging of a strong Child and Family Team for each youth that emphasizes inclusion of all people who are important to the youth and committed to their well-being.

Second, the Department’s current data system of record, SACWIS, has not sufficiently tracked and documented CFTMs. DCFS recognizes that there should be a useable template guiding and documenting the work of Child and Family Teams that is readily accessible. Improved tracking and accountability can also drive progress in promoting effective Child and Family Team

Practice. DCFS’s SACWIS development team is working to address these systems issues, including improvements for tracking CFTMs in SACWIS and rolling out a “tickler” system for scheduling CFTMs as part of its fall 2025 system update.

Third, administrative challenges exist to schedule the CFTMs between the caseworker, the parents, the youth (when developmentally appropriate), and the caregiver(s). Depending on the case, CFTMs may also involve the supervisor, service providers, GAL/CASA, parent counsel, and other supportive connections, like a relative or neighbor. The Department will be determining what technology it can use to support scheduling CFTMs and communication within the Team.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 11 of 29 PageID #:8857

B. Resource Development

Rationale for Change:

One of DCFS’s initial goals under the Resource Development Intervention was to improve the number of children for whom flex funds11 were utilized and the amount spent year over year.

A second was to improve the use of IPS12 to support the stability of youth living in relative and non-relative homes and to reduce the frequency and duration of youths’ placements in more restrictive settings such as residential facilities and psychiatric hospitals. Dkt. 834-1 at 10.

DCFS learned through experience in the Partner Teams that caseworkers were not making significant use of flex funds because of significant administrative barriers to accessing and using those funds. DCFS’s solution to make the funds more accessible was to include an allocation of flex funds into the provider contracts. DCFS is developing a system for tracking the use of those flex funds in a more timely and granular way to assure that the funds are being used effectively to serve children and families. This data will be essential for DCFS to be able to evaluate how these funds are being used and whether there are service or support gaps that DCFS will have to address.

With respect to IPS services, DCFS’s initial benchmark for improving the percentage of youth in care receiving IPS was 5%. DCFS exceeded that in both the Partner Teams and the

Comparison Teams. In the Partner Teams, 10% (97) youth received IPS Services compared to

12% (96 youth) in the Comparison Teams.13

11 Flex funds can be used to address highly individualized needs of the child by securing concrete supports (e.g., household items, furniture, rental/utility assistance, food), mentors, paraprofessional services, respite services, and non-traditional therapeutic-like services such as art classes. Dkt. 834-1 at 9.

12 IPS services provide formal and informal supports to youth and/or caregivers and can include therapy, respite services crisis intervention, and psychosocial education. Dkt. 834-1 at 9.

13 Both Teams increased the number of youth served by IPS services. Twenty-six additional youth on the Partner Team received IPS services and 25 additional youth on the Comparison Team received IPS since the April 2025 Integration Report. See generally Dkt. 896.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 12 of 29 PageID #:8858

The Department allocated additional resources to the IPS program in FY23, the deployment of which was completed in the first half of FY24. The additional resources were to be used for program enhancements such as salary adjustments, hiring new staff, and services expansions. The increased growth in IPS services in both the Partner and Comparsion Teams is due in part to the statewide push to encourage use of IPS services. See Dkt. 877 at 18.

Next Steps:

With paths for improvement for both flex fund spending and IPS already in operation, DCFS should now focus on other resource development efforts, including those set forth in the

Resource Development Intervention Logic Model. Dkt. 834-1 at 50. For example, one output in the Logic Model focuses on identifying youth whose entry CANS well-being scores indicate significant levels of need and increasing the number and percentage of those youth who are receiving needed supports in community (e.g., kin or other foster care) settings. In the Expert

Panel’s opinion, it is also imperative that DCFS’s resource development efforts attend to the creation and implementation of alternative living arrangements for youth with complex needs

(YNI) or who lack a viable, committed and capable adult to act as their caregiver, while helping the youth build and maintain relationships with people in their lives who are willing to unconditionally support and guide them toward adulthood. Additional resource development priorities identified in the SIP include expansion of resources for youth returning to the community after institutional care, increased access to mental and behavioral health interventions (through the

Pathways to Success program or other services by other means), and increased supports for relative caregivers through programs like “Families Together.” See Dkt. 834-1 at 50. The Parties and

Expert Panel are discussing how DCFS should focus its next efforts toward improving the service array available for serving youth in the community.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 13 of 29 PageID #:8859

C. KIND Act Launch to Support Relative Caregivers and Improve Permanency.

Rationale for Change:

A key SIP Intervention focused on the need to significantly increase the number of relative caregivers who successfully obtained foster care licensure. As of September 2025, approximately

63% of youth in foster care are living with kin caregivers, and of those kin caregivers, approximately 65% remained unlicensed. Improving licensure was identified as an imperative under the SIP because licensed relatives receive the same payments as “traditional” licensed foster parents, and licensure also opens the possibility that youth in the relatives’ care could achieve permanency through subsidized guardianship under the federal Guardianship Assistance

Program.

