HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04272010 - C.67RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACCEPT and APPROVE the County Children and Family Services Self-Assessment and
System Improvement Plan as recommended by the Employment and Human Services
Department Director and authorize the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign the
Self-Assessment and Self Improvement Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
Passed in fall 2001, Assembly Bill 636, the Child Welfare System Improvement and
Accountability Act of 2001, is also known as the California Child And Family Services
Review (C-CFSR). The legislation directed counties to undergo a process of self-assessment
and system improvement in order to improve performance on key child welfare outcome
indicators. Modeled after the Child and Family Services Review process which was
designed by the federal government to assess state-level performance on child welfare
outcomes, the C-CFSR process consists of three (3) components:
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/27/2010 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Valerie Earley,
3131583
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 27, 2010
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C.67
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Joe Valentine, Employment & Human Services Director
Date:April 27, 2010
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Self-Assessment and System Improvement Plan
1. Contra Costa County conducted
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
the Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) in April of 2009. This collaborative process
between Children and Family Services (CFS), Juvenile Probation, Bay Area Academy,
and California Department of Social Services was designed to highlight a practice area on
which CFS and Probation would like to focus to better understand each agency's
performance and to plan how to improve services.
2. The county self-assessment (CSA) process presents an opportunity to learn what is and
what is not working in the delivery of child welfare services within that county. Contra
Costa County conducted its first self-assessment in 2004, another in 2006 and the current
assessment in December 2009/January 2010.
3. The final component of the process is the System of Improvement Plan (SIP) which is
the culmination of information that is received as a result of the PQCR and CSA. The SIP
is the county's agreement with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) that
it will focus its attention and activities on improvements in specific areas utilizing clearly
defined outcome indicators.
This board order is requesting the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to accept and
approve the County Self Assess and System Improvement Plan.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS
Self Assessment
System Improvement Plan
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CHILDREN & FAMILY
SERVICES
SELF ASSESSMENT
2010
California’s Child and Family Services Review
County Self-Assessment Cover Sheet
County: Contra Costa
Responsible County
Child Welfare Agency: Children & Family Services
Period of Assessment:2007 - 2009
Period of Outcome Data: July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008
Date Submitted:
County Contact Person for County Self-Assessment
Name & title: Patrick Harrington, Research and Evaluation Manager
Address:2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 200 Martinez, CA 94553
Phone:(925)335-7059
Fax:(925)335-7013
E-mail:harripb@ehsd.cccounty.us
CAPIT Liaison / CBCAP Liaison / County PSSF Liaison
Name & title: Rhonda Smith, Administrative Services Assistant III
Address:40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
Phone:(925)313-1696
Fax:(925)313-1575
E-mail:smithr@ehsd.cccounty.us
Submitted by each agency for the children under its care
Submitted by: County Child Welfare Agency Director (Lead Agency)
Name:Valerie Earley, MSW
Signature:
Submitted by: County Chief Probation Officer
Name:Lionel Chatman
Signature:
In Collaboration with:
County & Community
Partners
Name(s)Signature
Board of Supervisors Designated
Public Agency to Administer
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Funds
Carol Carrillo, MSW
Executive Director
Child Abuse Prevention Council
of Contra Costa
County Child Abuse Prevention
Council
Carol Carrillo, MSW
Executive Director
Child Abuse Prevention Council
of Contra Costa
Parent Partner Representative Judi Knittel
As Applicable Name(s)
Youth Representatives Antinette Kelly; Kareena Blackmon
Contra Costa County Health
Department
Michelle Williams, Public Health; Rich Weisgal, Mental Health
Local Tribes N/A
Local Education Agency Catherine Giacolone, Contra Costa County Department of Education
Board of Supervisors (BOS) Approval
BOS Approval Date:
Name:
Signature:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction 1
B. County Self Assessment Process and Team 1
C. Demographic Profile 6
D. Public Agencies Providing Child Welfare Services 20
E. Children & Family Services Agency Characteristics 22
1. Size and Structure of Agency 22
2. Government Structure 23
F. Probation Agency Characteristics 28
1. Size and Structure of Agency 28
2. Government Structure 29
G. CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF 31
H. Participation Rates 33
I. Federal and State Outcome Measures 38
J. Systemic Outcomes 55
K. Peer Quality Case Review Summary 58
L. Systemic Factors 63
1. Relevant Management Information Systems 63
2. Case Review Systems 65
3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention 68
4. Quality Assurance System 69
5. Service Array 73
6. Staff/Provider Training 78
7. Agency Collaboration 80
8. Local Systemic Factors 83
M. Summary Assessment and Self Assessment Discussion 83
1. Safety Outcome Indicators 83
2. Permanency Outcome Indicators
3. Well Being Outcome Indicators
4. Systemic Outcome Indicators
A. Introduction
The Mission of the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau is:
We, in partnership with the community, support families to nurture their children
and youth, keep them safe, and enable them to fully realize their potential.
We seek to eliminate abuse and neglect
We strive to provide culturally competent services.
We engage with communities to develop mutual accountability for the
safety of our children and youth.
As reflected in the Mission statement, Contra Costa County’s Children and Family
Services Bureau continues to support an environment of partnership and collaboration
in support of families and children in Contra Costa County. In this spirit, Contra Costa
County Children & Family Services convened the tri-annual California Self Assessment
process.
This Self Assessment is a collaboration with partners Probation, CAPIT (Child Abuse
Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Program), CBCAP (Community-Based Child
Abuse Prevention Program), and PSSF (Promoting Safe and Stable Families). Many
additional partners and stakeholders including parents and former foster youth also
participated. The forum presented an opportunity to examine Child Welfare intervention
and prevention services in Contra Costa to acknowledge strengths, discuss challenges,
and identify gaps in services for children and families in Contra Costa County.
This document reflects the efforts of the partnership for continual improvement in
services and prevention.
B. County Self Assessment Process and Team
Understanding
the Self
Assessment
Passed in fall 2001, Assembly Bill 636, the Child Welfare System Improvement and
Accountability Act of 2001, is also known as the California Child And Family Services
Review (C-CFSR). The legislation directed counties to undergo a process of self-
assessment and system improvement in order to improve performance on key child
welfare outcome indicators. Modeled after the Child and Family Services Review
process which was designed by the federal government to assess state-level
performance on child welfare outcomes, the C-CFSR process consists of three
components:
• Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR)
Contra Costa County conducted the PQCR in April of 2009. This collaborative
process between Children and Family Services (CFS), Juvenile Probation, Bay
Area Academy and California Department of Social Services was designed to
highlight a practice area on which CFS and Probation would like to focus to
better understand each agency’s performance and to plan how to improve
services.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 1
The outcome indicator CFS chose was “Exits to Permanency for Youth in Care
24 Months or Longer.” Probation chose to examine “Aftercare Services for
Families Reunifying with Youth.”
• County Self-Assessment (CSA)
The self-assessment process presents an opportunity to learn what is and
what is not working in the delivery of child welfare services within that county.
Contra Costa County conducted its first self assessment in 2004, another in
2006 and the current assessment in December 2009/January 2010. This CSA
was the first to mandate integration of prevention-related services in the
process. The self-assessment process is conducted by the county with input
from stakeholders that include parents, youth, child welfare staff, and partners
from other child-serving departments such as probation, education, mental
health, public health, and prevention network partners. A complete listing of all
participants is included in this report.
• System Improvement Plan
Also known as the “SIP”, this is the plan developed as a result of the self-
assessment and PQCR process. Each SIP component looks much like a case
plan or an action plan; encompassing an identified area for improvement, an
improvement goal, strategies and rationales for each strategy and a list of
milestones to be attained in completion of the strategy.
The SIP is the county’s agreement with the California Department of Social
Services (CDSS) that it will focus its attention and activities on improvements
in specific areas utilizing clearly defined outcome indicators. In addition to the
indicators themselves, a SIP component can be written about any of the seven
systemic factors or can be developed for “any additional areas for
improvement at its option”.
The summary section of this document looks forward to the SIP process which
will be completed between now and April 30, 2010. Once the SIP has been
finalized by CFS, it will be submitted for approval to the County Board of
Supervisors prior to delivery to CDSS on April 30, 2010.
The SIP and PQCR documents can be obtained from the California Department of
Social Services at: http://www.childsworld.ca.gov.
This three tiered approach to performance improvement has been an important to
Contra Costa’s focus on outcomes. The process is in alignment with Contra Costa’s
ongoing activities for performance assessment, monitoring and improvement. Since
implementation of this PQCR, CSA, and SIP processes, Contra Costa has recognized
performance improvement in many areas.
Based on the Self Assessment of December 2006, the following Outcome Indicators
were identified as areas of focus for performance improvement during the previous SIP
period. The table below indicates performance status at the end of the previous SIP
period.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 2
County Self
Assessment
Invitees
The following table identifies staff, partners, and stakeholders invited to participate in the
Self Assessment process. Former Foster Youth and families were included and their
voice was important in the evaluation process. Comments from the process are
included in Section L, Summary Assessment and Self Assessment Discussion.
NAME AGENCY/DEPT PARTICIPATION
REQUIREMENT
Vern Wallace
Rich Weisgal
Mental Health
Core requirement
Michelle Williams Health Department Core requirement
Nancy Valencia
Donna Anderson
Todd Billechi
Probation Department Core requirement
Valerie Earley Children & Family Services Core requirement
Carol Carillo Child Abuse Prevention Council,
Children’s Trust Fund;
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Administrator
Core requirement
Rhonda Smith
Prevention/Early Intervention
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Liaison
Core requirement
Judi Knittel Parent Partner Representative Core requirement
Antoinette Harris PSSF Collaborative Core requirement
Antinette Kelly
Kareena Blackmon
Youth Representatives Core requirement
Patrick Harrington Children & Family Services Core requirement
Outcome Improvement from Baseline of
Current SIP
Recurrence of Maltreatment Improved
Rate of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care No Change
Referrals by Time to Investigation - Immediate Improved
Referrals by Time to Investigation – 10 Day Worsened
Timely Social Worker Visits Worsened
Multiple Foster Care Placements Improved
Length of Time to Reunification Improved
Siblings Placed Together Improved
High School Degree or GED No Change
Exit to Permanency (24 Months in Care) Improved
Disproportionality of Removals Improved
Foster Home Recruitment/Retention Improved
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 3
Bryan Balch Monument Corridor Community
Partnership
Recommended
Haven Fern County AOD Recommended
Sean Casey First Five Contra Costa Recommended
Devorah Levine Domestic Violence Prevention
Provider
Recommended
Pat Stroh Early Childhood Education, Child
Care
Recommended
Stephen Baiter Economic Development Agency Recommended
Catherine Giacolone Contra Costa County Office of
Education
Recommended
Pastor Henry
Perkins
Faith Based Community Recommended
Paul Buddenhagen Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage
Programs
Recommended
Prof. Bart Grossman
UC Berkeley School of Social
Welfare
Recommended
Judge Lois Haight
Commissioner
Houghton
Judge Stark
Judge Becton-Smith
Juvenile Court Bench Officers Recommended
Sam Cobb First Place for Youth – Service
Provider
Recommended
Ella Liggins DSS Regional Center Recommended
Judith Lefler
Cyndia Cole
Regional Training Academy Recommended
Charles Mead Court Appointed Special
Advocates
Recommended
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 4
Patricia Perkins
Richard Bell
Gloria Halverson
Ray Merrit
Neely McElroy
Lois Rutten
Division Manager - CFS Recommended
Toni Nestore
Donna Anderson
Holliedayle Hertwick
Stefani Thomas
Don Graves
Supervisor - CFS Recommended
Carl Nishi
Christian Hutchings
Joann Lofton
Leslie Davis
Nannette Dupree
Social Worker - CFS Recommended
Cheryl Barrett Parent Partner Recommended
Brenda Sutherland
Cynthia Wright
Rachel Foster
Analysts - CFS Recommended
C. Demographic Profile
County Population The total population of Contra Costa County continues to increase and is now well
over one million people.
Total Population of Contra Costa County
948,816
1,060,435
850,000
900,000
950,000
1,000,000
1,050,000
1,100,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data collected from the California Department of Finance
(http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 5
The child population for Contra Costa County, accounting for approximately 1/4th of
the total population, is approximately the same as it was 10 years ago.
Total Child Population (0-17 years)
253,093 253,468
250,000
251,000
252,000
253,000
254,000
255,000
256,000
257,000
258,000
259,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data collected from the California Department of Finance
(http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)
Child Population
by Ethnicity
The child population by ethnicity shows some interesting changes occurring. Namely,
the number of Hispanic/Latino youth is increasing while the number of
Caucasian/White and African American/Black youth is decreasing. There has also
been a slight increase in Asian/Pacific Islander youth in the last 10 years. For 2009,
the percentage of youth by ethnicity is:
• African American/Black – 8.5%
• Asian/Pacific Islander – 11.7%
• Caucasian/White – 42.4%
• Hispanic/Latino – 32.2%
• Native American – 0.3%
• Multiracial – 4.8%
Child Population by Ethnicity
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
African American/Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Multiracial
African American/Black 28,397 27,907 27,167 26,362 25,445 24,561 23,729 23,041 22,283 21,661
Asian/Pacific Islander 26,906 27,738 27,794 27,910 28,018 28,055 28,323 28,721 29,131 29,583
Caucasian/White 123,498 122,313121,126 119,757 118,108 115,798113,941 111,941 109,613107,459
Hispanic/Latino 61,077 64,989 67,449 70,083 72,482 74,860 76,718 78,582 80,225 81,711
Native American 879 897 874 862 840 825 825 822 805 797
Multiracial 12,336 12,938 13,163 13,439 13,603 13,871 13,089 12,808 12,543 12,257
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data collected from the California Department of Finance
(http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 6
Percentage of
Households with
Children
The percentage of households with children has dropped to the current rate of
36.3%.
Percentage of Households With Children
35.00%
35.50%
36.00%
36.50%
37.00%
37.50%
38.00%
38.50%
39.00%
39.50%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Data collected from the California Department of Finance
(http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)
Types of
Households with
Children
There has been a decline in the number of households reported as married with
children, and an increase in the number of households reported as single father with
children.
Types of Households With Children
74.1%
70.2%
3.20%
8.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Married Couple with
Children
Single Father with
Children
Single Mother with
Children
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 7
An additional piece of information has to do with the ethnic disparity in Contra Costa
households that are either married with children or a single parent with children
(especially a single mother). See below for 2007 data.
