Probe calls CPS data accuracy into question
Ex-workers say record amending ‘common,’ but agency challenges claims of file editing
A Child Protective Services supervisor was terminated for falsifying government documents after she allegedly changed case records in the name of one of her employees.
It’s not clear if the ex-supervisor could face criminal charges, but experts say the incident raises broader concerns about the reliability of an electronic records system that courts rely on to make decisions about whether to remove children from their families.
“It seems to me like it’s an admission of a huge flaw in their system, that that is even possible,” said former Juvenile Court Judge Mike Schneider. “Can we ever tell how often this has happened in the past?”
The agency, which is a part of the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services, did not initially comment but publicly responded to questions about the story one day after it was published online.
“We take falsifying any kind of document regarding our children and our adults very serious,”
Commissioner Hank Whitman said Wednesday morning during a House Appropriations subcommittee meeting in Austin. “Coming from a law enforcement background, that is a felony. When those allegations come to us, we immediately start an investigation into that.”
‘Common’ occurrence
Even though the 10-year employee was disciplined for the alterations, other former workers told the Houston Chronicle that amending records in the name of other employees is common at CPS and that in some instances the agency had encouraged the practice. In a statement late Wednesday, spokesman Patrick Crimmins pushed back against that claim.
“While this is an unfortunate action by one supervisor, it does not mean this is a regular occurrence,” he said. “The vast majority of workers follow the policies that are in place for maintaining case notes and records.”
The Chronicle is not naming the fired supervisor because she has not been charged with a formal crime. In a written rebuttal obtained through a public records request, she claims she was only fired in retaliation after complaining of a “hostile and toxic” work environment.
The disciplinary action stems from a November incident, when the Houston-area supervisor changed records of a visit with a family to instead show a staff meeting in anticipation of closing the case, according to paperwork obtained through a public records request.
Later, the caseworker noticed her records had been changed, adding notation of a meeting that she believed never happened. The woman contacted the technology department, sparking an investigation that ultimately led to the supervisor.
When questioned about it, the supervisor said she’d discussed the changes with the caseworker and had conducted the meeting by phone. Then, to help her worker out, she’d simply copied and pasted a narrative from elsewhere in the same family’s case file, the supervisor said.
It’s not clear from the partially redacted records what happened in the case or how the change may have impacted the outcome. The agency was investigating allegations that the parents weren’t properly looking after their child, according to the records.
Though the disciplinary report represents a single incident, experts worried it could be problematic if the practice is more widespread. Courts rely on the accuracy of case records, and other CPS workers depend on them to make their own recommendations throughout a case. And, while in this instance the caseworker was still around to spot the change, that’s not always the case in an agency with a 17.5 percent turnover rate.
“We need to figure out if ... it’s as easy to game as this letter indicates,” Schneider said. “In light of the history of high turnover at DFPS, it makes it even more crucial because whoever is handling that case needs to have accurate information about what actually happened in the past in order to figure out what’s in the best interest of children going forward.”
Family law attorney Dennis Slate, who won a hefty $127,000 sanction against the agency for wrongfully removing a Tomball couple’s children, concurred.
“CPS needs to stop hiding this type of activity from the public,” he said. “Because of how much turnover there is in CPS caseworkers, a case almost never has the same workers from the beginning to the end and the worker that testifies at trial is always relying on these entries to prove the grounds to terminate a parent’s rights. But what if the entries of the workers are false?”
Legislative questions
During Wednesday’s subcommittee hearing, state Rep. Sarah Davis, R-Bellaire, asked about the Chronicle’s initial online report on the matter.
“This was not the first article that I have read in the past year or so with regards to allegedly falsifying records,” she said. “It seems to me … they’re not trying to be nefarious, but almost trying to help each other, but I would be curious if that is the proper protocol.”
After incorrectly stating that the Chronicle had not given the agency a chance to respond, Whitman addressed the question at hand.
“Can things be changed in the computer system by a supervisor?” he said. “It can be, after being confirmed with the employee first, but there are policies in place for them to do that.”
In a disciplinary notice letter, Program Director LaShonna Beaudoin — who oversaw the nowfired supervisor — didn’t see it as a miscommunication but instead framed it as an uncorrectable problem.
“Integrity is vital,” Beaudoin wrote in January when she recommended the supervisor’s dismissal. “I cannot develop a Developmental Plan for falsifying documentation and tampering with a government document.”
The supervisor offered a rebuttal, emphasizing that she’d spoken with the caseworker and alleging that the agency never investigated her response.
“Due to the fact that I made complaints against PD LaShonna Beaudoin creating a hostile and toxic work environment within her program,” she concluded, “it appears that this disciplinary action notice is in retaliation to my complaints.”
Weeks later, the regional director approved her termination. The fired supervisor referred comment to her attorney, who did not immediately respond to the Chronicle’s request.
Rhonda Carson, a former CPS employee who was not involved in the case, agreed that the practice could be problematic — but also said that it’s not unusual, and often not nefarious. In some cases, according to Carson and another former official with knowledge of the practice, supervisors were instructed to delete information entered by caseworkers.
“You can edit, the system allows you to edit the caseworker’s narrative under the caseworker’s name,” she said. “I have seen supervisors who have went in and altered documentation to reflect it to be more favorable for the agency but also — and I have done it myself as well as all supervisors — it’s common practice for us to go in and help our caseworkers out.”
Digital paper trail
The agency clarified on Wednesday that most workers can’t alter records in the digital case management system. Supervisors and their designees can, but only for caseworkers in their unit — and the technology department still has the ability to figure out who made certain changes and when.
“Supervisors continue to need the ability to review and edit the documentation of their caseworkers; this is part of their jobs overseeing/teaching/mentoring caseworkers on correct policies and best practices,” Crimmins said. “It’s one of the ways new caseworkers learn specifically what information should be included, and as important, what should be left out.”