As implementation of the Kin Licensure Intervention began in the Partner Teams, it soon became apparent that institutional and cultural barriers stood in the way of significant improvement in the improving kin caregiver licensure both in the Partner Teams and statewide.14 The emphasis on licensing relatives represented a sharp turn away from inherited policies and practices from a bygone era when non-relative foster care was the norm. Illinois’s statutory structure for foster care licensure and its statutory preference for adoption over guardianship, both of which remained in effect until July 2025, presented a framework ill-suited to the Department’s goals.

Prior submissions to this Court have explained that due to a recent change in federal rules, Illinois had the opportunity to pursue statutory changes that would streamline the process for licensing relative caregivers according to standards designed to protect child safety and tailored to kin caregivers’ needs. 15 The Department fully embraced this new opportunity for transformative

14 The Comparison Teams had better performance, opposite to expectations, than the Partner Teams for increases in the number and percentage of applications for licensure submitted within 120 days, and approvals of licenses within 270 days. See October 2025 Integration Report. Dkt. 896 at 3.

15 See April 2025 Progress Report, Dkt. 876 at 17.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 14 of 29 PageID #:8860 change by supporting passage of the Illinois Kinship in Demand (KIND) Act.16 DCFS can now

“certify” relatives (a form of approval like licensure) for the care of a specific related child, which qualifies them for the same foster care maintenance payments as licensed foster parents. This less burdensome process is expected to increase the percentage of licensed kin from 40% to 80% certified or licensed kin, which will qualify thousands more Illinois families for federal

Guardianship Assistance Program subsidies.

Next Steps:

Implementation of the KIND Act is ongoing. The Department anticipates beginning to certify relative caregivers beginning in December 2025, if not earlier. Components of DCFS’s implementation of relative certification include:

• Finalization of DCFS Rule and Procedure 415: DCFS has issued Rule 415, Home of Relative Certification, and developed forms for the relative certification process based on forms developed by a national consortium facilitated by Think of Us. Finalization of Procedure 415 is expected by early December 2025.

• Finalization and Implementation of increased foster care maintenance payments: The new unlicensed / uncertified board rate payment for unlicensed / uncertified relatives increased from $479 per child to $668 per child, which is 90% of the full board rate. The board rate will increase to, on average, $742 per child when the relative is certified. Payments to relatives will be made in arrears back to the effective date of July 1, 2025.

• Finalization of Updated Data Systems: DCFS has adapted its data system for tracking relative certification, and those adaptations are being tested.

• Development of Training: DCFS is finalizing internal training regarding relative certification. The training will be on-demand. DCFS anticipates the training will be available to all workers who are required to take it beginning in December 2025.

Workers will be encouraged to complete the training as a high priority.

• Creation of Decision Review Panel. A Decision Review Panel has been appointed and is developing a process to review decisions made under the KIND Act and the

16 As described in an opinion piece by two former youths in care (Chicago Tribune, 9/14/2025):

This legislative triumph prioritizes placing with their kin in the foster care system. The KIND Act represents a profound collaboration between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Department, which permits separate flexible standards for certifying relative caregivers.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 15 of 29 PageID #:8861 accompanying rule, such as denials of certification, denials of placement, and denials of a plan for visitation.

• Development of Communication Strategy: The Department is developing a comprehensive communication strategy focused on internal and external audiences.

Communication will include “FAQ” responses, updates on expectations for both new and current kinship caregivers, and information on the importance of kinship placements.

The KIND Act further calls for DCFS to establish a Kinship Navigator program, which is a federally reimbursable program to support kinship caregivers. The Department has established a workgroup to develop Illinois’ Kinship Navigator program. With support from Chapin Hall, the

Department conducted a review of the available models of Kinship Navigator programs in the

Family First Prevention Services Clearinghouse. DCFS has solicited feedback from focus groups, interviews, and surveys with families, including parents and relative caregivers, to inform our future program structure. The Department’s goal is to launch a Kinship Navigator pilot no later than July 2027.