Race/Ethnicity Married Single Father Single Mother
African American/Black 33.8% 12.1% 54.4%
Asian 84.3% 5.4% 10.7%
Caucasian/White 77.5% 5.7% 16.4%
Hispanic/Latino 72.8% 7.5% 19.4%
Multiracial 71.7% 12.4% 15.9%
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 8
English Learners in
Public School
Consistent with Contra Costa’s growing Hispanic/Latino population, the percentage of
English Learners in Public Schools is increasing.
English Learners in Public Schools
11.00%
17.00%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 9
Languages for
English Learners
The table below shows the change in English Learners in Public School by their
primary language.
English Learners in Public Schools - Top Languages Spoken
Language
Spoken 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Spanish 12,769 14,529 16,764 18,066 19,149 20,239 20,970 21,769 22,584 22,699
All Other Non
English
Languages 2,366 2,650 2,660 2,609 2,527 2,527 2,605 2,672 2,831 2,855
Filipino 623 721 753 806 771 734 738 813 852 828
Vietnamese 403 428 455 397 370 410 420 416 438 462
Punjabi 366 381 414 416 406 417 400 399 394 378
Korean 169 201 229 220 196 249 262 310 358 340
Arabic 167 190 198 178 172 197 223 287 273 307
Mandarin 165 155 164 149 131 140 171 216 266 301
Cantonese 264 254 269 243 248 253 274 260 262 279
Armenian 4566476688
Hmong 14 12 13 11 6 3 1 1 1 3
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Median Family
Income
Median family income is just under $100,000 annually (2008). This is significantly
higher than the State average. Contra Costa also has one of the highest median
family incomes of any county in the Bay area.
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 10
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 11
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 12
Child Poverty In spite of the high median family income, the percentage of children living in poverty,
and those enrolled in the free meal program at school has risen over the past 9
years.
Children in Poverty
6.2%
13.2%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Students Enrolled in Free Meal Program
26.80%
35.10%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Unemployment
Rate
The unemployment rate in Contra Costa County has risen significantly in the last
three years.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 13
Unemployment Rate for Contra Costa
3.5
9.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data obtained from California Employment Development Department. Accessed online
at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName=Labforce
(November 2009)
Median Home
Price
The current recession has had a significant effect upon real estate prices in Contra
Costa. The median home price has dropped by over 50% between 2007 and 2009.
Median Home Price
$345,000
$590,000
$260,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Education
Information
Contra Costa County currently (2008-2009) serves 166,772 students within 258
schools, divided into 18 K-12 school districts. There are over 8500 teachers working
in Contra Costa and the average annual salary ($56,590) is approximately $3,000
less than the State average. Approximately 10% of the K-12 students are enrolled in
private schools. Approximately 12% (19,815) of the enrolled students are receiving
Special Education services. The ethnicity of the student population is shown below as
is the percentage of students graduating from High School (approximately 83%).
Enrollment by Ethnic Group
Group Number Percentage
American Indian 826 0.50%
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 14
Pacific Islander 1,361 0.80%
Filipino 6,795 4.10%
Hispanic 46,107 27.60%
African American 18,878 11.30%
White 69,157 41.50%
Multi/No Response 9,078 5.40%
TOTAL: 166,772 100%
12th Grade
Enrollment
12the Grade
Graduates
County 12,864 10,696 (83%)
State 468,281 374,561 (80%)
High School
Dropout Rates
High School dropout rates have risen in 2007 and 2008 (the latest available data).
This is especially true for African America/Black children.
8.7%
16.2%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
High School Dropouts
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 15
High School Dropout Rate by Ethnicity
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
African American/Black
Native American or Alaska Native
Pacific Islander
Hispanic/Latino
Filipino
Caucasian/White
Asian
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Children with All
Required
Immunizations
The rate of children with all required Immunizations has dropped somewhat in the
past 3 years.
Kindergarteners with All Required Immunizations
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
95.5% 95.7% 94.8% 93.8% 93.6%
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Babies Born
Weighing
Under 2500 g
The percentage of low-birth weight infants has remained relatively stable over the
past 5 years.
Infants Born at Low Birthweight
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
6.4% 7.0% 6.6% 7.0% 6.6%
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Child/Youth Death
Rate
Child and youth death rates appear to have increased slightly for the period 2005-
2007, especially for African American/Black youth.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 16
Child/Youth (Age 1-24) Death Rate (Rate per 100,000)
38.6
37.4
35.5
36
36.5
37
37.5
38
38.5
39
1996-
1998
1997-
1999
1998-
2000
1999-
2001
2000-
2002
2001-
2003
2002-
2004
2003-
2005
2004-
2006
2005-
2007
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Child/Youth (Age 1-24) Death Rate by Age (per 100,000)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Age 1996-
1998
1997-
1999
1998-
2000
1999-
2001
2000-
2002
2001-
2003
2002-
2004
2003-
2005
2004-
2006
2005-
2007
1 - 4 years
5 - 14 years
15 - 19 years
20 - 24 years
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Child/Youth (Age 1-24) Death Rate by Ethnicity (per 100,000)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1996-
1998
1997-
1999
1998-
2000
1999-
2001
2000-
2002
2001-
2003
2002-
2004
2003-
2005
2004-
2006
2005-
2007
African American/Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Infant Mortality The infant mortality rate has fallen in the last 10 years. There is, however, an evident
disparity for African American/Black infants compared to infants of all other
ethnicities.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 17
Infant (Under 1) Mortality Rate (per 1000)
5.3
4.7
4.3
3.9 3.9
4.1 4.2 4.3
5.5 5.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1996-
1998
1997-
1999
1998-
2000
1999-
2001
2000-
2002
2001-
2003
2002-
2004
2003-
2005
2004-
2006
2005-
2007
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Health Insurance
Coverage
Contra Costa County has a relatively low rate of uninsured – at less than 5% (2007),
but the uninsured rate for dental care is higher at 17.5% (2007).
Health Insurance Coverage by Type
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
2001 2003 2005 2007
Employment Based Insurance
Medi-Cal / Healthy Families /
Other Public Insurance
Uninsured
Privately Purchased Insurance
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Teen Birth Rates Overall, the teen birth rate in Contra Costa has gone down in the last 10 years. There
is, however, significant ethnic disparity present, with Hispanic/Latina’s having the
highest rate of teen births – followed by African American/Black teens.
Teen (Age 15-19) Birth Rate, by Race/Ethnicity (Rate per 1,000)
Race/Ethnicity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
African American/
Black 68.3 60 57.3 46.6 43.8 37.4 35.8 38.8 45.9 42.7
Asian/
Pacific Islander 13.6 16 15.4 16.1 11.1 6.8 7.8 7.6 5.3 6.8
Caucasian/
White 22.1 19 12.9 9.8 9.3 7.7 6.8 8 7.7 5.8
Hispanic/
Latina 59 62.8 63.2 57.8 55.7 55.2 52.8 56 54.3 50.2
Native American
/American Indian LNE LNE LNE LNE LNE LNE LNE LNE LNE LNE
Multiracial
N/A N/A 22.6 21.2 27 19.6 18.9 LNE 23.7 30.2
Total 37.1 33.9 30 26.4 25.3 23.5 22.4 23.7 24.1 22.6
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 18
Students with
Autism
The rate for students diagnosed with autism or an autism spectrum disorder has
been increasing in both the State of California as well as within Contra Costa County
(currently at slightly over 8/1000). The reason(s) for this are unclear and could
include better diagnostic procedures, increased awareness, or other factors.
Students With Autism (Rate per 1000)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Contra Costa
California
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Juvenile Felony
Arrest
Juvenile felony arrests have shown a decline from 1998 until 2004. The appears to
be a slight increase in felony arrests between 2004 and 2007 (latest data = 12.9
arrests/1000 youth).
Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate (per 1000)
12.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Contra Costa
California
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 19
Juvenile Felony
Arrests by
Ethnicity
The slight rise in juvenile felony arrests since 2004 appears to have been driven by
African American/Black youth (their rate has more than doubled since 2002). Note
the wide disparity between African American/Black youth and youth of any other
ethnicity.
Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate by Ethnicity (per 1000)
25.6
57.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
African American/Black
Caucasian/White
Hispanic/Latino
Other
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Juvenile Felony
Drug Arrests
The data on Juvenile felony drug arrest shows a similar pattern to that of all juvenile
felony arrests – a decrease until 2004, then a small increase.
Juvenile Felony Drug/Alcohol Arrest Rate (per 1000)
1.5
1.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Youth Suicides The rate of youth (ages 15-24) suicides has declined somewhat over the past 10
years.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 20
Youth (Age 15-24) Suicide Rate (per 100,000)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1996-1998 1999-2001 2002-2004 2005-2007
Contra Costa
California
Data obtained from kidsdata.org
Youth Suicide by
Ethnicity and Year
Contrary to the disparity in felony arrests, youth suicide predominantly occurs in
White/Caucasian youth.
Number of Youth Suicides, by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
African American/
Black 1 2 0 5 0 0 3 0 2 1
Asian
2 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 3
Caucasian/
White 4 6 1 3 6 3 6 7 6 5
Hispanic/
Latino 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 1
Native American 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacific Islander N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Multiracial N/A N/A 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total 9 12 5 11 7 4 16 9 12 10
Native Americans
There are no federally recognized tribes within Contra Costa County.
CalWORKS Cases The number of CalWorks recipients has risen in the past 3 years, with the last year
seeing a nearly 10% increase.
Jan2007 Jan2008 Jan2009 Jan2010
CalWorks Recipients 20,154 20,749 22,670 24,890
Data obtained from county data pull and from California Department of Social Services -
http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG277.htm
Child Care
Waiting List
The California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) child care program offers child
care services to low income, CPS, and at risk families. These families are required to
be placed on the centralized eligibility list (CEL), including families found ineligible to
Stage 2. In addition to the CAPP, there are three different stages (different funding
streams) in which families can receive CalWORKs subsidized childcare. The CEL
data for Quarter 2 2009 (April 1, 2009 – June 30, 2009) shows that Contra Costa
County has 2075 families waiting for care – although only 13 of these families fall
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 21
under the reason category of Child Protective Services.
Data gathered from the November 2009 Status Report on the Implementation of County Centralized Eligibility
Lists (http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/celreports.asp)
Stage 1 (administered/funded through the California Department of Social Services)
offers child care services to only those families that are CalWORKs aided and
participating in the Welfare to Work (WTW) Program. Stage 1 is an entitlement
program and eligible families are not required to be placed on the CEL. There is no
wait list for stage 1 services.
Stage 2 (administered/funded through the California Department of Education) offers
child care services to former CalWORKs recipients that have received CalWORKs
within the last 24 months of applying for child care. Stage 2 is an entitlement
program and eligible families are not required to be placed on the CEL. There is no
wait list for stage 2 services.
Entry into Stage 3 child care (administered/funded through the California Department
of Education) can only be accessed by a former CalWORKs recipient who has come
to the end of the 24-month Stage 2 eligibility period (has exhausted their Stage 2
benefits). Stage 3 is an entitlement program and eligible families transition from
Stage 2 into Stage 3. They are not placed on the CEL. There is no wait list for stage
3 services.
Data obtained from county data pull
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 22
D. Public Agencies Providing Child Welfare Services
The following public agencies in Contra Costa County provide services to children
and families.
Children & Family Services
One of four bureaus in the Employment and Human Services Department, the
Children Services Bureau has primary responsibility for providing child abuse and
neglect intervention and prevention services to children and families. The Bureau is
also responsible for foster care benefits eligibility and issuance. The Child Abuse
Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT), program, Community Based Child
Abuse Prevention Program (CBCAP), and Promoting Safe and Stable Families
(PSSF) program are administered by Children & Family Services.
Contra Costa County Probation Department
Contra Costa County Probation Department, as an integral part of the Criminal
Justice System, is to reduce crime and provide for the public’s safety by providing
prevention, investigation, supervision services and safe custodial care for juveniles.
Contra Costa Health Services
There are a variety of child serving agencies under the broad umbrella of Health
Services. These include Children’s Mental Health, Public Heath, Developmental
Disabilities Council, General Health Services – which includes Emergency Medical
Services, Health Centers and Clinics, and Alcohol and Other Drugs.
First Five Contra Costa
First Five focuses upon early childhood development as a way to help prevent future
crisis interventions in the future. In the past 10 years over 75 million dollars have
invested to help local children grow up healthy, nurtured, and ready for school.
Cross Agency
Collaboration
With the county government structure for the agencies providing Child Welfare Services
in Contra Costa, the importance of cross agency collaboration is critical to bridge and
unify practice and services. To that end, may forums have been created for a broad
range of purposes from information sharing, cross agency program planning, joint case
staffing, and sharing resources. A few of these cross agency collaborations are listed
below. For further discussion of agency collaboration, also refer to section Systemic
Factors, Agency Collaboration in this document.
Juvenile Justice Commission. This advisory body meets on a monthly basis and
includes representation from child welfare, probation, juvenile court and the community.
Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC). Originally charged by the
Board of Supervisors in the early 1990’s to investigate Juvenile Hall operations and
oversee the design and building of a new facility, the charge of this commission has
expanded to address the new challenges for Juvenile Probation in a growing county.
Serving as an advisory group to the Board of Supervisors, JSPAC’s membership
consists of representatives from all major county departments, representatives from
advocate and advisory groups, and several community members. Staffing is provided by
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 23
a member of the County Administrator’s office. Currently, JSPAC is looking at these
initiatives:
• Blended funding strategies
• Establishment of an in-county juvenile treatment program
• Examining the placement and service needs of county youth transitioning from
high level placements or coming back from outside of the county. (i.e. returning
from a placement outside of the county)
Family to Family System of Care Advisory Council. Probation is an active member of the
council. Probation staff are also active members of the Permanency and Youth
Transition workgroup that address operational issues related juvenile justice and child
welfare.
Political
Jurisdictions
There are no federally recognized tribes located with Contra Costa County. There are 24
cities and large areas of land in unincorporated areas of the county. There are 19 school
districts in Contra Costa County, serving over 166,000 students.
Each of the 24 cities has a police department that works in concert with the Sheriff’s
department of Contra Costa County.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 24
E. Children & Family Services Agency Characteristics
The following provides specific information on the Children & Family Services
agency. As previously stated, CFS is one of four bureaus in the Employment and
Human Services Department. Children Services has primary responsibility for
providing child abuse and neglect intervention and prevention services to children
and families. The bureau is also responsible for foster care benefits eligibility and
issuance.
1. Size and Structure of Agency
Receiving Center
Contra Costa County does not operate a children’s shelter. In 1997, Contra Costa
County developed the innovative concept of Receiving Centers, which have
subsequently become a model for programs opened by a number of other counties.
