PRS -- A CULTURE OF CORRUPTION I would like to thank the Commission for this opportunity to provide testimony on issues related to the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS). I have previously provided this Commission with three written submittals and other documents. Today I provide you with a full version of this testimony with additional documentation, all of which I wish to incorporate herein and have made a part of the Record. By profession, I am a Certified Public Accountant currently employed in the capacity of a Contracts/Cost Control Manager for a major offshore engineering and construction company in Houston, Texas; by cause, demand, and need, I am also the President of the Houston Chapter of NASVO/VOCAL -- more commonly referred to as Victims of Child Abuse Laws. According to PRS and its outdated records, my wife and I have abused and neglected two of my five children on numerous occasions. But according to the Courts and evidence, we are completely innocent of every allegation. As noted in my latest submission, numerous problems are described in the Staff Report. I do not object to those noted, but I do have reservations and grave concerns about the Staff recommendations. Because of the limited amount of time I am permitted to speak today, I am not going to discuss them individually and refer the members of this Commission to my materials submitted on June 2, 1996. This Commission is on a road for failure, but it can still change course. A time limit has been placed on our ability to address the problems publicly and I have been advised not to present personal encounters with PRS. The Commission may be correct about this. But if not now, when? And if not this entity, then who? Only this Commission is in a position to quickly address the massive change that is needed to restore sanity and credibility to this agency that has run amok. If this Commission delays, or rubber-stamps the Staff's recommendations, then more tax money will be lost, more fraud will be committed, and countless lives will be destroyed. Through personal experiences and assisting hundreds of other families around the country for several years, I have identified four major problem areas which must be addressed by this Commission: * Lack of a thorough investigation in child abuse and neglect cases because of undertrained staff who have an inherent conflict of interest. * Lack of accountability and failure to provide a system with adequate checks and balances. * Lack of an unbiased, independent and authoritative body to submit complaints and resolve differences. * Lack of institutional honesty -- a corporate culture that tolerates and encourages lies, deceit, falsification of records, fraud and other corruption. To anyone who has studied the child protective system as I have, it is apparent that these problems are not new nor unique to Texas. Today, however, the issue at hand is not just the system at large but PRS specifically and the gross injustices that are performed at its hand. FINANCIAL MALFEASANCE I wish there was sufficient time to discuss all the solutions necessary to curb the ills we face from PRS, but there is not. Unless it's the Commission's desire to sweep all these problems under the carpet, full-blown investigative hearings must be held. To demonstrate the dire need for them, you need only briefly look at the history of the agency -- a past of documented fraud, deceit and corruption -- which reveals improper schemes to maintain funding by bilking the taxpayers and over representing the need for its services: * In late 1987, before PRS became a separate agency, the Tom Green County Grand Jury recommended that the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services take immediate corrective action to remedy the record falsification problems identified in the San Angelo office and determine whether this was "occurring statewide at management and worker levels." The February 1989 Staff Report to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services titled "Child Protective Services in Texas" states that this recommendation was ignored by the agency, thus permitting the problems to continue. (Copy Attached) * In 1990, Ethel B. Crear, Regional Director for the agency in Arlington, Texas, recognized that record falsification problems continued to plague her department and issued an internal memorandum "to reemphasize the importance of accurately maintaining CPS records and to ensure that the staff understands the possible consequences of falsifying records." (Copy Attached) * In April 1994, the State Auditor's Office again cited (Report No. 94-105) the agency with material noncompliance with Federal regulations in providing services to undocumented clients under the Child Welfare Services program among many other issues. (Copy Attached) * In September 1994, the State Auditor's Office noted (Report No. 95-003) numerous problems existing both at the State and local levels which could not assure that Federal funds were being expended and accounted for in a timely and accurate manner. (Copy Attached) * In February 1995, the State Auditor's Office indicated (Report No. 95-055) that PRS was unable to obtain certification and stressed the inaccuracy and unreliability of the data contained