D. Residential Monitoring

Rationale for Change:

During FY25, DCFS worked with its external partners to develop and finalize a new

Residential Contract Performance Tool and related residential performance standards. Training on the new model was provided in July 2025 and implementation of the new model is underway.

Under the new model, DCFS staff will monitor residential treatment facility programs and will perform monthly monitoring activities that include a data review, observations at the facility, attendance and participation in a sample of staffings and meetings, and file reviews. The monitors will summarize their findings in the new Residential Contract Performance Review tool, which will highlight areas of strength and identify areas of improvement within each performance standard of the residential facility’s contract and be used to develop performance standard rating.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 16 of 29 PageID #:8862

The performance standard ratings will then be used to develop a monitoring level to guide intervention activities for the residential provider.

Next Steps:

The new monitoring tool is being rolled out. The system is in the “soft launch” phase, and system integrity and reliability are still being tested. Nevertheless, it is already clear that the new system is generating usable information that can be shared with residential providers to clearly identify areas of improvement that providers must address.

Now DCFS is advancing the design of the second required piece of its revised Residential

Monitoring program which relates to the role and responsibilities of external monitoring partners.

The Logic Model for the Residential Monitoring Intervention calls for DCFS to use “external partners to provide targeted programmatic consultation to remediate identified problems and conduct random inspections of residential facilities.” A timeline will be developed for bringing this component of residential monitoring online in FY26.

E. Development of the Maltreatment in Care Review Panel.

Rationale for Change:

Since enactment of the SIP, the incidence of maltreatment in care has not meaningfully improved toward the Illinois Standard of no more than 9 victimizations per 100,000 days in care.17

To investigate this, DCFS’s Quality Assurance division reviewed a random sample of “indicated” youth in care investigations from April 2022 to March 2023.18 DCFS learned through that review that a significant number of the Maltreatment in Care reports involved indicated findings of maltreatment against kin caregivers for allowing youth to have unauthorized contact with a

17 See Overarching Outcomes Report for the most recent maltreatment in care data. Dkt. 894.

18 An “indicated report” means a report made under the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child

Reporting Act “if an investigation determines that credible evidence of the alleged abuse or neglect exists.”

325 ILCS 5/7.12; 325 ILCS 5/7.14.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 17 of 29 PageID #:8863 biological parent and/or a former guardian. Separate analyses further revealed that some youth were quickly removed from their placement due to the unauthorized contact allegations despite the absence of concerns regarding the child’s safety beyond the fact of the visitation, and the caregivers thereafter frequently were indicated for neglect solely for the unauthorized contact. These s disruptions occurred most often when the unauthorized visit involved a youth in a kinship placement.

DCFS’s current leadership recognizes that violations of visitation orders should not be treated as neglect by a caregiver when the violation has not put a youth in harm’s way. Moreover, placement disruptions should never occur when a youth has not been placed in danger, as such moves traumatize youth, family, and caregivers, and frequently result in youth having longer stays in care.19 To reinforce this, DCFS began in fall 2024 to formulate a Maltreatment in Care Review

Panel (“Review Panel”) with the initial goal of preventing indicated findings of neglect and/or placement removals based on caregivers allowing unauthorized visits that did not place a child in danger. The Review Panel consists of a new multidisciplinary team of senior child welfare administrators from various divisions, including Child Protection, Division of Permanency, the

State Central Registry, and Child and Clinical Services. The Review Panel includes representation from Quality Assurance and the Office of Legal Services. The DCFS Director officially constituted the Review Panel in the Spring of 2025, and it began with informational meetings about the Review Panel’s planned operations across the state to all Child Protection

Specialists and Child Welfare Specialists, both DCFS and contracted staff.

The Review Panel officially began its work in August 2025 with an initial focus on investigations statewide that involve allegations of “inadequate supervision” and “environment

19 See Placement stability impacts - Casey Family Programs information regarding what factors impact placement stability, and the negative impacts of placement moves for youth in care.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 18 of 29 PageID #:8864 https://www.casey.org/placement-stability-impacts/ injurious” due to allegations of an unauthorized contact with a biological parent or former guardian, or violation of a court order or visitation plan involving a youth in care. The Review

Panel also reviews removal requests of youth in care from their current placement when there is an investigation involving the same allegations of unauthorized contact.

