What should residents consider about Finding F2.11: F2.11: Some DCFS and DMH managers/supervisors cannot empathize with their field staff, which causes frustration and limits the ability of those workers to provide a higher quality of care for the child., and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
County partially disagrees: DCFS cites required supervisory field visits and some leadership visits, while DMH describes supervisors' prior field experience and current complex-case work. DCFS accepts benefits of continued exposure; these claims do not independently disprove reported staff experiences.
Audit analysis
Explains disputed characterization of supervisors' familiarity for both departments and acknowledges value of exposure. Concrete visit requirements cite Management Directive 09-11, revised April 23, 2026, with two visits annually per CSW and recording requirements; DMH provides specific examples of clinical participation. Report physical PDF page(s) 134–135; County response physical PDF page(s) 20–21. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
6/6
Public usefulness
Explains disputed characterization of supervisors' familiarity for both departments and acknowledges value of exposure. Concrete visit requirements cite Management Directive 09-11, revised April 23, 2026, with two visits annually per CSW and recording requirements; DMH provides specific examples of clinical participation.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Public participation
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.