Previously non-profit agencies were contracted for the operation of three receiving
centers, located in each of the county’s geographic districts. Unfortunately, due to
funding cutbacks, as of January 2009 the county is now only able to operate one
receiving center that is centrally located. Receiving centers are safe, child-friendly
environments where children removed from their homes receive health and mental
health assessments. They also offer the opportunity for the child to debrief from the
trauma of the removal, receive some basic information about what will be happening
to them, and get a snack or meal, a shower, and new clothing. Receiving Center
staff also interview each child to learn of the child’s preferences in food,
entertainment and who the important people might be in the child’s life. This
information is passed on to the social worker, who can share these preferences with
the first foster parent. Foster parents are then in a better position to help the child
feel more comfortable in their placement. Unlike an emergency shelter institution,
receiving centers provide care for less than 24 hours in order to better initiate
casework and placement services
County
Licensing
The County has a Memorandum of Understanding with CDSS to license foster
homes. There are approximately 450 currently licensed homes in the county. When
concurrent planning was initiated in this county in the early 1990’s, a combined
Foster Home Licensing/Adoption homestudy process was developed. Families who
are interested in adoption are simultaneously licensed for foster care. This
streamlines the process for the family and assures adoptive families are legally
ready to take a child prior to termination of parental rights. The Home Finding and
Relative Assessment Units conduct a variety of recruitment, training, foster care
licensing, adoptive home study, and placement support services. One division
manager oversees both the homefinding and relative assessment programs. Each
program has one supervisor and five social workers.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 25
County
Adoptions
The Contra Costa County State Licensed Adoptions Program is dedicated to the
protection and welfare of children. The fost-adopt program is based on the practice
of concurrent planning, parallel case management and teamwork.
Adoptions staff work to facilitate a healthy transition and adjustment and to maintain
support services and supervision for each child until his or her adoption becomes
finalized. The child must be newborn to 18 years old and alleged to be the victim of
abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and have been voluntarily relinquished or have been
made a dependent of the court. The Adoptions Program is funded through Federal,
State and County funding allocations.
Adoptions Program social workers team with many community agencies in providing
services to children, biological families and adoptive families. In calendar year 2008,
there were 166 finalized adoptions and there were 105 in 2009. While this is a
decrease of 61 adoptions, the number of adoptions social workers also fell from a
high of 14 in 2008 to the 7 currently. Thus, the adoptions/FTE has actually risen
from 11.9 to 15 (county data pull from CWS/CMS using Business Objects).
2. Government Structure
The responsibility for administering public child welfare pursuant to the Welfare and
Institutions Code is placed by the Board of Supervisors with the Children and Family
Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). The
Bureau Director is Valerie Earley, and she reports to Joe Valentine, the Director of
EHSD. Mr. Valentine reports to David Twa, the County Administrator, who, in turn,
reports to the County Board of Supervisors.
Organization
Chart
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 26
Staffing and
Caseload Trends
As can be seen in the graphs below, the social worker staffing in Contra Costa
County declined greatly (approximately 32%) in January 2009 due to layoffs. This
loss is in addition to losses in clerical staff, and other staff who were in temporary or
part-time positions. In order to maintain safety for the children and families of Contra
Costa, the majority of positions were lost in the continuing services units and the
three regionalized court units were disbanded and the duties of the court units were
divided between the emergency response and continuing services units. Although
difficult, this change has resulted in one fewer social worker “handoff” for children
and families that progress into the system. The change also resulted in higher
caseloads – especially for continuing services workers, although the caseloads have
begun to drop. See the charts below.
Continuing Services SCS Staff
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
SCS FTE 114 114 70.6 70.6 70.6 70.6 65.6 65.6 62.6 63.6 64.6 64.6
2008/11 2008/12 2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10
Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
sources
Continuing Services SCS Staff by Program
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
ADOPT
Central
East
West
CRPU
ILP
SPP
ADOPT 11.811.88888777666
Central 26 26 17 17 17 17 16 16 15 14 15 15
East 28.9 28.9 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 19 19 19
West 29.8 29.8 16 16 16 16 17 17 15 15 15 15
CRPU 11.6 11.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6
ILP 3.93.93333222222
SPP 222222222222
2008/11 2008/12 2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10
Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
sources
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 27
ER Staffing Levels by District
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Central
East
West
Summit
Central 13 13 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10
East 13.413.413131212121212121212
West 11118888888899
Summit 221111111111
2008/11 2008/12 2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10
Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
sources
New Referrals for Investigation Per Month Per FTE -
Actual vs Justified by Funding (15.8/FTE)
7.4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.02008/112008/122009/012009/022009/032009/042009/052009/062009/072009/082009/092009/10Referrals/FTE
Justified Referrals/FTE
Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
sources
Private
Contractors
CFS contracts with providers to ensure that services are available and accessible to
children and families in their own communities. Contracts are developed with the
intent of supporting the System Improvement Plan (SIP) priorities of Safety,
Permanence and Well-Being, and are tracked by a CFS Contracts Analyst according
to the SIP area with which they are aligned. With the recent budget constraints,
Contra Costa has evaluated contracts carefully. Contracts for services offered and
available through other funding streams have been reduced.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 28
Worker Caseload by
Service Program
The table below shows average caseload sizes compared to State and SB 2030
standards for the period 09/01/07 – 10/31/07:
Actual vs Justified (Based Upon State Funding) Continuing Services
Cases Per FTE - Weighted (SCS)
31.47832817
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2008/11 2009/01 2009/03 2009/05 2009/07 2009/09
Actual Cases/FTE includes Crt
(Weighted)
Justified
Weighted Continuing Services Cases Per FTE by District/Program
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2008/11 2009/01 2009/03 2009/05 2009/07 2009/09
ADOPT Wgtd Cases/FTE
Central Wgtd Cases/FTE
East Wgtd Cases/FTE
West Wgtd Cases/FTE
CRPU Wgtd Cases/FTE
ILP Wgtd Cases/FTE
SPP Wgtd Cases/FTE
Bargaining
Unit
Issues
CFS social workers and supervisors are represented by the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). In order to foster open
communication between AFSCME and Management, monthly Labor/Management
meetings are held. In these meetings, staff members and/or union representatives
have the opportunity to raise issues and express concerns directly to CFS
Managers. This forum allows for open discussion to take place and expedites
Management’s ability to address issues.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 29
Financial/
Material
Resources
NEED MORE BASIC BUDGET DATA:CFS is funded by a wide variety of allocations
and revenue streams and has a total budget of over 20 million dollars. Income
includes the allocations for Adoptions; AFDC Foster Care; Child Abuse Prevention,
Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT); Child Welfare Services; Foster Home
Recruitment and Licensing; Independent Living Skills Program; Kinship Support
Services; Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF); Realignment; Targeted Case
Management; Work Force Investment Act and Wrap Around Services (SB163). The
complete CFS budget is on file with the California Department of Social Services.
In addition to the required County match in the CFS program, Contra Costa County
makes a contribution of County funds. These County funds are used to the fullest
extent possible to draw down Federal Title IV-E funds.
The Agency also receives funds from the following grants:
1. Federal Comprehensive Family Engagement
2. Hedge Funds
Funding Source Amount
SFP $1,054,013
KSSP $215,600
PSSF $712,411
Hedge Funds $40,000
County Child Care Affordability/Child Care Council $250,000
CAPIT $294,484
CBCAP $98,796
Ann Adler $60,000
Birth Certificates Community $201,000
License Plates $32,270
Total $2,958,574
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 30
F. Probation Agency Characteristics
The mission of the Contra Costa County Probation Department, as an integral part
of the Criminal Justice System, is to reduce crime and provide for the public’s safety
by providing prevention, investigation, supervision services and safe custodial care
for juveniles. The Department is committed to restoring losses to victims of crime,
holding offenders accountable and developing opportunities for offenders through
innovative programs of supervision.
1. Size and Structure of Agency
Probation currently has 24 wards placed in residential treatment settings funded with
Title IV-E – as gathered through a Business Objects report. Impressively, this
number is down significantly from the 300+ such placements during the 1970’s when
the county child population was much smaller. In addition to placing in group homes
and residential treatment centers, Probation has these additional placement settings
for probation-involved youth:
• The Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility was established by the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors, under the direction of the County
Probation Officer, as a treatment center for adolescent delinquent
youngsters. The first unit of The Ranch, which had a capacity of 21 wards,
opened in March 1960. The newest dormitory was added in 1999 bringing
the total capacity to 100 residents. Residents are limited to male youth who
have been committed by the Juvenile Court. This program serves to
improve treatment at the local level rather than at the state level.
• The John A. Davis Juvenile Hall opened in June 2005. It is a 290-bed,
maximum-security detention facility, for juvenile offenders up to age 18.
Residents are classified and assigned to housing units based on gender,
age, offense, and special needs. In addition to ten housing units, the facility
maintains a large kitchen, laundry area and has complete education and
medical wings. Medical and mental health services are provided to the
minors through Contra Costa County Health Services.
• Other options include placement with relatives or,
• The Home Supervision Unit consists of Juvenile Electronic Monitoring
(JEM), supervising two levels of minors; 1) Pre-Disposition = minors not yet
sentenced and considered to be "in the custody" of Juvenile Hall, and 2)
Post-Disposition = minors currently on probation and placed on HS for a
specific amount of time. Both programs offer minors an opportunity to reside
at home, in lieu of secure detention. Home Supervision staff will supervise
Pre-Disposition minors. They will report to the court on the compliance of
the minor and parents/legal guardians. Probation Officers will continue
to supervise the Post-Disposition minors. They also report to the court on
the compliance of the minors and parents/legal guardians.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 31
• The Chris Adams Center, which housed 20 beds for females and was
developed through interagency efforts involving blended funding streams,
was closed in 2009 because of budget restrictions.
2. Government Structure
Organization Chart
Probation/CFS
Collaboration
The Juvenile Probation Department and the Children & Family Services Bureau
have an on-going collaborative relationship that includes joint case staffings, serving
on commissions, and sharing resources. Examples of this relationship are shown in
the Public Agencies Providing Child Welfare Services section and include Juvenile
Justice Commission, Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC),
Systems of Care Advisory Council, and Dual Jurisdiction Committee.
The Dual Jurisdiction has been operational for over 9 years. In December 2003, the
existing Memorandum of Understanding between Probation, Juvenile Court and
Children and Family Services Bureau was revised to establish an interagency joint
assessment protocol per Welfare and Institutions Code 241.1. The MOU charges the
Committee with joint assessments of all child cases where there is the possibility of both
W&I 300 and 601/602 involvement. The purpose of the joint assessment “is to determine
whether dependency or delinquency serves the best interests of the child and the
protection of the community.”
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 32
In addition to the above formal committees, an Intake and a field child welfare
eligibility specialist have a primary assignment of Probation cases. These staff can
assist Probation with form completion and filing regarding all placement cases. This
helps to assure that eligibility for federal and state foster care is correctly
determined, funding is maximized, and caregiver receipt of funds is timely.
Dual Jurisdiction Dual jurisdiction benefits both Probation and the Bureau. When a 300 dependent
offends and is made a 602 ward, the 300 dependency must be vacated and
dismissed. However, a child can be a 602 non-ward for up to 6 months and detained
in Juvenile Hall during the delinquency proceedings. The dependent child can
remain in Juvenile Hall pending residential placement by the social worker. The
social worker must report back to the Court every 15 days at the W&I 737 Hearing
on their progress in placing the child in a suitable placement and the anticipated
removal date from Juvenile Hall.
Treatment and placement success often results when a youth moves from the highly
restrictive environment of Juvenile Hall to a less restrictive setting of a residential
placement. During the youth’s stay in the Hall, Individual Educational Plans are
completed, psychological and medication assessments performed, and the
necessary package of assessments and information is compiled to assist in making
an optimal placement.
Making a child a 602 non-ward is a process that is unique to Contra Costa County.
The Bureau, Probation Department, Juvenile Court and the youth and his or her
family come to agreement on conditions of probation (attending school, keeping
grade point average up, attending substance abuse treatment, etc). When
placement is with the youth’s family or a relative, the Bureau becomes the lead
agency, Probation does not receive any payment, and placement costs are reduced.
The work of the Dual Jurisdiction Committee has resulted in greater numbers of
placements in the least restrictive setting, assuring that 602 non-wards receive the
mental health and educational assessments they need, and planning for transitions
of youth from higher to lower levels of placement.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 33
G. CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF
CAPIT Assembly Bill 1733 (Chapter 1398, Statutes of 1982) provided funds for child abuse
and neglect prevention projects. The Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention and
Treatment (CAPIT) program is to encourage prevention and intervention programs
by funding agencies addressing needs of children at high risk of abuse or neglect
and their families.
Funding is 100% State General Fund and can be used to supplement, but not
supplant, child welfare services. Projects are selected by competitive bid process
and must demonstrate broad-based community support.
In Contra Costa, the nearly $300,000 of CAPIT monies is used to help fund
prevention services through several contractors: These include Aspiranet, Child
Abuse Prevention Council, Contra Costa ARC/CARE Parent Network, and a
program partnered with the Mount Diablo Unified School District.
CBCAP The Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program (CBCAP) was established
by Title II of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
amendments of 1996. The purpose of the program is to support community based
efforts aimed at the prevention of child abuse and neglect. CBCAP is federally
funded and allocated annually to counties. The Office of Child Abuse Prevention
(OCAP), an office within CDSS, is responsible for the oversight of these funds.
In Contra Costa, the nearly $100,000 of CBCAP monies is spent with Community
Violence Solutions (assisting with treatment of families involved in domestic
violence) and Ujima Family Recovery Services – which focuses on treating women
with substance use disorders and CFS involvement who are pregnant or have just
given birth.
PSSF Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) supports programs to prevent the
unnecessary separation of children from families, improve quality of care and
services to families and children, and to ensure permanency for children through
reunification or other permanent placement.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 34
In Contra Costa, the approximately $700,000 of monies is used for a wide variety of
prevention-related activities. These include:
Contract Prevention Activity
Adoption mediation stable adoptions
Adoption Promotion/Support Fund stable adoptions
Bay Point (Ambrose) differential response
Brighter Beginnings differential response
Coronado (YMCA) family/child support
Differential Response differential response
Kinship (FF) kin family services
Neighborhood House/Helms family/child support
North Richmond (CHD) differential response
Parent Partners family stability/reunification
Post Adopt Education. stable adoptions
Post Adopt Support Groups stable adoptions
Stand domestic violence treatment
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 35
H. Participation Rates
Child Abuse
Allegations
The incidence rate of child abuse allegations has gone down in the past 10 years in
Contra Costa.
Incidence Rate of
Child Abuse Allegations (per 1000)
46.8
41.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
6019981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
California
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Substantiated
Child Abuse
Allegations
The incidence rate of substantiated allegations has gone down in both California
and Contra Costa County – with a significant drop between 2007 and 2008.