For the review process, a designated Review Panel member reviews Maltreatment in Care reports to identify all reports subject to Panel review. The assigned child protection investigator is notified of the Review Panel’s involvement at the beginning of the investigation and is responsible for notifying the Review Panel if they believe it is necessary to remove the youth in care from their current placement. The investigative team completes the investigative tasks and makes their recommended finding, which is then sent to the Review Panel for review. The Review

Panel reviews all investigative materials collected and either accepts or declines the recommended finding. The Review Panel also can return the report for further investigation and give guidance to strengthen staff skills, including guidance to the permanency workers about the importance of ensuring that visitation orders for a child’s case are regularly updated to remove overly restrictive oversight and supervision requirements. The Review Panel’s goals are to change the way DCFS handles these reports, minimize placement moves for youth in care, and make any needed recommended changes to procedures and culture.

Since implementation of the Review Panel, DCFS has learned that many child protection staff mistakenly believe that every violation of a visitation order is per se neglect, and that youth must be removed from their current placement whenever a Maltreatment in Care report is made. DCFS Rules do not so provide. The Review Panel is working to dispel this and other, similar misapplications of DCFS policy through corrective action, which includes providing support to investigators as they adjust their practice to conform to DCFS requirements.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 19 of 29 PageID #:8865

Next Steps:

The Expert Panel and Parties agree that for now, the Review Panel should continue to review maltreatment in care reports involving youth in care having unauthorized contact with either a biological parent and/or a former guardian. Feedback loops are intentionally built into the

Panel’s process for practice improvement. The Review Panel’s impact will be measured by monitoring the volume of cases that qualify for review under its current standard, the resulting outcomes for the cases reviewed, and the overall rate of Maltreatment in Care statewide. The

Department will evaluate whether additional categories of maltreatment in care allegations may be appropriate for the Panel’s review as the Department continues its focus on improving youths’ safety and well-being while in care.

F. Replacing the WIRL Program.

Rationale for Change:

The purpose of the Well-Being Improvement Review and Linkage (“WIRL” ) process was to address the underlying needs of the YNI population. That was to be accomplished through the work of Child and Family Teams providing appropriate and individualized supports and services for them and their caregivers.20 This approach was expected to improve youths’ stability while in care and their chances for achieving permanency before exiting the child welfare system. It now is clear that neither the original version of WIRL nor the subsequent modifications of that program have been effective.

Of the 26 YNI referred to and accepted into the WIRL process within the Partner Teams, only two youth (8%) successfully transitioned to a stable permanent home (> 1 year) over the course of two and one-half years. One was reunified with a parent and another was reunified with

20 The WIRL process focuses on providing creative and individualized supports and services these youth need. See Dkt. 834-1 at 36-37.

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 20 of 29 PageID #:8866 a grandparent. The WIRL process has not generated a single adoption or guardianship. Instead, the bulk of YNI youth remained in institutional or hospital care (9; 35%), unrelated foster family care (4; 15%), whereabouts unknown or unauthorized living arrangement (4; 15%), kinship foster care (3; 12%), or age-outs to independence (4; 15%).

Each version of the WIRL strategy to date has been built on the assumption that every caseworker could be sufficiently trained and resourced to appropriately manage some of DCFS’s most challenging cases. Over the past year, the Department has called on CWPPG to work directly with caseworkers and supervisors involved in the WIRL process to coach and support the teams.

In practice, however, institutional barriers have stymied innovation and quick action on behalf of

YNI. Both legacy culture and structural barriers have inhibited creativity in planning for these youth that in a way that cannot be solved through coaching alone. Caseworkers do not always have the skills and support needed to develop and coordinate interdependent and accountable Child and Family Teams, and that process is even more difficult when it involves a YNI youth. In addition, caseworkers and teams do not have the independent authority or ability to execute the more complex individualized plans needed by YNI youth.

The mixed results for the Partner and Comparison Teams as shown in the Summary Table

(see supra at 4-5) with respect to the SIP Interventions in the Partner Teams point to possible limitations in the “traditional” case management approach to the care and support of YNI. The permanency results highlighted above for the 26 youth accepted into the WIRL process reinforce the Expert Panel’s view that the identified YNI need special interventions to attain permanence before aging out of care. The Parties agree.