in the CANRIS data base which is also used to maintain the "central registry" of those alleged to have abused or neglected children. (Copy Attached) * In May 1995, the State Auditor's Office cited (Report No. 95- 124) material noncompliance with Federal laws and regulations for various programs at the agency. The reports noted payments were not limited to appropriately documented clients, there were unsubstantiated costs for the Child Welfare Services program, discrepancies continued to exist in Foster Care eligibility data, and that PRS had overcharged the U.S. government due to its method of allocating foster care income credits. (Copy Attached) * In August 1995, the Texas Department of Human Services, to no one's surprise, documented (Report Nos. 95-010 & 95-011) that PRS lacked financial controls and failed to account for trust funds of children, as well as other significant issues. (Copy Attached) * Also in August 1995 (Report No. A-06-94-00041), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- Office of Inspector General reviewed PRS's foster-care program. The report stated treatment plans were not followed, state and child placing agency caseworkers did not have frequent contact with the children in foster care, fire and health inspections were not always performed, potentially harmful conditions exist at some foster homes, background checks of foster parents were incomplete or not performed and training was not provided to all foster parents. (Copy Attached) * In February 1996, the State Auditor's Office reported (Report No. 96-318) that PRS was once again in material noncompliance with Federal regulations, including the overcharging of approximately $3 million of unallowable foster care maintenance costs, making payments to undocumented clients and using Federal funds to pay for settlements of lawsuits in which the agency violated Federal and State laws and regulations. (Copy Attached) * Also in February 1996, the State Auditor's Office noted (Report No. 96-052) PRS's inability to obtain certification and highlighted the inaccuracy and unreliability of the data contained in the CANRIS data base. (Copy Attached) * Continuing on with a very poor February 1996, the State Auditor's Office identified (Report No. 96-047) over $2.7 million of questionable expenditures to 20 different contractors of the agency. The questionable expenditures included excessive payments to related parties for management and consulting services, purchasing land and blueprints for a $5 million church complex, purchasing a program director's home for $417,000, purchasing and improving a home used for the executive director's office for nearly $200,000, fund-raising costs which exceeded funding proceeds and excessive travel expenditures. (Copy Attached) * And to top off Black February, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services -- Office of Inspector General (Report No. A-06-95-00035) reported that PRS was retaining approximately 38% of the funds intended to provide food, clothing and shelter for children under their care. The monies instead were being spent on non-allowable expenditures. The audit estimated the illegally retained amount to be approximately $2.7 million, of which $1.7 is from the U.S. government. The report also noted duplicate payments being made and payments being made for services never provided. (Copy Attached) * If all the prior audits were not enough, PRS's hidden agenda -- to maintain funding through disinformation -- was conclusively exposed on April 26, 1995 in a meeting, attended by Susan Watkins (Program Administrator for PRS), Joanne Duda (Legal Counsel for PRS), two key legislative staff members and three private citizens who had been abused by the system. The agency personnel were asked why the family's income had been substantially reduced in PRS's records when caseworkers had been provided the correct amount. Ms. Duda responded that they [PRS] regularly do this to obtain additional Federal funding. In subsequent questioning about her response, she confirmed her original statement. Ms. Watkins did not disagree. These fraudulent activities, corrupt practices and abuses of our children and families cannot be ignored! The Grand Jury findings cannot be ignored! The evidence cries out for investigation! For justice! For reform! This Commission must use its subpoena power to require the parties present at the April 26, 1995 meeting to testify as to the specifics of this meeting and to determine the magnitude of the fraud being committed by PRS! The names of the undisclosed parties will be disclosed privately to the Commission upon request. There is much more evidence to substantiate illegal funding schemes being utilized by PRS. For those in attendance and for the members of the Commission, I encourage you to contact the Office of the State Auditor, the Texas Department of Human Services and the Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and read the audits of PRS over the last three years. It is no wonder PRS is always on its knees begging for more money to protect children -- they squandered the monies they were given. Yet instead of trying to reform and change, the Staff report recommends expansion of these illegal practices. An outreach program, to teach other