Incidence Rate of
Child Abuse Substantiations (per 1000)
9.2
6.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1419981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
California
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 36
Substantiation
Percentage
The percentage of substantiated allegations has remained relatively constant over
the past 10 years except for the drop in 2008 – from just over 20% to 17%.
Substantiation Percent From Total Allegations
0
5
10
15
20
25
3019981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
PercentCalifornia
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Entry Into Foster
Care
The incidence rate of entries into foster care for Contra Costa has declined by 39%
since 1998. The degree of decline for Contra Costa is greater than that for the State
overall, although the State has seen significant declines as well.
Incidence Rate of Entries
Into Foster Care (per 1000)
4.1
2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5 19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008California
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 37
Children in
Foster Care
The number of children in Foster care has been dropping over the past 10 years.
Contra Costa County cases have declined approximately 44% while the State has
declined approximately 42%.
Number of Children in Foster Care - Statewide
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
California
California 105,955 107,250 101,310 93,311 88,463 83,822 79,079 76,649 74,259 72,283 65,406
Jul 1,1998 Jul 1,1999 Jul 1,2000 Jul 1,2001 Jul 1,2002 Jul 1,2003 Jul 1,2004 Jul 1,2005 Jul 1,2006 Jul 1,2007 Jul 1,2008
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Number of Children in Foster Care - Contra Costa County
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Contra Costa
Contra Costa 2,185 2,304 2,191 2,228 2,120 1,980 1,851 1,797 1,647 1,491 1,337
Jul
1,1998
Jul
1,1999
Jul
1,2000
Jul
1,2001
Jul
1,2002
Jul
1,2003
Jul
1,2004
Jul
1,2005
Jul
1,2006
Jul
1,2007
Jul
1,2008
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 38
Rate of Children
in Foster Care
The prevalence rate for children who have been removed from home and are in
foster care has been steadily declining for the past 9 years to the current low of
5.3/1000 children in Contra Costa.
Prevalence Rate for
Children in Foster Care (per 1000)
5.3
8.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14Jul 1,1998Jul 1,1999Jul 1,2000Jul 1,2001Jul 1,2002Jul 1,2003Jul 1,2004Jul 1,2005Jul 1,2006Jul 1,2007Jul 1,2008California
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Entries as a
Percentage of
Substantiations
The overall trend for entries as a percentage of substantiations is down for the past
10 years although there was an increase in 2003, followed steady declines and then
a slight increase for calendar year 2008.
Entries As a Percentage of Substantiations
44.5
35.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50 19981999200020012002200320042005200620072008PercentCalifornia
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 39
Allegations of
Maltreatment by
Zip Code
The mapping of allegation incidence rate has supported decisions for program
implementation as well as office placement.
Allegations of
Maltreatment by
Zip Code
The incidence rate of entries into foster care matches the allegation map except in a
few areas. We use this information for planning purposes throughout our system –
from prevention program implementation to aftercare service delivery.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 40
I. Federal and State Outcome Measures
The graphs below provide performance outcomes for each data indicator as well as
trend analysis and comparison to state averages and federal goals. Discussion and
analysis as well as Self Assessment meeting discussions are further documented in
the Summary Self Assessment section of this document.
S1.1
No Recurrence of
Maltreatment
Contra Costa has shown an increase in the percentage of children who do not have
a recurrence of maltreatment and the percentage is currently above the national
goal.
No Recurrence of Maltreatment Within 6 Months
(April - September of Year Listed)
90.2
95.3
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
9619981999200020012002200320042005200620072008
PercentCalifornia
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 41
S2.1
No Maltreatment
in Foster Care
While the county is currently slightly below the national goal for the percent of
children not maltreated while in foster care, the difference is approximately 0.2% -
which equates to approximately 3 children.
Percent of Children Not Maltreated
While in Foster Care
99.6
99.4
98.9
99.0
99.1
99.2
99.3
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
100.0
APR2004-
MAR2005
APR2005-
MAR2006
APR2006-
MAR2007
APR2007-
MAR2008
APR2008-
MAR2009Percent California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
2B
Timeliness of
Immediate
Referrals
The percentage of timely investigations for immediate referrals has remained above
the state goal of 90% although there was a bit of a decline in 2009 – which coincides
with the large number of staff that were laid off in Children and Family Services in
January of 2009.
Percentage of Timely Investigations
for Immediate Referrals
(January - March Sampling)
74.4
93.3
60
70
80
90
100199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
PercentageCalifornia
Contra Costa
State Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 42
2B
Timeliness of
10-Day Referrals
While the percentage of timely investigations for 10-day referrals has increased in
the past 6 years, we are still falling below the state goal of 90%. The county had
reached and surpassed the state goal at one point, but there was a significant drop
in compliance after the layoffs in January of 2009. Examining the past 12 months
worth of compliance data it is clear that while the layoffs started in January of 2009,
the month prior saw a big decline in compliance compared to the November rate of
95%. Since the low in February of 2009, the rate has been increasing.
Percentage of Timely Investigations
for 10-Day Referrals
(January - March Sampling)
43.5
73.4
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009PercentCalifornia
Contra Costa
State Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Timeliness of 10-Day Referrals - Past 12 Months
95
73.8
89.3
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
11-0812-081-092-093-094-095-096-097-098-099-0910-09PercentContra Costa
State Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 43
2C
Timeliness of
Social Worker
Contacts
The timeliness of social worker contacts shows a somewhat similar pattern to that of
the 10-day referrals. There was a decline in January of 2009 after the loss of dozens
of staff, but unlike the 10-day referrals, the past 12 months of data do not show a
significant increase.
Timeliness of Social Worker Contacts
(March Sampling)
32.3
77.9
0
20
40
60
80
100199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
PercentCalifornia
Contra Costa
State Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Timeliness of Social Worker Contacts
Past 12 Months Detail
83.8
78.7
75.8
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
11-0812-081-092-093-094-095-096-097-098-099-0910-09PercenContra Costa
State Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Data obtained from county data pull
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 44
C1.1 Reunification
Within 12 Months
(Exit Cohort)
Overall, there has not been much change in this particular measure of reunification
except for a recent downturn and an upswing in 2003-2004. The rate of timely
reunification is significantly below the national goal.
Reunification Within 12 Months (Exit Cohort)
July - June Sampling
59
75.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
%
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C1.2
Median Time to
Reunification (Exit
Cohort)
Contra Costa’s median time to reunification is longer than the national goal and has
recently taken a turn for the worse.
Median Time To Reunification (Exit Cohort)
July -June Sampling
9.4
5.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
Months
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 45
C1.3 Reunification
Within 12 Months
(Entry Cohort)
The trend shows that Contra Costa has improved in this measure and has been
equal to or above the national goal for the last two reporting periods.
Percent of Children Reunified in Less Than 12 Months
(Jan-Jun entry cohort)
47.9
48.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C1.4
Reentry Following
Reunification
Contra Costa is performing slightly worse than the national goal but has shown
improvement over the past 10 years.
Percent Reentering in Less Than 12 Months Jul-Jun exit cohort)
11.4
12.3
9.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 46
C2.1
Adoption Within
24 Months
(Exit Cohort)
The performance in this area has shown significant improvement and is currently
above the national goal.
Adoption Within 24 Months
(Jul-Jun Sampling; Exit Cohort)
47.5
36.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C2.2
Median Time to
Adoption
(Exit Cohort)
There has been some improvement in this measure and Contra Costa is currently
performing slightly better than the national goal.
Median Time To Adoption
(Jul-Jun Sampling; Exit Cohort)
25.8
27.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
Months
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 47
C2.3
Adoption Within
12 Months
(17 Months in
Care)
Contra Costa is not doing as well in this adoption measure as in he two previous
areas. Although there has been improvement over the past 10 years, further
improvement will need to be made in order to meet the national goal.
Adoption Within 12 Months
(17 Months In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
11.3
22.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
%
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C2.4
Legally Free
Within 6 Months
(17 Months in
Care)
Contra Costa is not performing particularly well in this measure. This is likely due to
the fact that Contra Costa does not terminate parental rights until the point of
adoption – as a policy.
Legally Free Within 6 Months
(17 Months In Care; Jul-Dec Sampling)
3.3
10.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
%
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 48
C2.5
Adoption Within
12 Months
(Legally Free)
Contra Costa is performing above the national goal in this measure.
Adoption Within 12 Months (Legally Free; Jul-Jun Sampling)
72.9
53.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
%
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C3.1
Exits to
Permanency
(24 Months in
Care)
Contra Costa has recognized that this particular are represents an area of
weakness. This is the area that was chosen as the focus for our PQCR. The 10-year
trend does show improvement.
Percent Exiting to Permanency by the End of the Year and Before
Age 18 (24 Months in Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
14.2
29.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 49
C3.2
Exits to
Permanency
(Legally Free at
Exit)
Contra Costa is performing near the national goal on this particular measure.
Exits To Permanency (Legally Free At Exit; Jul-Jun Sampling)
96.7
98
70
80
90
100
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C3.3
In Care 3 years or
Longer
(Emancipated or
Age 18 in Care)
Contra Costa is not performing as well as the national goal in this area and has not
shown much improvement in the last 7 years.
In Care 3 Years Or Longer
(Emancipated Or Age 18 In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
70.3
37.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
2005-
2006
2006-
2007
2007-
2008
2008-
2009
%
California
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 50
C4.1
Placement
Stability
(8 Days to 24
Months in Care)
Contra Costa has been performing above the national goal for the past 3 years in
this area. The excellent performance in the measure will continue to be monitored
since there appears to be a slight downward trend over the past 3 years.
Placement Stability
(8 Days To 12 Months In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
86.5
86
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
921998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009Percent With 2 or Fewer MovesCalifornia
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
C4.2
Placement
Stability
(12 to 24 Months
in Care)
Contra Costa is also performing above the national goal in this measure of
placement stability.
Placement Stability
(12 To 24 Months In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
71.2
65.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
801998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009Percent With 2 or Fewer MovesCalifornia
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 51
C4.3
Placement
Stability
(At Least 24
Months in Care)
Contra Costa does not perform as well in this measure of placement stability – which
examines placement moves for children who have been in care at least 2 years.
Placement Stability (At Least 24 Months In Care;
Jul-Jun Sampling)
29.4
41.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
901998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009Percent With 2 or Fewer MovesCalifornia
Contra Costa
National Goal
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
4A
Siblings Placed
Together
Contra Costa has shown relative stability on this measure over the past 10 years
and is performing under the State average.
Siblings in Foster Care - Percent Placed Together
Using Point-in-Time Data (1 July Sampling)
42.2
60.1
52.6
72.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CCC-With All Sibs
CCC-With All or Some Sibs
CA-With All Sibs
CA-With All or Some Sibs
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 52
4B
Least Restrictive
Entries – First
Placement: Group
Homes
Contra Costa has decreased the use of group homes as an initial placement for
children experiencing their first removal.
Percentage of First Entries
Initially Placed in Group Homes
7.8
5.7
8.1
12.2
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.01998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009CA Group Home %
CCC Group Home %
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
4B
Least Restrictive
Entries – First
Placement:
Kin Homes
After a decline in the use of kin as an initial placement, the use has shown an
increase in the past 4 years. The use of a kin home as an initial placement is
significantly higher than the State average.
Percentage of First Entries
Initially Placed With Kin
18.3
26.6
28.129.9
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.01998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009CA Kin %
CCC Kin %
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 53
4B
Least Restrictive
Entries – First
Placement: Foster
Homes
The trend for use of foster homes as an initial placement has been decreasing in the
past 4 years after a period of gradual increase. The use of foster homes is
significantly higher than the State average.
Percentage of First Entries
Initially Placed in Foster Homes
21.4
30.3
42.2
49.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.01998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009CA Foster Home %
CCC Foster Home %
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
4B
Least Restrictive
Entries – First
Placement: FFA’s
The use of FFA’s as an initial placement has shown an increase but is far lower than
the State average.
Percentage of First Entries
Initially Placed in FFA's
45.6
18.0
17.8
5.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.01998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-2009CA FFA %
CCC FFA %
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 54
Foster care
Placements Over
the Past 12
Months
Over the past 12 months, relative home placements are down 2% while group home
placements are up 2%.
Children’s Research Center SafeMeasures Data Contra Costa County, Out of Home Placements.
Retrieved from Children’s Research Center website. URL: [https://www.safemeasures.org.ca/safemeasures.aspx]
5B
Timely Medical
Exams
Compared to baseline in 2003, the percentage of timely medical exams has
increased.
Percent Compliance For Timely Medical Exams For
Foster Children
87.1
81.5
80
71.3
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Baseline (2003) Current (Q2 2009)
CA
CCC
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
5B
Timely Dental
There has been a significant increase in timely medical exams since baseline –
although there continues to be a lot of room for improvement.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 55
Exams
Percent Timely Dental Exams For Foster Children
62.5
57.257.4
42
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Baseline (2003) Current (Q2 2009)
CA
CCC
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
5F
Authorized for
Psychotropic
Medications
The recorded percentage of children in care who are authorized for psychotropic
medication has seen a large increase. Much of the increase can be attributed to
recording and measurement factors, so, any real trend analysis will need o be
conducted in the future.
Percentage of Children in Foster Care Authorized for
Psychotropic Medications
13
7
0
5
10
15199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
California
Contra Costa
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
8A
Independent
Starting with the fourth quarter of calendar year 2008, there are new reporting
requirements for emancipated youth. There is data available through the 2nd quarter
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 56
Living Program of 2009, so there is 3 quarters worth of data available for analysis. This data can be
considered as a baseline since these measures have not previously been collected
using this methodology.
Completed High School or Equivalency Obtained Employment Have Housing
Received ILP Services Have Permanency Connection
California 58.2% 38.1% 91.5% 75.0% 89.6%
Contra Costa 48.0% 32.0% 90.0% 80.0% 92.0%
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 57
J. Systemic Outcomes
The graphs below provide performance outcomes for each data indicators as well as
trend analysis and comparison to state averages and federal goals. Discussion and
analysis as well as Self Assessment meeting discussions are further documented in
the Summary Self Assessment of this document.
Disproportionality
and Disparity in
Foster Care
As can be seen in the graph below, African American/Black youth are
disproportionally represented in Foster Care compared to their percentage in the
population.
Foster Care Disproportionality
47. 8
27.9
20.0
3.3 1.1
8.8
43.1
31.5
11.4
0.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Black White Hispanic Asian Native
American
Fo ste r ca re%
Population%
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Allegations -
Disparity by
Ethnicity
There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are 3-4 times more likely
to have an allegation of abuse or neglect – and the disparity is showing an increase.
