DCS continues history of secrecy

The Department of Child Safety keeps track of all kinds of data and produces, as mandated by law, regular reports that are chock-full of statistics.

But the DCS can be stumped by a simple, no-brainer question about the children it serves.

You have to wonder why.

Is it because the DCS doesn’t know the importance of keeping the right data?

Or is it more convenient not to know? Consider.

A law that adds a court review before the DCS can remove children from their parents’ custody went into effect this summer. But the DCS doesn’t keep track of how often the agency uses an emergency clause to sidestep the process.

That’s disappointing — but not surprising from an agency that was unable to tell me how many children in Arizona’s child-welfare system have a parent who is in immigration detention or has been deported.

When I asked that question in October, DCS spokesperson Darren DaRonco informed me that “this is not a specific data point that we track.”

That’s odd because Arizona is a border state where many U.S.-born children have undocumented parents who can get caught up in immigration-enforcement actions.

It’s also odd that Arizona Republic reporter Mary Jo Pitzl got a similar response when she asked for complete data on implementation of the law requiring a court order before the DCS takes any child into state custody.

The intent of the law was to add a layer of oversight before the DCS can exercise its power to remove a child from his or her home and family. A judge is available 24/7, but there were exemptions built into the law for “exigent circumstances.”

So, how’s it working? Pitzl asked the DCS. She wanted to know how many children were removed under the exigent-circumstances exemption.

The DCS couldn’t say. “It’s not as easy as subtracting the numbers,” DaRonco told Pitzl.

It should be as easy as keeping track. But they don’t.

From July 1 to October 31, there were 1,938 children removed from their homes after a judge agreed to issue a court order, Pitzl found.

Data shows the court approved the request to take the child 93 percent of the time. It’s unclear what happened in the 50 cases where the court denied the request.

It’s also unclear what happened in a whole bunch of other cases.

There were a total of 3,175 removals from July to October, according to data the DCS does report.

But don’t do the math. DaRonco told Pitzl the difference includes more than just the cases where the DCS used exigent circumstances to avoid going to court.

For example, it can also include cases where parents voluntarily surrender their children, where the court itself initiates the removal and where the child is also involved with the juvenile-justice system.

OK. Fair enough. But why not track those data points?

A cynic might suggest the DCS is following a long history of secrecy — a legacy of covering one’s back that dates to when the DCS was called Child Protective Services.

Or maybe it’s just because nobody asked and the agency didn’t realize how important this data would be in determining how well the new law is working.

Republican Rep. Kelly Townsend, who supported the court-oversight legislation, told Pitzl she’s working on legislation to require fuller reporting on DCS removals.

While she’s at it, Townsend ought to add a requirement to track how many children in the system have parents who have been deported or are in immigration detention.

You don’t have to be a cynic to figure the DCS avoids that issue because the subject of immigration is toxic. This lack of a data point also smacks of a preference for secrecy over disclosure.

That’s an old habit for Arizona’s child-welfare agency.

Gov. Doug Ducey, who likes to tout the DCS’ success under his administration, needs to turn that around.

The state’s child-welfare agency should be able to answer simple questions about the children it has taken into state custody.