county and local child protective agencies how to "easily" access additional Federal funding, is now in the works. INVESTIGATIVE IMPROPRIETY Turning to the investigation practices of PRS caseworkers, there is an inherent conflict of interest. A person trained to be a child advocate cannot be a disinterested, neutral investigator. This is confirmed by Douglas Besharov, prior Director of the National Center on Child Abuse: Nationwide, 65% of all reports of child abuse are unfounded; that is, they're closed after an investigation. The problem in cases like this is that the caseworkers, when they go out, they forget about the presumption of innocence. And when you add federal funding to the mix, which is based on the number of reports received and the income of the parents, a financial incentive exists for the caseworker to determine abuse has occurred. Bias and monetary incentives cause bad investigations. Tess Fleming, a caseworker with PRS, exemplifies these problems. Ms. Fleming testified, "I will lie under oath to anyone about anything if I feel that it is in the best interest of the child." After making this statement she received a promotion. Case after case right here in Texas reflect exactly Dr. Besharov's concerns, but time does not permit a complete recitation of these cases. I am also fearful of further retaliation against these families and their children. I will talk briefly about my family, however, because we have been so utterly devastated that the fear of retribution has no hold over me. This is a shorthand account of my most recent encounter with PRS: * On September 24, 1993, a report of physical abuse allegedly resulting from a reasonable disciplinary paddling was made by my 14-year-old son, Bradley's, school counselor; * Before any investigation by PRS, my ex-wife contacted the caseworker on September 27, 1993 to inquire about the status of the investigation. She knew about the counselor's report before we did, even though the caseworker had not called her. (Copy attached) * The following day PRS arrived at my son's school and multiple females forced my teenage son to disrobe and then took emergency possession of him. One of these women apparently was a friend of the caseworker who was simply along for the ride. Later the same evening they took po ssession of his biological sister toward whom no abuse had been alleged. None of my other children were taken. * On February 12, 1996, the school counselor and reporter of the alleged abuse, testified that the caseworker was accompanied by a person believed to be the caseworker's supervisor. (Copy Attached). * On February 13, 1996, the supervisor denied being at the school. (Copy Attached) However, when I talked with her on the evening of September 28, 1993, she made statements indicating to me that she had been present at the school. * Also on February 13, 1996, the caseworker was deposed. She testified she was alone when she came to interview my son. (Copy Attached) * On the evening of September 28, I tried to reason with the PRS personnel and requested that they interview me and my wife before deciding what they would do. My wife and I had been cleared every other time we had contact with PRS; we had no reason to believe that would not be the case this time. I should have doubted this, however, when they confronted me with unidentified photographs of a horrendously bruised child they claimed was my son, when I knew it was not Bradley. They showed me these pictures in connection with their attempts to bully me to sign my children over to them. I refused to sign and requested the return of the children. Instead, with my ex-wife in a room with my son, PRS gave me the option of letting my children stay with my ex-wife or place them in foster care. They also threatened me with court action and refused to return my children Despite this involuntary removal, the caseworkers disobeyed state law and the next day failed to initiate the mandatory court proceedings required to review all involuntary removals in Texas. * Sometime on September 29 or 30, the case was transferred to another unit and on September 30, 1993 the new supervisor called our home to inform us that she was assigning this case to a caseworker we had a bad experience with. During an earlier investigation, he shoved my home door open attempting to involuntarily enter my house; in doing so, the door struck my wife's head, injuring her. We complained then to PRS and this caseworker was replaced. Now they were trying to assign this person to our case again! We complained again to the supervisor -- who was obviously miffed at our request -- and another caseworker was assigned. * Without ever discussing any of the case details with me, my wife, or other witnesses who were present during the paddling in question, the new supervisor decided that my wife was "out of control" and that it was in the best interest of my son to remain permanently with my ex-wife. She also informed the new caseworker to delay contacting me or my wife until they could again interview them in front of my ex-wife. (Copy Attached). The caseworker who drafted these notes testified that he could not explain how they became part of the case record and then tried to distance himself from them by calling them typographical