This Assessment was sent to me from a concerned out of state citizen. If normal every day people can see what's wrong with Nashua DCYF, why can't our Government?
State of New Hampshire
Department of Health and Human Services
Division for Children, Youth and Families
Child and Family Services Review
This time, in English
In July, 2010 the State of New Hampshire received a 326 page report assessing the performance of the DCYF.
The assessment period for the 12 separate DCYF Offices ranged from June, 2006 to August 2010 which basically leaves the final results fairly meaningless. What happened in June of 2006 in an office in Concord has very little relevance to what happened in Nashua in August of 2010, but what do we know?
My purpose is to turn this bureaucratic Greek into English and the first thing one has to understand is that I do not use the usual attempt at thoroughly confusing the reader with endless stupid acronyms that mean nothing to anybody except the most entrenched bureaucrat determined to razzle, dazzle, and confuse the reader and make him or her marvel at the State employee’s superior education and station in life. In other words, we won’t need 326 pages to say what less than 8 can do to explain to you just how “Well” DCYF is taking care of your children, particularly in Nashua, New Hampshire.
The facts you will be reading have been taken directly from the “Assessment”. In as few words as possible, they are the basic facts contained within the report.
Besides the figures themselves, the one thing that did strike me was the use of the terms “We are making Progress”, “We are improving”, We are doing better”, We are trying harder” that were used over, and over, and over again.
For an agency that insists it does such a wonderful job, it is striking how much they want to convince you they are trying to do better. Maybe they know something they aren’t telling you?
This analysis was undertaken specifically for the parents and grandparents caught up in the horror scene that is the Nashua Office of DCYF.
I want to Thank the authors of this Assessment, I could not have done a better hatchet job on them if I tried. Even with the fudging of the figures that were gathered and compared with as great as a 5 ½ year differential, Nashua STILL came out as the most inept and incompetent Office within the State of New Hampshire.
And now, on to the report card:
There are 12 District Offices of DCYF in the State. This report compares Nashua with the 11 other DCYF Offices in 24 “Items” or categories.
For the record, Nashua leads the State in Licensed foster care homes between 2006 and 2010 (Just in case someone from Nashua tells you they don’t receive the resources to do their job).
The State of New Hampshire officially gives “Caregiver training” to foster parents which supposedly includes relative foster parents. After all, the goal is “Reunification” if at all possible right?
How many caregivers received this training, and how many were the childrens relatives?
2006 634 non relatives, 1 relative
2007 783 non relatives, 6 relatives
2008 764 non relatives, 5 relatives
2009 816 non relatives, 2 relatives
Question; If your goal is to give the majority of these kids to their relatives, why not train them?
NASHUA COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE OFFICES:
Item 1. Timeliness of investigating reports: 75% 6-12
Item 2. Repeat maltreatment at home or foster care: No figure given
Item 3. Services to families to remain in home: 83.3% 3-12
(The worst was Conway in 06, #2 was Laconia in 07)
Item 4. Risk assessment in foster care 66.7% 1-12
(Nashua in Dec 2010 tied with Rochester’s May, 2007 figure)
Item 5. Foster care re-entries: No figure given
(Nashua does not have re-entries, because once they are taken, they do not go back home.)
Item 6. Stability of foster care placement: 77.8% 2-12
(Nashua in Dec 2010 compared to Rochester’s May, 2007 figure)
Item 7. Permanency goal for child: 44.4% 1-12
Item 8. Reunification with parents or relatives: 66.6% 1-12
Item 9. Adoption: 25% 1-12
Item 10. Other permanent planning living arrangement: 75% 4-12
(All figures use Nashua’s Dec 2010 figures against figures
from other Offices for 2006, 2007, 2008).
Item 11. Out of area placement: 88.9% 2-12
(The big loser was Concord, but that was back in 2007
8 DCYF Offices had a score of 100%)
Item 12. Placement with siblings: 75% 1-12
(No DCYF office separates more siblings than Nashua)
Item 13. Allowing siblings and parents to visit: 55.6% 1-12
Item 14. Preserving connections: 55.6% 1-12
(At least they’re consistent in their negligence)
Item 15. Placement with relatives: 33.3% 1-12
Nashua almost NEVER considers a relative placement)
Item 16. Promoting parent/child relationship 55.6% 3-12
(Nashua won 3rd place because Manchester’s 2008 figure
Was 36.4, and Rochester’s figure was from 2007 at 50%.)
Item 17. Supplying the needs and Services to children,
parents and foster parents: 33.3% 1-12
(Think about this Item, just for a moment)
Item 18. Child and Family involvement in case planning: 50% 1-12
Item 19. Caseworker visits with children: 75% 1-12
(Tied for last place with 4 other offices in DCYF)
Item 20. Visit to parents: 50% 3-12
(Loser number one from 2006. Loser #2 from 2007)
Item 21. How well does Nashua educate it’s children?: 81.8% 1-12
Item 22. Physical Health of the child: 100% 7-12
(Now that’s a strange one: You would think with the HUGE number of cases of abuse and neglect in Nashua (According to DCYF), you would think those children would be in TERRIBLE shape.)
So, what are the final results of the Assessment?
Well, Nashua, according to their bosses, came in DEAD LAST in
12 out of 22 categories. ONCE they made the 50/50 Grade, and the rest of the time, they sat in a corner with a dunce cap on.
Except for the fact that these people are dealing with children, this would be funny.
We ask the Legislature to actually open up their own report and read it. Not only is it a travesty, it is criminal what these people are NOT doing for the most vulnerable children in New Hampshire, but it IS tearing families apart needlessly.
As every other Office of DCYF has proven, what is going on in Nashua is nothing short of malfeasance and misconduct. If it were not, there could not POSSIBLY be such a discrepancy in the State’s own Assessment.