Allegation Incidence Rate
129.7
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 58
Substantiated
Allegations -
Disparity by
Ethnicity
There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are approximately 5
times more likely to have an substantiated allegation of abuse or neglect.
Substantiated Allegation Incidence Rate by Ethnicity
25.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Entries Into Foster
Care - Disparity
by Ethnicity
There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are approximately 5
times more likely to enter foster care.
Incidence Rate of Entries into Foster Care
11.4
0
5
10
15
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 59
Children in Foster
Care - Disparity
by Ethnicity
There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are approximately 8
times more likely to be in foster care at a given point in time – although the rate is
decreasing.
Children in Foster Care Incidence Rate
37.7
28.7
5.87
3.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Ethnic Disparity
in Child Welfare
Outcomes
Compared to White/Caucasian children, African American/Black children show no
differences in the outcome areas of: 1) recurrence of maltreatment, 2) reunification
within 12 months, 3) reentry following reunification, and 4) placement stability.
Compared to White/Caucasian children, African American/Black children show
poorer outcomes in the outcome areas of: 1) adoptions within 12 months, and 2)
exits to permanency if in care for at least 24 months.
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 60
K. Peer Quality Case Review Summary
Contra Costa County conducted its Peer Quality Case Review in April 2009. This
collaborative process between Children and Family Services (CFS), Juvenile
Probation, Bay Area Academy and California Department of Social Services is
designed to reflect on a practice area that CFS and Probation would like to focus on
to better understand where the agency is succeeding and how to improve services.
To further enhance the learning, Contra Costa County invited Alameda, Orange,
Riverside and San Joaquin Counties to participate as peer reviewers because they
are doing better in the focus areas chosen for this PQCR. Probation also chose to
have Community Partners participate. This fostered a dynamic county exchange of
information and practices to further assist continuous improvement efforts.
The area of focus chosen by CFS was the outcome indicator, measure C3.1; exits to
permanency: if in care at least 24 months; more specifically, for children who have
been in out of home care for over 2 years what percentage achieved permanency
within the next 12 months and prior to turning18 years old. This focus was chosen
as the county is performing below the State average and below the National
Standard of 29.1%. In addition, this outcome is consistent with Children and Family
Service’s mission: “When children cannot be cared for by their families due to safety
issues, we place them with families that can make a lifelong commitment to them.”
Juvenile Probation selected the outcome indicator of reentry into care, aftercare
services focusing on family engagement. This area of focus was chosen so that
work practices and its impact on children and families could be assessed and
collaboration encouraged. This area of focus parallels the county’s System
Improvement Plan which will help guide the county’s improvement efforts.
The PQCR process occurred from April 27 -30, 2009. Two full days were set aside
for interviews. Nine interviews occurred per day for a total of 18 interviews.
Additional cases were identified for purposes of backup. A total of twelve social
workers and three probation officers were interviewed. The probation officers were
interviewed twice. In addition Contra Costa conducted 6 focus groups with foster
parents, supervisors, social workers, young teens in Specialize Placement, older
teens in the Independent Living Skills Program and with birth parents.
Rich information was gained from the PQCR process which was ultimately crafted
into detailed observations (please see section IV of the report: Final Summary and
Next Steps). The system’s strengths were identified and recorded. Strengths of
both agencies were included (please see section III of the report: Summary of
Practice).
One of the objectives of the PQCR process is to gain practice information to guide
areas to be furthered assessed in the self-assessment process. The PQCR process
uncovered challenges that social workers, probation officers, supervisors, youth,
parents, service providers and caregivers see regarding the focus areas. This
process uncovered observations regarding practice, system, training and areas to
be addressed at the state level.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 61
These observations will be further prioritized and assessed in the self-assessment
process which is to be completed by December 2009. The information gathered
from the self-assessment process will explore observations made at the PQCR and
subsequent observations, which will drive the three-year System Improvement Plan
that Contra Costa will develop by March 2010.
Contra Costa County values the rich information obtained from this process and
thanks go out to all who participated. The Contra Costa County self assessment
process will be clustered around the observations made in the PQCR report so that
the most effective system improvement plan is developed to improve timely
reunification for families in Contra Costa County.
Prioritized areas
for further
consideration for
CFS
The following areas have been identified for further consideration and discussion by
Children & Family Services:
• Agency-wide assessment and training focusing on valuing permanency and
the practice of concurrent planning throughout the agency; extended for all
children.
• Assess and integrate the Adoptions workers into the regular child welfare
continuum of practice from the beginning.
• Consider offering social workers support around grief and loss associated
with recent layoffs and movement of staff positions.
• Offer relative caregivers resources and support with successfully completing
the relative assessment process.
Prioritized areas
for further
consideration for
Juvenile Probation
The following areas have been identified for further consideration and discussion by
Children & Family Services:
• Develop probation officers skills in developing relationships with the children
• Develop a formalized group process for transitioning children from
placement which is inclusive of service providers and the family.
• Develop more local after care resources such as wrap-around, pro-social
activities and in-home supportive services.
• Consider having the placement officer keep case the for 90 days through
the transition out of placement.
Overall
Recommendations
for CFS
The following list identifies recommendations from the Peer Quality Review for
Children & Family Services:
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 62
• Agency-wide assessment and training focusing on valuing permanency and
the practice of concurrent planning throughout the agency; extended for all
children.
o Helping social workers have difficult conversations.
o Helping social workers work with ambivalence with foster parents,
relatives and birth parents.
o Managers and supervisors supporting permanency efforts and
working through ambivalence within the agency.
o Business processes that support continual concurrent planning and
permanency
o Make “Adoption” the goal for all children in long-term foster care.
o Consistent permanency meetings for all children detailed in the
case plans and court reports.
• Assess and integrate the Adoptions workers into the regular child welfare
continuum of practice from the beginning
o Consider a teaming process between the case carrying social
worker and the adoption’s social worker.
o Adoptions workers provide information and counsel on all
permanency options to birth parents and caregivers, working
through questions and concerns.
o Social workers work with youth’s common ambivalence around
adoption and guardianship.
• Consider offering social workers support around grief and loss associated
with recent layoffs and movement of staff positions
o Consider ways to streamline the workload so that social workers are
not experiencing strain.
• Offer relative caregivers resources and support with successfully completing
the relative assessment process
o Work with relatives on the effects of trauma on child development
and their expectations and strategies for parenting in their home.
o Consider reviewing other county’s relative assessment and
supportive practices to get ideas for resources and support.
o Offer Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) consistently throughout the
child welfare continuum of practice. Implement participatory case
planning with parents and children
• Examine the group home system and effective ways for moving children
toward family care and permanency
o Spot check group homes for quality of care.
• Consider offering a brief risk and safety tool that supports social worker
decision making and consistency of practice.
Identified Training
Needs
Training needs have been identified as follows:
• Advanced concurrent planning training for all levels of staff.
• Training on searching for relatives and family friends throughout the life of
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 63
the case and keep a living record.
• Training on the effects of trauma on child development and effective
parenting techniques for staff, foster parents and relatives/Non-Relative
Extended Family Members.
• Strengths based engagement training for social workers to increase
consistency of practice.
• Refresher training on Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) for staff.
• Training for staff new to positions on job tasks and performance (particularly
initial family assessments).
Overall
Recommendations
for Probation
Recommendations for Probation are as follows:
• Probation officers should have time and skills to really develop a relationship
with the children
o Consider offering probation officers a 4/10 schedule so that they
have time to engage with families and children.
• Implement group transition meetings. Have more adults involved including
mental health, relatives, community partners, schools, staff, family,
community etc.
o Develop CASA’s.
• Develop more local after care resources such as wrap-around, pro-social
activities and in-home supportive services
• Consider having the placement officer keep case the for 90 days through
the transition to stabilize the family.
o If there has to be an immediate transfer of a child to a new
probation officer when they return home, the new officer should see
the child and family immediately and often.
• Consider having the placement order suspended instead of dismissed
• Provide laptops for probation officer
• Develop more understanding of local community resources and how to
engage them
• Consider having new probation officer shadow seasoned probation officers
before moving on to a new assignment
• Utilize dual jurisdiction as a placement strategy for children
• Develop a smoother process between Children and Family Services and
Probation for dual jurisdiction
• Consider developing a specialized foster care program for stepping down
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 64
probation youth
• Consider developing one or two out of state placements for gang affiliated
kid
• Create incentives for parents to engage (e.g. waive fines if they participate)
• Engaging with the family could start in investigations
Identified Training
Needs
Identified training needs are:
• Provide Family Finding training
• Provide engagement training to probation officer
• Relative and Non-Relative Extended Family Member training
• Concurrent planning training: Developing alternative relative placements
Identified State
Technical
Assistance
State technical assistance will be needed to provide access to CWS/CMS for
juvenile probation staff.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 65
L. Systemic Factors
1. Relevant Management Information Systems
Systems Used
The statewide Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) is the
primary system used in Contra Costa for tracking referrals, cases, placements, court
activity and clients. Since implementation of CWS/CMS in Contra Costa, there have
been efforts to assure accurate, timely data and full utilization of the system.
Monitoring performance outcomes, reporting on timeliness of input, providing
supports for staff training and utilization, and focusing on areas requiring
improvement have created an environment where Contra Costa has confidence that
data is generally reliable.
When it becomes evident that there are issues requiring attention, plans for
improvement are implemented. For example, in reviewing the Siblings Placed
Together outcome, it became apparent that work was required on the Relationship
Table. plans have been activated to support correction of existing information and
accurate entry of new information. Work continues in this area.
The CalWIN system is used in Contra Costa for eligibility determination and benefit
issuance for Foster Care and Adoptive Parents.
In addition to CWS/CMS and CalWIN, there are several related systems with
functions that supplement and enhance the information in CWS/CMS. These
include:
• Differential Response – Service Provider case management system for
tracking prevention services for families at risk of Child Welfare services.
• Emergency Shelter – supplements the CWS/CMS system in tracking current
placement vacancies
• Trust Fund Management – Tracks account balances of Trust Funds for
children in placement to control expenditures and maintain accounts below
property limits
• Safe Measures – Dynamic reporting systems used by staff at all levels to
manage work and monitor compliance and performance
• Relative Assessment Database – Tracks relatives identified for assessment
for potential relative placement of children
• Placement Overpayment – Tracks placement changes for foster care
eligibility purposes; used to evaluate training and support needs for prompt
notification and action for changes in placement
• Receiving Center Database – Traffic and services tracking system used by
providers and Public Health for children in Receiving Centers
To track activities for CAPIT, CBCAP, PSSF, several of the databases listed above are
used (i.e., Differential Response, CWS/CMS) in addition to stand alone databases and
spreadsheets used to track services quality assurance procedures, and
funding/contractual issues..
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 66
Additional systems used for tracking Probation activities include a legacy system
developed and serviced through the “DOIT,” which is a branch of Contra Costa County
Information Technology Services. Probation is also a part of the phase II counties who
will be using CWS/CMS for all youth under delinquency court jurisdiction who is placed
in an AFDC-FC eligible foster care setting (foster home, group home, relative caregiver)
and any youth who meets the definition of a IV-E candidate for foster care.
There are a variety of support staff and procedures in place to sustain accurate and
timely entry of data to the various systems. The following describes these support
features.
ATM’s ATM’s – Application Trainers Mentors provide training and systems support for staff
using CWS/CMS, related systems and various computer software programs.
With the budget decreases in the past two years, there have been reductions in
number of ATM’s but the value of the function was recognized and some staff in this
position were sustained through cuts.
The ATM’s are closely connected to the department’s Information Technology
Application Support and Networking staff regularly meeting to share ideas, issues,
and target areas for improvement to assure county wide consistency.
Research &
Evaluation
Contra Costa’s integration of Research and Evaluation into workload, policy and practice
management became formalized in December of 2009 with the hiring of a Research and
Evaluation Manager. The Research and Evaluation Manager participates at the
Administrative Team level and is responsive to all Bureau needs for data and analysis
and evaluation of data. With increased use of data in policy and practice decisions, the
quality of our data has increased as has the awareness of the importance of data usage
as an integral part of the continuous quality improvement process. The Research and
Evaluation Manager assists is trainings and is responsive to both staff and administrative
concerns and requests for data.
Training Contra Costa has one Staff Development Specialist who specializes in training to
CWS/CMS and related systems. In addition, other training needs are met through a
variety of outside sources. ATM’s provide one on one training and support for staff
as needed at the district line level and also support classroom training for CWS/CMS
and various applications.
Case Read Protocol In 2006, the department implemented an innovative training segment for Child
Welfare Services new social worker training to accentuate the importance of good
record keeping, to re-enforce use of CWS/CMS and help informed practice. The
training, called the Case Read Protocol, poses a research question to the new
workers. The Lead Research Evaluator presents background demographic and
outcomes measurement information related to the topic. Each worker is given a list
of cases and asked to research CWS/CMS to complete questions that are not easily
retrieved from CWS/CMS data fields.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 67
For example, the current training class will be reviewing children under 13 with more
than 3 placements in a year to determine reasons for multiple placements. The
outcomes of this training session for new workers is:
• More thorough understanding of navigating CWS/CMS
• A chance to review cases with both good and poor documentation
• An understanding of what needs to be recorded to understand the case
history
• How practice is informed by what is completed on a case
In addition, practice issues can also be addressed as they arise in the process. The
added benefit to administration is research in areas being assessed for systems
and/or practice changes.
Safe Measures Safe Measures – Implemented in 2004, Safe Measures is not integrated at all
staffing levels. Social Workers review caseload specific case management
information, supervisors and managers review for tracking performance and
compliance, Research and Evaluation uses reports and data for outcome
measurement and trend analysis. Use of this tool has been a significant factor in
improving outcomes in compliance related areas such as timely referral response
and social worker visits.
Clerical Support Clerical staff continue to support CWS social workers in entry of data. Data entry
forms that mimic CWS/CMS screens are provided and can be utilized by Social
Workers and handed to clerical staff for entry. Social Workers maintain the
responsibility to assure entries are accurate
2. Case Review Systems
Court Structure/
Relationship
The Superior Court of Contra Costa County includes a Juvenile Court section
consisting of judges and commissioners. These six judicial officers hear all child
welfare and delinquency matters in the county. There are Juvenile Court facilities in
Richmond for families from the western part of the county and in Martinez for
families in the central and eastern sections of the county.
All children involved in dependency court are referred for legal representation to the
public bar. Legal resources include the Public Defender, Alternate Defender and a
conflicts panel of private attorneys. Some families not eligible for services from the
public bar hire private representation from the local legal community. County
Counsel provides representation for the Bureau. Children are also served by a
strong Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer program within the
county.
