Department of Early Education and Care - Finding 3

The Department of Early Education and Care Compromised High-Risk Investigations by Not Assigning Its Investigators to Investigations of High-Risk Complaints.

Overview

During our audit, we found that EEC investigated all 94 high-risk complaints that we reviewed. However, EEC did not always assign EEC investigators to investigations of high-risk complaints and instead assigned EEC licensors to conduct some investigations of high-risk complaints. Specifically, 9 (10%) of the 94 investigations of high-risk complaints were conducted by an EEC licensor instead of an EEC investigator.

Examples of allegations of unlicensed care complaints from the 9 investigations of high-risk complaints mentioned above include the following:

• alleged unlicensed caregiver with a prior 51A Report submitted to DCF;
• alleged incident of children hanging out of a second-story window with no screen; and
• alleged neglect of an infant left in a car seat outside on a day with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees.

Assigning EEC licensors—instead of EEC investigators­—to handle investigations of high-risk complaints compromises these investigations because EEC licensors may lack the specialized skills and training necessary to effectively address and resolve critical safety violations involving children.

Authoritative Guidance

EEC’s Internal Policy Handbook for EEC Childcare Operations Staff, effective September 7, 2021, states,

All ‘High Risk’ . . . [complaints] will continue to be managed by the Investigations Unit. . . .

Assigning for Investigation: EEC Investigations Unit

Complaints/incidents investigated by investigators should be limited to . . . high-risk issues, including investigations that require coordination with local law enforcement or programs with numerous repeated non-compliances that impact the health and safety of children.

Complaints/Incidents escalated to the Investigations Unit are those that match the following evaluation criteria findings:

1. Within EEC’s regulatory jurisdiction (i.e. in violation of EEC regulations); and
2. High or serious risk to child safety; and/or
3. Related to a screened in 51A report with high risk or serious concerns; and/or
4. One of several repeat and founded non-compliances that are determined to pose enhanced risk to child safety.

Reasons for EEC Investigators Not Conducting Investigations

In response to this finding, EEC told us that it had improperly coded five of the nine complaints as high-­risk and claimed that these complaints were not actually high risk. We dispute this claim, however, as the three example complaints we mentioned above satisfy the definition of high-risk complaints according to EEC’s Internal Policy Handbook for EEC Childcare Operations Staff. One of these three complaints was of a caregiver with a previous history of 51A Reports. The other two complaints involved children observed hanging out of an unscreened second-story window and an infant left unattended in a car seat outside on a day with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees. All three of these complaints include allegations that pose high or serious risk to the safety of the children. Therefore, we do not believe EEC is correct in claiming that five of the nine complaints were improperly coded as high risk. Additionally, EEC stated that it did not have a Portuguese-speaking investigator to investigate the remaining four cases, so EEC assigned a Portuguese-speaking licensor instead.

Recommendations

1. EEC should ensure that its investigators are assigned to investigations of high-risk complaints.
2. EEC should review the coding procedures with its employees to ensure that all investigations are coded correctly.
3. When EEC must use licensors or interpretation services for investigations of high-risk complaints, it should still assign EEC investigators to conduct these investigations.

Auditee’s Response

EEC recognizes the importance of its role in high-risk investigations. As noted in the Internal Handbook for EEC Child Care Operations Staff, investigations are routinely conducted by both EEC Licensing staff and EEC Investigation staff. The Handbook states that “High Risk” cases are typically assigned to investigators in cases where the regulatory compliance issue is of a serious nature. Specific examples of cases that meet the definition of high risk and are typically investigated by investigators are as follows:

• Death of a child.
• Allegation of abuse or neglect against a child.
• Screened in 51A.
• Staff verbally threaten a child and a 51A is screened in.
• Major injury to a child with regulatory concerns.
• Domestic, family, or third-party violence that is reported to have occurred during program operation hours and witnessed by child care children, as determined following consultation with the Investigations Supervisor.