errors. (Copy attached). * On October 9, 1993, when I attempted to visit my children to take them some clothes, the new caseworker informed my ex-wife that "the father could not be alone with [the] children because there is legal action pending and if he was alone it would hurt CPS's chance of taking the children." (Copy Attached) * On October 11, 1993, an agency attorney recommended that the caseworker contact my ex-wife to find out if she was willing to file a suit in an effort to have the divorce decree modified. (Copy Attached) * When the new caseworker informed his supervisor of his conversations with the agency attorneys later on October 11th, the supervisor stated that CPS was now in a weakened legal situation. (Copy Attached) * After repeated demands by me, the caseworker finally came to our home on the evening of October 11, 1993. He stated he did not know what purpose the meeting was going to serve since all the facts had been documented by others. He refused to interview witnesses to the alleged abus e and who were present during the home visit. He also refused to review records of previous false or frivolous reports made by my ex-wife or the school counselor. And when I complained that my constitutional rights were being violated, he replied that CPS was now alleging I also had abused the children; even though I was some fifty miles away at the time of the alleged incident. He recorded the entire interview with our family on a Styrofoam cup. He concluded the meeting by prohibiting my wife and me from contacting our children without his approval. (Copy Attached) * Since none of the agency personnel would communicate with me or respond to my numerous letters, on November 19, 1993, I went to the offices of Harris County CPS accompanied by a private investigator. During this visit, the supervisor confirmed that she had seen my correspondence, but when questioned as to the status of the case she replied, "We are just sitting on the file." * On November 21, 1993, at the request of my two children who were wrongfully torn from our family, my wife and others went to see them. The children asked to come home for one night. When this occurred, my ex-wife contacted the caseworker and he instructed her to contact the police department and to immediately bring the children to the CPS office. CPS then took actual possession of my children and placed them in foster care. * On November 22, 1993, an emergency hearing was held and CPS was granted temporary managing conservatorship based solely on a misleading affidavit submitted by the caseworker. The children were removed from foster care and placed back with my ex-wife. (Copy Attached) * On December 8, 1993, my ex-wife, at the recommendation of the CPS attorneys, filed a Motion to Modify. * On December 10, 1993, at the full adversary hearing, no physical evidence of abuse was presented and the caseworker testified that my daughter had never been abused; nor had any allegations of abuse been made against me. CPS was dismissed and my children were legally returned to me. However, at the request of my son I permitted him to temporarily continue to reside with my ex-wife. By Christmas, he wanted to come home, but that was easier said than done. * Throughout most of 1994, numerous hearings were held related to the Motion to Modify and agency personnel were present in support of the Motion. Finally, on November 15, 1994 almost fourteen months later, my son was rightfully returned to me due to his deteriorating condition in the custody of my ex-wife. Had a proper investigation been conducted by a qualified, unbiased and non-incentive-funded investigator none of this would have happened. A real investigator would not have ignored the prior case notes and seen that my ex-wife had been quoted stating, "the only way she can get custody of her children is if their father is guilty for child abuse" (Copy Attached), the validity of this report would have been questioned. Had PRS looked closer, they would have found that she had previously been warned by prior caseworkers about filing false reports of abuse. And they would have understood why she knew about the allegations of abuse before we did. My family suffers today because of the culture of mendacity that permeates the very core of PRS. Later, the Ombudsman performed an unrequested review of my charges. There was no real desire to seek the truth; rather there was just the oft-repeated Ostrich-syndrome -- burying of heads to ignore the problems. Just maybe, if all the facts had been known, the PRS would have had a different opinion of my quest for the truth and why there is a dire need for organizations like VOCAL. A PRS employee may not have e-mailed a colleague at the Ombudsman's Office that she "Hopes this closes things on this man, but I am sure it will not. He is involved with VOCAL, and I doubt if we will ever satisfy him." (Copy Attached) I will be satisfied only when the meat of the truth about PRS is digested; I will never be satisfied by the sour milk and stench that PRS tries to pass off as protecting children. What has this done to my family? It has destroyed us financially. My retirement is gone. Our children's college funds are spent. My wonderful wife is currently recovering from a nervous