In past years, Contra Costa had Social Workers assigned to a Court Unit who
prepared petitions and juris dispos. With staff reductions in the past year, court
responsibilities were disseminated to all levels and programs of Social Work staff.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 68
Each district office has a court representative – a supervisor-level position that
represents the interests of the Bureau at Court and assists workers in most
proceedings. This helps to reduce the time that workers need to be at Court.
The Juvenile Court legal environment tends to be litigious in Contra Costa County.
This results in a large number of contests and continuances, often impacting the
time to disposition, reunification and adoption.
There are a large number of appeals by parents’ attorneys, even after termination of
parental rights. The Bureau is making ongoing efforts to decrease contested
hearings. A formal mediation process is also available to the parties, especially at
jurisdiction, to decrease the frequency of contested jurisdictional hearings. There is
concern that this process is not being effectively used.
There are several regular meetings for Bureau staff, court and legal personnel to
work on issues of communication and to improve working relationships:
• Social Work Attorney Training Team (SWATT): Court representatives and
court unit staff meet regularly with attorneys (public defenders and alternate
defense) to discuss issues and concerns, problem-solve and improve
working relationships.
• Judge’s Meetings: The Bureau director and division managers, meet bi-
monthly with the judges and commissioners, CASA, public and private
attorneys representing the Juvenile Bar and court administrative staff.
• All Agency Court meetings: This is a forum where administrators from
Probation, Mental Health and Children and Family Services meet with the
Juvenile Bench on a bi-monthly basis.
Timely Notification
of Hearings
The emergency response social worker provides notice of the detention hearing to
all parties and documents that notice in the report provided at detention. The petition
itself includes on its face the date of the first Jurisdictional Hearing. In addition, the
Superior Court Clerk sends out notices to all parties after the detention hearing. The
Bureau sends out a notice in the form of the court report for all hearings which
require a report. When it is believed that an address may not be accurate, the
worker also notifies parties by telephone. There is a section in every court report
documenting how each party was noticed. For continued hearings and contests set
after the initial court hearing, the social worker provides notice to the parents.
The Bureau continues to seek improvement in the notice and feedback process for
substitute care providers. County policy indicates that a form is to be sent to the
substitute care provider prior to each hearing advising them that the hearing is set
and seeking input on the course of the case. These forms are available in the
district offices, but the rate at which they are being used is unknown.
Parent-Child/Youth
Participation in Case
Planning
Family Engagement and participation of families in Case Planning has been and
continues to be a focus for Contra Costa. Contra Costa was awarded a
Comprehensive Family Assessment federal grant in 2008 to strengthen performance
and practice in this area.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 69
Planning for federal grant activities involved a series of meetings looking at Family
Engagement from the perspective of families we serve and from the Social Worker.
The deliverable from these sessions was a documented plan that incorporates Best
Practices in family engagement. Contra Costa continues a focus in this area. This
plan was implemented to limited staff in each office for the federal grant pilot and is
being incorporated into general practice.
The court process initiates two important case planning tools for families: the Early
Intervention Outreach Specialist (EIOS) and the Parent Partner. The EIOS is at
court and available to meet with families regarding substance abuse related
concerns. The EIOS can assist families in getting involved quickly in services. The
EIOS program was designed with the litigious nature of court in mind in that the
information gathered by the EIOS is never provided to the social worker and cannot
be used against the family. The Parent Partner Program provides support for
families at the initial detention hearing. Parent Partners are available to meet with
families and assist them through the process of self advocacy and service
involvement.
Team Decision Making Meetings to also engage youth and adults in the case
planning process. At the TDM a family can connect with service providers and begin
to discuss what they must do to make their home a safe place for their child.
General Case
Planning and
Review
Supervisors in Contra Costa have always reviewed and approved case plans
generated by social work staff.
In the last Systems Improvement Plan, Contra Costa worked on a strategy for
performance improvement in Measure C1.3, Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to
Reunification. Activities also focused on individualized, culturally competent case
plans including more extensive engagement of parents and youth in the planning
process.
Changes implemented as a necessary result of budget reductions have supported
Contra Costa’s plan for broader family involvement in case planning and more
focused, concise case plans. In the past six months, there has been more scrutiny
of parent services and responsibilities identified in the case planning process to
assure activities are not duplicative, support the case plan goal, and utilize all
available resources. This scrutiny was necessary because of budget reductions and
the need for diligence in monitoring expenditures. Several Director/staff meetings
have been held to discuss, plan, and support this direction. A secondary advantage
of the emphasis in this area has been closer supervisory review and more structured
protocols for Division Manager review and approval of parent services and
requirements.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 70
3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention
Contra Costa has dedicated homefinding staff that perform licensing and adoptive
home studies. The Bureau combined the home study process so that foster home
and adoptive home licensing are performed simultaneously.
Services in support of foster and adoptive parents include:
• Contracted community liaisons to assist with recruitment within their
communities;
• One post-adoption resource centers;
• A foster parent liaison who works closely with the Bureau;
• Family Enhancement Collaboration which provides services to relative
caregivers and families in the child welfare system through kinship support
services, family preservation, and family mentoring. Services are provided
in a community based setting and are used to prevent placement and
expedite reunification;
• Twice a year resource parent newsletter;
• Coffee clutches in each of the regions to address region specific issues in
combination with general training.
General Licensing,
Recruitment, and
Retention
Contra Costa has been an Annie E. Casey/Stuart Foundation Family to Family
county since 2001. There are monthly orientations held across the county at which
Family to Family is discussed and the applicants may specifically identify F2F as
their preference. All applicants receive a follow-up telephone contact to answer any
questions or to assist with the licensing paperwork. Additionally, orientations specific
to F2F are held in the phase-in areas, including Spanish-speaking presentations.
There is a community liaison that covers the county to assist with the recruitment of
F2F homes and refer interested community members to orientations.
To effectively coordinate the all recruitment activities, including F2F homes, a
monthly recruitment and retention meeting is held on the fourth Tuesday of each
month. This meeting consists of scheduling specific F2F events, discussing
recruitment strategies, and planning for participation in events held in the phase-in
areas to present information about F2F and assist potential applicants.
Training opportunities for foster parents are plentiful. CFS has a collaborative
partnership with the three community colleges- Los Medanos, Contra Costa College
and Diablo Valley College - to facilitate trainings specific to F2F resource homes,
such as working with birth families, child development issues and providing
networking opportunities for F2F resource homes.
CFS also follows up with any foster parent that exits the system to identify retention
issues to ensure that adequate training, support systems and resources can be
identified to support retention of F2F resource homes.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 71
The Bureau also has a foster parent steering committee where foster parents and
child welfare staff at all levels are able to develop policy to assist in supporting the
needs of foster homes. This committee has been the leaders to ensure new foster
parents are also supported by providing peer mentors.
Placement Resources Contra Costa County recruits for sibling groups, older children and special needs
children at all times. Adoption and licensing supervisors meet monthly with
supervisors from the greater Bay area to discuss recruitment strategies and share
information with a focus on difficult to place children. CFS also participates in the
Valley Exchange and Bay Area Supervisors of Adoption, two groups in the Northern
California region where public and private adoption agencies meet together to share
available children and families to facilitate finding a family for children in need of a
permanent and lifelong commitment. These children are often older children and/or
sibling groups.
4. Quality Assurance System
Contra Costa remains committed to continual performance and practice review. The
primary goals begin with protection to children and greater service to families but
also incorporates efficiency of staff resources, satisfaction of families and staff and
compliance with regulatory guidelines.
This section of the CSA documents Quality Assurance systems to support continual
oversight, monitoring, and improvement in performance
The department’s intent is to involve staff at supervisory and line level in planning
and implementing action plans for practice improvements, new initiatives, and new
programs. The inclusion of staff in planning informs management of staff concerns,
allows a dialog so staff can hear rational for decisions, supports leadership
development of staff, and ultimately generates a better product.
To support all of the meetings and efforts listed below, the Research and Evaluation
Manager provides data to support review and planning, inform policy and practice,
and provide evidence for decision making.
Project Management
Team
The Project Management Team meets each month to manage and coordinate
projects. Standing members are: the Director, all Division Managers, Parent
Partners, Program Analysts, Staff Development, the Research and Evaluation
Manager. Attending on an ad hoc basis are supervisors or other project leads for
new initiatives or practices.
PMT reviews the System Improvement Plan, tracks and monitors performance in
outcome indicators, and tracks progress in specific activities designed to improve
performance in selected areas.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 72
In addition, PMT incorporates discussion and tracking of activities identified in
various grants and special projects including the federal Comprehensive Federal
Assessments grant, Residentially Based Services project, and Systems of Care.
The premise of PMT is to provide a forum for overarching discussion and
management of all initiatives and projects to coordinate resource needs, assure
balance in training and implementation of new activities, identify overlaps and
inconsistencies, and assure knowledge and communication.
CWS Leadership
Team
Formerly called the All Sups meeting, the name of this meeting was changed to align
with department philosophy that supervisors and managers input is integrated into
direction, planning and decision making.
This team meets monthly and is comprised of Supervisors, Program Analysts, Staff
Development, Managers, and the CFS Division Managers. Agenda for these
meetings include discussion of project implementation, practice issues, review of
relevant case activities and implications for practice improvement, and information
sharing. It also provides a forum for supervisors to directly speak with the director
about issues they feel are important. The overarching goal of these meetings is to
work towards quality assurance of services provided to children and families and
consistency of practice across districts.
Director’s District
Staff Meetings
The Director of CFS regularly schedules district staff meetings to communicate with
staff regarding the updated outcomes, program implementation and evaluation.
These can be regularly scheduled meetings or Brown Bag lunch time discussions.
The meeting open an direct dialog with the director and line staff and present an
opportunity for the director to seek input for pending decisions, share with staff
rational for decisions that may seem arbitrary to them, and preview trends and
direction. For staff, this is an opportunity to voice opinions directly to the Director.
Case Read for New
Worker Training
Contra Costa has not held a New Worker Training Class for several years because
of budget constraints and staff cut-back. However, when new worker training
resumes, Contra Costa will continue to incorporate a “case read” segment.
The Bureau identifies an area about which they would like more information. The
information requested is not available from a report from CWS/CMS but can only be
ascertained by reading the online CWS/CMS contacts and notes or by reviewing the
physical case file. The social workers are presented with an overview of the
outcomes and the importance of good record keeping. They are then given a
questionnaire to complete on a sample of cases. Using a review of the online
CWS/CMS record and the case file, the questionnaire is completed. The topics of
some of these case reads have been: multiple placements for children, reasons
children are placed in other counties, etc. This innovative program has two major
purposes. It gathers information on topics the Bureau is struggling with
understanding fully, and trains the new workers on the importance of documentation
in CWS/CMS. Valuable qualitative information has been found in these case read
sessions and this information has informed policy and training practices.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 73
Case Reviews Originally a few meetings were scheduled to look at specific case actions around
Domestic Violence. The management team reviewed case action from one or two
cases from each district to look at consistency and quality of practice, identify
training needs, and determine necessary guidance and supports needed for Social
Worker. The cases were then presented to supervisors and staff for discussion.
The format for these meetings was very powerful because of the relevancy of the
cases and the variety of opinions regarding appropriate response. The result was
the establishment regularly scheduled meetings for Case Reviews. The
Administration Team meets once a month. Areas discussed over the past two years
include out of home abuse, exigent circumstances, screening, and pos tox.
Fairness and Equity In 2002, Contra Costa embarked on a Fairness and Equity plan, with a goal to
reduce disproportionality in the child welfare system and create an environment
where biases in decision making can be addressed in a safe environment. Though
there is evidence of some improvement in areas of disparity and disproportionality,
more work remains. An oversight committee, currently on hiatus, focuses on
practice related issues in this area. In addition, disproportionality as a systemic
issue was a topic for the past Systems Improvement Plan.
Over the past three years, a training session, “Words Mean Things” was presented
to all staff to raise awareness of the bias implicit in language and to promote
strength based presentation of case and family information.
Placement Resource
Expansion Team
The County established a Placement Resource Expansion Team comprised of CFS,
Mental Health and, Juvenile Probation to address the high level placement needs of
children in our county. The goal is to develop a continuum of care for children in
placements rated as level 12 and higher.
Supervisor Case
Conferences
The Bureau has a policy that supervisors meet with their workers and review cases
at least monthly. During this meeting, the supervisor also reviews Safe Measures
compliance reports with the worker and discusses success, challenges, and
strategies for reaching and maintaining compliance. This is in addition to frequent
“informal” case staffing between workers and supervisors.
Supervisor
Discussion and
Assessment Protocol
This guideline was created by the Systems Improvement Plan “timely reunification”
workgroup. The guideline is a checklist to support Social Workers in assessing
issues, setting goals, and planning for reunification.
Disposition Review Contra Costa has a Disposition Review Team in each geographical district. This
team is chaired by the Division Manager responsible for child welfare operations in
that district. The Disposition Review Teams consist of the case carrying social
worker, district supervisors, appropriate liaisons, such as domestic violence and
substance abuse, and the Division Manager. They grapple with such decisions as:
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 74
• Closing referrals involving children age three and under,
• Reviewing high risk cases, such as cases involving severe physical abuse,
• Reviewing cases where the worker and supervisor feel additional staffing is
necessary.
Placement Resource
Team
The Placement Resource Team (PRT) is comprised of a Division Manager,
supervisory placement and adoption staff, a mental health manager, and placement
specialists at the worker level. When a request is made for a change to a more
restrictive placement or higher level of care, the assigned worker must present the
case. The emphasis of PRT is to design the least restrictive, most family-like
placement for the child and to determine if therapeutic behavioral services or other
“wrap-around” services could assist in that goal. In addition, the County’s strong
emphasis on recruitment, retention and training of county-licensed foster homes
assists in the development and preservation of family-setting placement options for
children.
The PRT is one of the primary means the Bureau has for addressing concurrent
planning early – while the child is in his/her first emergency placement (as well as
placement matching to the appropriate level of care).
This team is used to identify the appropriate level of care for all children in
emergency placements. Staff may come to PRT before the end of the 90 days of
emergency shelter care to discuss the child's needs and the team will determine the
appropriate level of placement and assign a member of the team to find an
appropriate county licensed foster home, FFA, group home, etc. Permanency
reviews are also conducted and if the plan is adoption, the adoption supervisor
assigns a social worker to the case. This includes children in relative and extended
family placements.
Kinship Review Kinship Review is held at district level with District managers. Cases where children
who are placed with relatives and have been in placement for 45 to 60 days are
discussed to assure the placement is appropriate and to assess and strategize the
potential for legal permanency.