The nine (9) cases identified by the Auditor were investigated by EEC. Of those nine (9), five (5) cases were coded incorrectly as High Risk by an intake staff member, and should have been coded as regulatory, as defined in the Internal Policy Handbook. Accordingly, those five (5) cases were investigated by EEC licensors in accordance with EEC policy. The remaining four (4) cases marked as high risk did not meet the definition of a case that would be assigned to an investigator. Those cases were therefore also investigated by EEC licensors in accordance with EEC policy.

Three (3) of the cases involved persons previously licensed by EEC and [Family Child Care (FCC)] Licensing staff were assigned to investigate due to their knowledge and prior working relationship with the individuals.

Four (4) of the cases involved Portuguese speaking providers and were investigated by a team of two Licensing staff, one of whom was a bilingual licensor. From November 2021, through December 2022, EEC did not employ a Portuguese speaking investigator due to the prior Portuguese speaking investigator leaving for another employment opportunity. EEC filled and has maintained this position since December 2022.

EEC is currently in the process of updating its Investigation handbook, which will include an unlicensed care policy.

Auditor’s Reply

EEC asserts that five of the nine cases were incorrectly coded as high risk by an intake staff member and should have been classified as regulatory. EEC’s claim that these high-risk cases were misclassified is, at best, inaccurate. The severity of each of these complaints satisfies the criteria for investigator involvement. Assigning licensors instead of trained investigators to such serious matters is a violation of EEC’s own policies related to child endangerment. This disregard for proper procedure reflects a failure in EEC’s duty of care.

The examples we provided—including an alleged unlicensed caregiver with a prior 51A Report submitted to DCF, children hanging out of an unscreened second-story window, and an infant left unattended in a car seat on a day with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees—clearly meet the criteria for high-risk complaints as defined in EEC’s Internal Policy Handbook for EEC childcare operations employees. According to the handbook, high‑risk cases include those that present a “high or serious risk to child safety” and those related to a “screened in 51A report with high risk or serious concerns.” It is inaccurate to claim that these cases were incorrectly coded, as an infant left unattended in a car seat outdoors with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees, a child hanging out of an unscreened second-story window and the other cited issues each present a “high or serious risk to child safety.” Therefore, these cases should have been assigned to EEC investigators, not licensors.

EEC also mentions that three of the cases involved individuals previously licensed by EEC and that Family Child Care (FCC) Licensing staff were assigned due to their knowledge and prior working relationships. Familiarity with the individuals involved does not supersede the requirement to assign high-risk cases to investigators. In fact, assigning an independent investigator could enhance the objectivity and integrity of the investigation, ensuring that any potential biases are minimized.

EEC states that the remaining four cases did not meet the definition of cases that would be assigned to an investigator and notes that they involved Portuguese-speaking providers. While we understand the challenges posed by language barriers, EEC’s policies do not provide exceptions based on language when assigning high-risk cases. The appropriate course of action would have been to assign an investigator and use interpretation services or bilingual support to ensure a thorough and compliant investigation. Assigning licensors instead of investigators to high-risk cases, regardless of language considerations, is a violation of with EEC’s own policies, compromises child safety, and is inequitable to both the children in EEC’s care and to the non-English speaking providers in the Commonwealth.

EEC’s Internal Policy Handbook explicitly states that all high-risk complaints “will continue to be managed by the Investigations Unit.” Deviating from this policy undermines the effectiveness of investigations into serious allegations that could impact the health and safety of children. Licensing staff may not possess the specialized training and expertise that investigators have in handling high-risk cases, which could result in less effective oversight and potentially leave serious issues unaddressed.

EEC stated it is in the process of updating its Investigation Handbook to include an unlicensed care policy. This does not address the immediate concern that, during the audit period, EEC did not fully comply with its existing policies. It is crucial for EEC to ensure that all high-risk cases are properly classified and assigned to investigators in accordance with its current guidelines so that children are protected to the fullest extent possible. 

Date published:	November 25, 2024