breakdown. Physically we are drained. But worst of all, this took a real toll on our family relationships. We love one another very much and are trying to recover, but the closeness which was once there is slow to return. The things this system did to my family and children are outrageous, but what they did is far too common. My family currently is involved in a Federal civil rights lawsuit against PRS and others that hopefully will result in justice for us and will prevent other families and children from being abused by PRS and the child abuse industry. As for PRS accountability, there is none. Checks and balances are non-existent. The small bit of information I have provided today demonstrates this. Until this agency or any agency which hopefully comes into being to handle the responsibilities of protecting children from abuse and neglect is held accountable for their wrongful actions and their neglect of children really in need of care, families and children will continue to be abused by the system. To eliminate future embezzlement of State and Federal funds by PRS, and to provide for professional and thorough investigations, establish accountability and to allow for an unbiased avenue of redress in child abuse and neglect cases, I would like to make the following recommendation to the Commission and request that it be forwarded to the Legislature. * Transfer all child abuse and neglect investigative authority, responsibilities and respective funding to each county's Sheriff Department's Abuse Units. * Transfer all child abuse and neglect social services authority, responsibilities and respective funding to each county's Family Court Services who would report and be accountable to their respective Family Law Courts. * Provide additional funding, as necessary, to adequately and appropriately train the Sheriff Department's Abuse Units in dealing with children. * Require the Sheriff Department's Abuse Units to establish an investigative task force from within to thoroughly investigate and pursue the prosecution of those making knowingly false reports of child abuse and neglect. * Abolish the Ombudsman's Office and require that all complaints against investigative officers and/or social workers be initially investigated by a Citizen's Review Board which is reportable to the respective county's Commissioner's Court and all substantiated complaints and appeals be forwarded to the Texas Rangers for further investigation and resolution. * Within the next three years abolish the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, all current county and local child-protection agencies (e.g., Harris County Children's Protective Services) by transferring their remaining authority, responsibilities and funding to the Department of Human Services. The Staff Report mentions legislative actions which have occurred around the country; however, it fails to recognize the positive changes which have taken place in such states as Utah, California, Indiana, Washington and many others. I have provided you with copies of some of these changes in previous submittals. If additional copies are required, I would be happy to provide them to you. Just about one week ago, many of the legislators in the State of Washington began calling for a Grand Jury investigation into the child-protection system. They know something is wrong and are trying to do something about it. (Copy Attached) And two weeks back, a Seattle man falsely accused of sexually abusing his daughter was awarded over a half million dollars with punitive damages being assessed against the agency and caseworker. The facts of this cases are very similar to those in the majority of the cases right here in our State. (Copy Attached) You also need to ask why our Federal legislators are becoming involved in what used to be called a "state issue" and why Texas State Legislators are speaking out against PRS. Times have changed and the evidence has been produced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Federal dollars are being illegally obtained, siphoned off and wasted by the child-protection industry in Texas and in other places. (Copies of sample letters attached) Any failure by this Commission to recognize the obvious and report the truth about PRS to the Texas Legislature is negligent at best, duplicitous at worst! The Commission must decide whether it is going to perpetuate a bad and dishonest system or make a clean break and posture Texas to have the best run system in the nation. Nothing less is at stake. And the children and families of this state deserve an honest accounting by this Commission. For those of you interested, The Coalition of Parents (COP), The National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), Texas Fathers Alliance (TFA) and Victims of Child Abuse Laws (NASVO/VOCAL), would like to invite each member of the Commission, its Staff, the general public, legislators, and media to a "true" sunset of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. The gathering will be held at 4:00 P.M. on the west steps of the State Capitol Building in Austin, Texas, on June 19, 1996. Respectfully Submitted By, Terry A. Dawson Post Office Box 6183 Katy, Texas 77491-6183 Phone/Fax: 713-347-6183 E-mail: [email protected] 

 Last Update March 18, 1997