Permanent
Placement Review
The PP Review meeting takes place monthly in each of the geographic district
offices. This meeting involves a team of staff (Division Manager, adoptions
supervisor, district supervisor and case carrying social worker) who meet to discuss
the permanent plan for each child approaching the possible termination of FR
services. The team strategizes the best plan for each child, assigns adoption social
workers as needed and provides concurrent planning for children in FR
Compliance with
Regulatory Policies
and Timelines
Beginning in 2004 and continuing through the last Systems Improvement Plan,
Contra Costa County targeted two compliance indicators:
• 2B. Percent of child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely response
• 2C. Percent of timely social worker visits with child.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 75
Many quality assurance systems were implemented to monitor and improve
compliance in these areas. The Safe Measures computer program has been
invaluable to track compliance by district, unit and worker. Contra Costa continues
to monitor compliance. Other SIP activities now focus attention on compliance
related issues such as quality of discussion and assuring at least half of the contacts
occur in the child’s residence.
It is anticipated that this is an area of further policy development for quality
assurance.
5. Service Array
Parents and families involved in the Contra Costa County child welfare system have
a full range of services available to them. The Child Abuse Prevention Council of
Contra Costa produces a resource directory, Surviving Parenthood, identifying these
resources. That brochure documents the availability of current community based
and prevention focused programs and activities provided by public and private
organizations. The services are sorted by category, include a description of the
service, and contact and referral information.
In addition to the services noted above, the County has created a number of “liaison”
positions that are specifically designed to facilitate increased linkages between child
welfare staff, families and existing resources in the community. The County employs
liaisons and family advocates/mentors in many areas as listed below. Also listed are
a variety of service and support programs administered or co-administered by
Children & Family Services.
Domestic Violence
Liaisons
Two full time experts in domestic violence issues are embedded in the Children and
Family services units. They provide help with assessment and treatment plans.
Housing Specialist One housing specialist works with families in the child welfare system to help them
resolve credit problems, develop tenant resumes, connect them with property
managers, and generally help secure housing. The housing specialist also works
with youth in the ILSP program to help them find housing.
Education Liaisons There are 2.5 FTE education specialists who work with social workers, families, and
children to expedite school entry, resolve difficulties, promote tutoring, attend IEP
meetings, and advocate for the educational success of kids in foster care.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 76
Early Intervention
Outreach Specialists
The EIOS staff have the goal of helping parents with substance abuse problems
access services, and successfully reunify with their children.
Mental Health
Liaisons
Two full time mental health liaisons are available to assist social workers in
negotiating referrals to mental health services and accessing mental health
resources.
Public Health
Nurses
Public Health Nurses are co-located at Children & Family Services districts to assist
in procuring health records and provide consultation regarding health issues for
Foster children.
Community
Engagement
Specialists (CES)
Two full time CES work to engage families at-risk of entering the child welfare
system and link them to Path 1 community-based case management services. CES
are also responsible for recruiting resource families within the Redesign impact
areas.
Parent Partners 1 full-time coordinator, 2 full time and 8 additional part-time Parent Partners are
available to help parents navigate the child welfare system, develop supportive
relationships that will strengthen and support the family, and facilitate timely
permanency for their children. Additional Parent Partners are being hired for
mentoring/advocacy services. A new program has been created that will place new
staff in each operation office to serve as community resource specialists.
Adoption Resource
Centers
To support our adoptive families, Contra Costa set up three (3) Adoption Resource
Centers across the county where families are able to access adoption-related
resources, including books, videos and other informative materials to help with their
needs. As a result of budget reductions, the County now has one center located
centrally. In addition, an Adoptions Educational Liaison is available to assist
adoptive families navigate the educational system and advocate for the academic
needs of their children.
Family Enhancement
Collaboration
This collaboration provides services to relative caregivers and families in the child
welfare system, through kinship support services family preservation. Services are
provided in a community based setting and are used to prevent placement and
expedite reunification
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 77
Kinship Care
Program
Community-based supportive services to relative caregivers and their children
include tutoring, after school programs, mentoring, case management, legal
assistance, advocacy, recreational activities, respite for the caregivers, therapeutic
support groups, educational training, and basic needs assistance. These services
are free of charge and are offered through sites located in Richmond, Pittsburg and
Concord. All relative caregivers residing in Contra Costa County are eligible to
receive services. Currently, there are about 300 families throughout the county who
use Kinship services each year.
Family Preservation
Program
This program provides intensive, individualized, in- home case management
services to approximately 75 Children and Family Services (CFS) families each
year. These families have children who are at risk of out-of-home placement.
Supportive services tailored to the family’s individual needs are offered to help
stabilize the family so that the children can remain safely at home. Services can last
up to 6 months.
Children’s Interview
Center
This partnership between Children and Family Services, Law Enforcement, District
Attorneys, and a nonprofit agency, reduces the number of interviews of children who
have suffered sexual abuse and helps build a solid base of evidence against
perpetrators. Trained forensic interviewers conduct interviews with the input of these
other professionals
Independent Living
Skills Program
Costa County’s ILSP program is recognized as one of the finest in the State. With
the 10,000 square foot Independent Living Skills Youth Center the program helps
more than one hundred teens successfully emancipate from the child welfare system
each year. Additionally, ILSP has an aftercare staff that support youth in the areas
of housing, employment, and education until they reach age 21.
Team Decision
Making
Team Decision Making (TDM) is one of the four core Family-to-Family strategies.
The primary goals of TDM meetings are to 1) keep children safely at home,
whenever possible; 2) if placement is necessary, identify the least restrictive
placement available, ideally within the child’s own community; 3) facilitate the
reunification/permanency process; and 4) minimize placement disruption for children
in foster care.
In Contra Costa County, the TDM process was initially implemented in 2003. TDM’s
phase were in areas with the highest rates of referrals and removals. Additionally, in
an effort to address issues of racial disproportionality of African American children
entering the child welfare system, we offer TDMs countywide for all African
American families with children under five years of age. Families invite their chosen
supports and agency partners to participate in TDM’s in assessing safety and
setting a plan for the family.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 78
Wrap Around
Services
Wraparound services are available to families involved with two or more public
agencies such as Mental Health, Social Services, Probation, and Education.
Wraparound brings the various formal (professional) and informal supports (family,
friends, and other community members connected to the family) into a “child and
family team” that works collaboratively to develop one plan to meet the agency’s
requirements and the needs of the family.
Transitional
Housing
Contra Costa County has transitional housing for both in-care youth and
emancipated youth. The in-care program allows 8 youth ages 16-19 to live in
shared apartment housing. This program has been successful in safely transitioning
youth to living independently. The emancipated youth program provides services to
youth ages 18-24. The county plan allows for 50 youth to be served. There are
currently four providers who offer, apartment living, shared housing and 24hr
supervision with shared housing. All the programs have case mangers which assist
in helping the youth maintain employment and educational opportunities.
Community
Visitation Centers
In 2009 Bureau developed two community visitation centers that can provide
supervised visitation for families receiving Family Reunification Services. These
centers were developed as a part of a visitation model continuum. The model is a
step down model that allows for the reduction in the level of supervision needed for
families and allows families to have more frequent visits including weekends and
evening.
Community Needs
Survey and Mini-
Grants
To respond to specific community needs and create capacity in identified areas,
Contra Costa initiated a mini-grants program to provide “seed money” to local
community-based agencies to fund services and/or one-time projects serving at-risk
families and children.
A community needs survey, funded by the State Redesign budget, was designed to
help identify the areas of need. The purpose was to learn about community
concerns and needs regarding services. The survey was originally conducted in
2003 and was again conducted in 2005. We plan to complete an online survey in
2010 as a follow-up.
The community area surveyed was the Family to Family phase-in communities that
have high referral rates. Multi-lingual/cultural community members were hired from
partner agencies to go door-to-door to administer the survey. Over 1800 residents
were surveyed for the 2005 survey. The information on service needs that was
gathered has been used in each of the district offices to further guide capacity
building within the target communities. The survey results and a summary of results
follow.
The County allocates some state redesign and grant funding for mini grants, which is
spread out across the Redesign target communities. Mini grants can range up to
$3,000.00. The mini grants program has funded several community projects serving
at-risk families and children. Examples of projects funded in FY 2009-10 include:
youth and community surveys by youth partners to identify service needs and
current support services for youth transitioning to self sufficiency; youth enrichment
and drop-in centers, including activities to increase school readiness and violence
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 79
prevention classes; parenting education classes in English and Spanish; anger
management workshops and support groups for youth and their parents to deter
violence and gang involvement; teen mentoring programs; Family Counseling
services; domestic violence prevention programs; and bilingual English/Spanish
booklet for housing resources. Our RFI for FY 2010-11 mini-grants has been
completed and grant awards are currently being processed.
Outreach
Activities
Contra Costa’s connection with communities and community partners provide
outreach to community members in identifying and locating support services in a
variety of topic areas.
The Child Abuse Prevention Council publishes a resource directory for Contra
Costa. This directory is titled ‘Surviving Parenthood and is in its 11th edition. The
directory provides information on a wide variety of topics from identifying and
reporting suspected child abuse to service providers and available services. This
informational brochure is available to the public; it is also used by Social Work staff
because it is maintained as a resource of currently available resources. This guide
is an attachment to this report.
In addition, general information and referral services are available by calling 2-1-1.
This interactive voice system offers 24 hour provider and referral information on the
same variety of topics.
Contra Costa County Children & Family Services agency continues to sponsor
Community Partnership Meetings in each of the three areas of county, East, West,
and Central. These meetings are a forum for convening agencies, providers, law
enforcement, education, health providers, and faith based organizations to discuss
relevant topics pertaining to supporting children and families in the communities.
Demographic information and participation rates are shared with committees on a
quarterly to semi-annual basis by the CFS Research and Evaluation Manager.
These committees are a collaborative gathering so that when a project, policy
directive, resource need, or problem arises, ad hoc groups can be convened to
address the issue and inform the decision.
Services Funded by
CBCAP, CAPIT,
PSSF
There is a broad range of prevention services funded through CBCAP, CAPIT, and
PSSF. These activities have been contracted in order to provide relevant prevention
services for the children and families of Contra Costa. The services range from primary
prevention activities and information - such as the “Surviving Parenthood” handbook –
currently in it’s 11th edition, which is a resource directory for Contra Costa and published
by the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, to the secondary and
sometimes tertiary prevention activities of our differential response providers who work
with families who have had a report of potential child abuse or neglect, but whose
problems do not warrant a child welfare case being opened. All of our services funded
through the use of these dollars are clearly related to either fostering families staying
together safely, or preventing abuse and/or neglect in the first place. See the list of
services provided in the table below.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 80
Contract Prevention Activity
Adoption mediation stable adoptions
Adoption Promotion/Support Fund stable adoptions
Bay Point (Ambrose) differential response
Brighter Beginnings differential response
Coronado (YMCA) family/child support
Differential Response differential response
Kinship (FF) kin family services
Neighborhood House/Helms family/child support
North Richmond (CHD) differential response
Parent Partners family stability/reunification
Post Adopt Edu. stable adoptions
Post Adopt Support Grps stable adoptions
Stand domestic violence treatment
Community Violence Solutions domestic violence treatment
Mental Health Services family/child support
Catholic Charities differential response
Family Preservation family stability/reunification
Shared Family Care family stability/reunification
Receiving Centers child safety
Public Health Services child safety/health
6. Staff/Provider Training
Children & Family Services has two dedicated Staff Development Specialists to
provide and coordinate staff and provider training. These trainers report directly to a
Children & Family Services Manager thus decisions regarding training are a
standing agenda item on the Administrative Team. The manager with Staff
Development responsibilities and the Staff Development Specialists prepare training
plans and information to assure core training requirement are met and assist in the
planning and implementation process for new initiatives to assure staff have the
necessary skills to implement the changes.
In addition to the two dedicated CFS Staff Development Specialist, a dedicated
CWS/CMS trainer provides training on CWS/CMS and other systems used by CFS
staff.
Staff Development provides core training to the Bureau including new worker
training, CWS/CMS and California Law Enforcement Training (CLETS). In addition
to the ongoing needs of staff, providers, and the Bureau regarding core practices
and issues, advanced training is also provided. Staff Development, Bay Area
Training Academy and U.C. Davis provide this training. The Bureau identifies topics
for training and Staff Development identifies trainers and processes enrollment to
track staff attendance.
Staff Development has focused on training in the following areas for the past three
years:
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 81
• Program, policy and procedures for basic Child Welfare programs for staff
transitioning into new assignments including court processes
• Family Engagement
• Permanency and Transition
• Cultural competence skills and cross cultural communication for successfully
engaging families
• Developing good case plans with clear, succinct, relevant parent
responsibilities and agency agreements
• Understanding, building and maintaining community partnerships and
relationships.
• Cross training between all parts of the system including community partners.
• Documentation and accountability including use of CWS/CMS and
Comprehensive Assessment Tool
• Using appropriate, strength based language in documentation for court
reports, case plans, and contacts with sensitivity to words and descriptions
• Addressing ongoing needs of emancipating youth
• Utilizing programs and resources available to assist families in timely
reunification through visitation and stronger partnerships with birth parents
Highlights of Staff Development operations include:
• Staff Development coordinates with the Bay Area Regional Training
Academy (BAA), U.C. Davis, the California Department of Social Services,
and the Statewide Training Education Committee to provide the most
effective means to meet staffs needs.
• Each new social worker receives a six to eight week core training based on
the CalSWEC core competencies and county specific information. This
induction training utilizes Bureau subject matter experts, Staff Development
personnel, Bay Area Academy and U.C. Davis for trainers and training
resources.
• An ongoing series of training sessions designed to increase the cultural
competency of staff and understanding of key issues of disproportionality,
fairness and equity.
• CWS/CMS training is provided on a frequent on-going basis to all staff.
• CFS Clerical Training.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 82
Supervisor and manager training is conducted by contractors who have developed a
customized training series for aspiring supervisors and managers. Additionally, Staff
Development and selected supervisors collaborate to provide ongoing training for
supervisors and managers.
Staff Development in collaboration with the Mental Health Department and the Spirit
of Caring/System of Care grant had established a collaboration of county agencies
that provide cross training to employees. This collaboration’s goal is to better utilize
all county resources to share training and to cross train our staff in better
understanding other agencies roles and resources. In 2008 the project was
defunded.
CFS is eager to assess and make any necessary improvements to the
organizational culture of children and family services. The Child Welfare League of
America’s cultural competency tool has been administered four times, results
analyzed and training strategies where adapted in response to the survey findings.
