EDITORIAL
Child welfare audit a tool for improvement

Despite a "compassionate" culture and a determination to do its best for its little clients, it appears that the state has failed to improve the quality of its services to Hawai'i's children at risk.

That's the unmistakable conclusion of the latest audit of the state's Child Welfare Services Branch, conducted by the state auditor as a followup to a similar audit in 1999.

The problem does not appear to be particularly about money, the first level of complaint for most state agencies struggling to do more with less.

Budget keeping pace

The number of cases of suspected child abuse and neglect increased by 51 percent between 1998 and 2001 and the number of cases confirmed went up by 75 percent. But the budget for the agency went up some 76 percent during this same period.

The problem, rather, appears to be an agency that either through overwork or neglect has ignored its own management controls designed to keep children from falling though the cracks. In other words, a relatively good system is in place but it is not always followed.

This should come across as relatively good news to Lillian Koller, who was named in January as the new head of the Department of Human Services.

Essentially, the audit has told her that the budget (while never enough) has kept up with caseloads, and the management controls needed to keep things running smoothly have already been written.

Koller had some disagreements with the audit, but graciously said she saw no point in quibbling over details. She said she will take the audit's recommendations to heart.

Koller's boss, Gov. Linda Lingle, also made an important point in response to the audit. Some of the dispute over the quality of work conducted by child welfare services stems from very strict confidentiality rules, Lingle noted.

Lingle suggested — and we wholeheartedly agree — that Hawai'i should consider following the lead of other states in releasing more details about child welfare decisions. There is much more that could be disclosed about this work without violating individual privacy rights.

But Lingle also may have sent the wrong signal to her administration about the importance of cooperating with the auditor, an office she praised highly during her campaign.

Tough language

The "inflammatory language" used by the auditor in her reports has led to an "adversarial" relationship between agencies and the auditor, Lingle said.

It's true, the auditor uses tough language. But the point of the language is to get the attention of the administrators and bureaucrats who are responsible for making the changes she proposes. Lingle should go out of her way to make her departments understand that nothing other than full and enthusiastic cooperation with the auditor will be accepted.

The point of the auditor's work is to make the state more effective and efficient.

That's a goal no one could object to.