Next Steps:

The Partner Teams’ experience shows that providing caseworkers with training and coaching, and then layering supports into the assessment and case planning processes for YNI, has

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 21 of 29 PageID #:8867 not by itself succeeded, nor resulted in the creation of Child and Family Teams that are able to identify and address the needs of YNI. The Expert Panel recommends that YNI youth should be served by caseworkers with significant experience and small caseloads who would lead teams and follow the youth’s case regardless of any change in the youth’s placement or living arrangement, and who would have the ability to request and receive approval to secure individualized and creatively configured supports, resources, and living arrangements as needed for YNI. The Expert

Panel has suggested that DCFS borrow from the Assertive Community Treatment model, which was developed to serve adults with severe mental health conditions in their home communities.

The key elements of the model are: a range of treatment and support services provided by a cohesive and interdependent team of professionals, family, and other supports working together to help the individual achieve success within their community; small caseloads; clinical continuity for behavioral and mental health care; preplanning for crisis management and response; and ongoing support with the youth as long as needed. The professional and clinical members of the team retain responsibility and accountability for serving the youth and their family. The Expert

Panel also recommends the Department develop a process for case assignment and management specific for YNI youth. The Expert Panel believes that adopting an approach that combines these elements will help stop the phenomenon among the YNI population which the Expert Panel described as “churning” through psychiatric hospitalizations. In the Expert Panel’s view, DCFS will not be able to achieve compliance with the SIP unless WIRL is revised to encompass the key elements described above.

In the Expert Panel’s opinion, it is also imperative that any new approach to YNI youth attend to the creation and implementation of alternative living arrangements for youth who lack a viable, committed and capable adult to act as their caregiver and help the youth build and maintain relationships with people in their lives who are willing to unconditionally support and guide them

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 22 of 29 PageID #:8868 toward adulthood. Finally, the Expert Panel urges that to achieve clinical continuity for YNI youth for their mental and behavioral health care, the long-term assignment of a specified DCFS clinical representative to the youth’s care team is necessary. The care team would be given and expected to exercise the needed administrative and budgetary flexibility to (i) develop an individualized array of supports outside the traditional service purchasing process when necessary, and (ii) to identify, obtain, or create the appropriate living arrangement and other individualized supports for the YNI population. The Plaintiffs strongly concur with the Expert Panel’s views.

DCFS recognizes that prior iterations of the WIRL process have not resulted in tailored services or placements for the youth most in need of them. DCFS appreciates the recommendations of the Expert Panel and will work with the Expert Panel and Plaintiffs to eliminate the barriers and meet challenges with creativity. As an agreed initial step forward, the

Expert Panel has identified a small subgroup of WIRL youth who will receive the intense, focused attention of DCFS. Using this subgroup of approximately 8-10 youth, the Expert Panel and DCFS leadership will be piloting a new strategy for meeting these youths’ needs and doing so outside the

DCFS day-to-day administrative structures and processes as needed, within the confines of the law. The results of the work with the 8 to 10 youth will then inform a complementary strategy to meet the need of YNI youth statewide. DCFS has engaged a university partner to facilitate planning for the future structure and resource development to meet the needs of YNI youth. DCFS is committed to reviewing current agency structures and current resources to compare the status quo with the presenting needs of YNI. Once service gaps are documented, the Department will identify how gaps can be filled, including an assessment of how DCFS’s own structures can be

Case: 1:88-cv-05599 Document #: 897 Filed: 11/14/25 Page 23 of 29 PageID #:8869 refined to ensure a continuum of community-based care for YNI.21 The Expert Panel will be directly involved in assisting DCFS in their approach and proposing solutions for the Department’s consideration.

G. Data Integrity, Data Analysis, and Research Needs.

Rationale for Change:

Good policy decisions depend on the effective use of data. The Expert Panel has identified a need to strengthen DCFS’s internal and external management and reporting of data related to youth in care to ensure accurate, validated, and consistent reporting. In addition, the Expert Panel recommends development of a “research agenda” to advance DCFS’s goals of youth safety, improving services to youth while they are in care, and reducing their time to permanency.

The complexity and importance of data collection, analysis, and reporting for the SIP and in child welfare requires structure and staff to manage it. DCFS currently takes a de-centralized approach, across University Partners and DCFS divisions, which can lead to inconsistent approaches to data management. As one example, university partners identified programming

“bugs” in computer code run by one DCFS division collecting and analyzing data that led to inaccuracies. In another example, it recently was noted that the annual B.H. Monitoring report prepared by the Child and Family Research Center (“CFRC”) at the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign adheres to federal guidance to exclude youth aged 18 and older from the calculations for measures relating to Permanency.22 Performance on the Permanency Measures in

21 DCFS will also evaluate how Child Well-Being Indicators…