Additionally the bureau is now assessing many performance outcomes based on the
significant efforts to address issues of culture, bias and disproportionality.
7. Agency Collaboration
The ongoing spirit of collaboration between agencies in Contra Costa providing
intervention and prevention services to children and families continues to provide
forums for interagency program planning and specific case reviews.
In a time of budget constraints when agencies may be competing for limited funds
and contract services are reduced, it becomes more difficult but even more
important to continue the collaborative environment.
The strong engagement of community partners contributes to Contra Costa’s
strength in defining and implementing programs that support child welfare,
probation, and community goals.
All of the efforts add up to a supportive, collaborative effort to integrate services
between the Child Welfare system and the community. The partnership between
child welfare and nonprofit and public agencies, consumers, faith based
organizations, and foster parents has helped hundreds of children and families over
the past several years in ways that involved community and client participation to
identify issues, share responsibilities and successfully support families. Listed below
are forums and meetings that have collaborative partners.
Placement
Resource
Expansion Team
The Placement Resource Team is an internal Child Welfare staff meeting utilized to
provide a forum for discussing placement needs and permanency planning goals for
children in out-of-home placement. The Team is headed by a Division Manager and
is comprised of a variety of staff with placement expertise and resources. The team
also plays a role in determining the level of placement and approving concurrent
plans. Children’s Mental Health is an active participant in these meetings bringing
their expertise in support of case decisions.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 83
Systems of Care
Grant and Policy
Council
System of Care Planning and Policy Council is an oversight body comprised of top
level managers of the child-serving public agencies in Contra Costa County. The
Policy Council was developed over ten years ago to provide oversight of the
Children’s Mental Health Federal grant and provide a forum for interagency
collaboration and coordination. Currently the Policy Council provides leadership and
oversight for the CFS federal grant that was awarded to the bureau in 2003.
Promoting Safe
and Stable Families
Programs Supports
Five collaborations of community based nonprofit service providers work to offer
services that support families and children and prevent their entry into the child
welfare system. Those service needs/gaps are identified though the community
needs assessment survey.
Community
Partner Teams
Children & Family Services hosts regional Community Partnership meetings each
month. These meetings bring together families, business people, faith-based
communities, CBO agency staff, Bureau staff, and interested community people to
learn about community needs, Bureau initiatives, and to plan together to better serve
children and families.
Chaired by Children & Family Services managers, these meetings have substantial
representation by a diverse group of community, other agency, and faith-based
partners who have engaged in this collaboration. Ad Hoc sub-committees are
formed for specific interests are formed to address needs as they are discussed,
such as Faith Based services and communication with law enforcement agencies.
Home Visiting
Collaborative
Since 2003 the County departments of Health Services, Employment and Human
Services (Family and Children’s Services Bureau) and Community Services have
been working in a collaborative funding and program partnership with Contra Costa
First Five to build and operate the Contra Costa Home Visiting System for children
and their families. The Home Visiting System is a continuum of strategies and
services that support families with young children, especially families living in the
County’s highest need neighborhoods. Home visiting programs in the collaborative
include: Black Infant Health, Public Health Nursing Mothers/Infants Program,
Welcome Home Baby, Lift Every Voice Project; Prenatal Care Guidance, Medically
Vulnerable Infant program, Community Services Program and Differential Response.
MOUs
A memorandum of Understanding to improve service delivery to clients exists
between CFS and a variety of agencies. These include Public Health, County Office
of Education, local Community Colleges, Probation, Mental Health, local law
enforcement jurisdictions throughout the County, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s
Department, and alcohol and other drugs (AOD) service providers. For example, the
AOD/CFS Collaboration was originally charged to create an MOU regarding service
needs of shared clients but has evolved into an on-going collaboration for improved
communication, service delivery and training.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 84
Juvenile Court
Child welfare leaders meet regularly with judges and commissioners on the juvenile
court to better collaborate. We have begun to share child welfare data with the
judges in order to help inform them of the current status of Children & Family
Services.
Community
Information
Report, Newsletter
& web site
The county regularly updates and distributes reports to keep community members,
foster parents, and other interested parties apprised of child welfare changes,
successes, and challenges. There is also a foster parent newsletter that goes out
and has articles on a variety of child welfare topics – including child welfare
outcomes.
CFS & Probation
Collaboration
The Juvenile Probation Department and the Children & Family Services Bureau
have an on-going collaborative relationship that includes joint case staffings, serving
on commissions, and sharing resources. Examples of this relationship include:
• Juvenile Justice Commission. This advisory body meets on a monthly basis
and includes representation from child welfare, probation, juvenile court and
the community.
• Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC). Originally
charged by the Board of Supervisors in the early 1990’s to investigate
Juvenile Hall operations and oversee the design and building of a new
facility, the charge of this commission has expanded to address the new
challenges for Juvenile Probation in a growing county.
Serving as an advisory group to the Board of Supervisors, JSPAC’s membership
consists of representatives from all major county departments, representatives from
advocate and advisory groups, and several community members. Staffing is
provided by a member of the County Administrator’s office. Currently, JSPAC is
looking at these initiatives:
• Blended funding strategies
• Establishment of an in-county juvenile treatment program
• Examining the placement and service needs of county youth transitioning
from high level placements or coming back from outside of the county. (i.e.
returning from a placement outside of the county)
Probation is an active member of the council. Probation staff are also active
members of the Permanency and Youth Transition workgroup that address
operational issues related juvenile justice and child welfare.
Dual Jurisdiction Committee. While this committee has been operational for over 9
years, in December 2003, the existing Memorandum of Understanding between
Probation, Juvenile Court and Children and Family Services Bureau was revised to
establish an interagency joint assessment protocol per Welfare and Institutions
Code 241.1. The MOU charges the Committee with joint assessments of all child
cases where there is the possibility of both W&I 300 and 601/602 involvement. The
purpose of the joint assessment “is to determine whether dependency or
delinquency serves the best interests of the child and the protection of the
community.”
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 85
8. Local Systemic Factors
For Contra Costa, along with all counties in California, state and local budget deficits
are a significant factor for the various government agencies. Contra Costa was one
of the first counties to experience significant cuts because of local budget factors
and foresight towards further state allocation restrictions.
For Children & Family Services, major budget reductions occurred in December
2008. With a loss of 35% of staff in the bureau and , a major review of practice was
required to align remaining staff in critical assignments, re-engineer processes for
optimum efficiency, and examine authorized services and funding sources for those
services. The shift resulted in dismantling staff dedicated to the Court Process to
Intake and Continuing services positions and spreading court responsibilities to all
Social Work staff.
The guiding principles for determining reduction and practice changes were safety of
children, timely court processing, and compliance with regulatory timelines. An
intensive training plan was immediately implemented to support staff during this time
of transition.
The impact of change these changes was a precipitous decline in performance in
compliance outcomes as staff learned new programs and adjusted to organizational
changes. Over the past year, Contra Costa has regained most of the initial declines;
Children & Family Services acknowledges the efforts and commitment of staff as
they have adjusted to these changes.
In addition to the staffing cuts the bureau also suffered a reduction in contracted
service. These services included the closure of two receiving centers, reduced to all
parent contracted services and reduction and aging supports.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 86
M. Summary Assessment and Self Assessment Discussion
1. Safety Outcome Indicators
Performance Introduction: Overall, Contra Costa County is performing relatively well in the area
of safety outcomes. The layoffs that occurred in January 2009 have affected our
compliance measures in this area, but luckily have not appeared to have a
significant effect upon other safety measures.
No recurrence of maltreatment - CFSR measure S1.1: Looking at federal measure
of no recurrence of maltreatment within 6-months of a substantiated allegation,
Contra Costa is currently performing at above the state average and slightly over the
national goal.
No maltreatment in foster care – CFSR measure S2.1: Although Contra Costa
County is performing slightly under the state average as well as the national goal
(0.2%) in this outcome area, the number of children with a substantiated allegation
of abuse or neglect is relatively small (in the last 3 quarters examined it has hovered
around 10) – although having any children in foster care abused or neglected is
unacceptable. We have a dedicated emergency response investigator who only
handles investigations of potential abuse/neglect by substitute caregivers.
Investigations with a timely response – AB636 Measure 2B: The
process/compliance indicators 2B (percent of child welfare investigations with a
timely response) were previously included in the SIP and have shown significant
improvement (10-day referrals) until our recent layoffs. The compliance for our
immediate referrals has consistently stayed above 90%, while our 10-day referral
compliance has shown a decrease for calendar year 2009 compared to previous
years. We have, however, shown month – to – month improvement in this area over
the past 9 months, although we still need to improve in this area.
Timely social worker visits – AB636 Measure 2C: Timely social worker visits was
also a previous SIP item and the County had not completely met the goal of having
sustained compliance of 90% or greater – although we were close. Since the layoffs
in January 2009, this particular measure has shown the greatest decline and the
weakest recovery. Even though recovery has been somewhat slow, there has been
some increase seen. For example, in December 2009, the compliance for timely
social worker visits was at 88.6% - the highest compliance seen since November
and December 2008.
A significant amount of time has been devoted to assisting staff in effectively
managing their continuing services caseloads. This includes geographic
assignments/visits, focusing upon closing cases that can safely be completed, and
the opening of a visitation center in order to assist staff with supervised visitations.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 87
Self Assessment
Discussion
WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT?
• Differential Response- Path 1 & 2 – over 300 families served per year.
• Timely SW visits – Child Welfare staff are having an active presence in homes.
Six month exceptions have been eliminated. Team Decision Making Meetings
continue to be a strong focus.
• Child Welfare staff are having an active presence in homes
No 6 month exceptions
• Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) are integrated into practice.
• Group decision making supports effective placements decisions (PRT).
• Compliance with 10 day referrals
• Staff are being trained to the “new way” of doing business
More in-depth family assessments
Following penal code versus W&I Code
Understanding what is minimum sufficient level of care
Leveraging resources – shared mandates
• Expertise of Domestic Violence, Education, Mental Health, and Public Health
Nurse liaisons support families.
• Family Engagement with clients is a focus.
Permanency is better defined
Parent Partners
Shifts in paradigm
• Strong collaborative efforts with community partners and agency partners
support families.
• Community understands more what CFS does/ tries to keep families together
• More supports are available to families caring for our children.
• Less time in court – more SW time with clients
• There is a renewed focus on empowering parents.
• Staff are having difficult conversations regarding permanency thus decreasing
time to permanency
• Diversifying staff
Outreach to schools with BS/MSW programs
Bi-lingual staff recruitment
• Probation successes:
Manager from MH sits at placement meetings
Engage and tap into their programs for high end/high risk youth
Assess prior to placement
Review community resources/alternatives
WHERE ARE OUR CHALLENGES?
• CFS needs more male parent partners and male social workers
• Work continues on partnering with Courts for an understanding of CFS role
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 88
• Team Decision Making is focused in some zip codes and needs to be expanded
across all parts of the county
• There are limited community resources for families
• Transition of cases from ER to Continuing Services
Timely f2f visits with current caseloads
“non-effective” use of time
Getting court orders (Dept. 10/30) to know what is required/needed to do.
County Counsel not following up with staff when CFS does not attend hearing
• Need better communication between ER Investigator and birth parents
Successful investigation means hearing birth family input
Birth families feel railroaded/stereotyped
Birth families need better understanding of CFS function/roles
Need to work for engagement at 1st contact
• Substance abuse services
Lack of outpatient providers/services
Parent paying for service/will it impact FR rates
Visitation – no aides or support services to assist with
transportation/supervision
• Probation – case management of cases that seem more “juvenile justice” vs.
protection (CFS)
• Put more services in front end vs. back end- “pay now or pay later”
• Think outside box – be creative
• Did parents “get to the end” of service plan- how do we determine?
• Shift focus to the family assessment rather than just looking at compliance with
case plan goals
• Housing and jobs: Need to support families in transition from participating in
mandated/required services to “regular life”
• How do parents justify 18 months of “gaps” when jobs suspended to comply with
mandated/required services for completion of case plans?
• No step-down for parents - Left them high and dry when children returned
• Limit number or mandated/required services in cases plans – avoid “LOADED”
case plans
• Exiting should not be seen as a negative impact to families as services end -
Need to wrap services around families life
• 3 months at AA/NA as an alternative - can CFS staff “accept” this resource?
• Local services are needed for sexually exploited children.
• Families are feeling a lack of finances/medical insurance
• “Is it just easier to leave out dad” of home and focus on “mom/kids”? Need
continued focus on inclusion of both parents in case planning.
GAPS IN SERVICES
• Front end – lack of partnering with Mental Health- what are psychiatric issues
vs. CPS issues
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 89
• MH vs. CFS placements – who can best serve them?
Clarify the role of MH liaisons.
Strengthen continuum of care from youth to adult for transitioning youth.
• Aging out (17 ½) – what benefits and systems support are available (Probation
mandate is different)?
Housing
Education
• Reduction in adoption staffing has limited adoption staff in a consultant role.
Need to have permanent planning talks early in case.
• Focus on education to avoid disruptions by placement moves; consider the
impact on youth
• Court “disconnect” with staff being at court
• Engagement of fathers (standards may be different for mom/dad)
• No high level group homes in county creates more travel time for Social Workers
• 2nd/3rd generation entering system?
Teach/educate to not fall back into system
• Teen Birth rates:
Types of service available in community- lack of in and out patient programs
Option to have child with them in programs
Limited services/resources
Group homes – disconnect to what youth doing in community/programs while
in placement
TAP Program – youth/pregnancy program has had reductions (countywide –
not just CFS youth)
Reduction in Public Health services
PREVENTION SERVICES
• Prevention services down may mean a delay in FR
• Teens (former dependents) coming in to CFS system as a parent- what efforts
are being made to prevent this?
• Strength-based social work is needed.
• “Failure to reunify”- reassess at later points to continue family connections
• Staying part of child’s life/prescribes how they see us and their children
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 90
2. Permanency Outcome Indicators
Performance Introduction: The area of permanency outcomes is a broad one and encompasses
4 federal composite outcomes and 15 distinct measures. We will discuss each
composite area in general and then get more specific by looking at the individual
measures that make up the composite. Overall, Contra Costa County’s performance
in this area is mixed. While we do well in the areas of adoptions and placement
stability, we do poorly in the long term care composite – which examines how well a
county does in gaining permanence for youth who have been in care for an
extended period of time. In addition, our performance in the reunification composite
is mixed – we do well in keeping children from coming back into foster care after
they have reunified, but we would have to do better at getting more children
reunified within the 12 months the federal government uses as the timeframe for
timely reunifications. While the 12-month timeline is a federal measure, the
measure may not be a realistic timeframe for the families for children to return home
safely.
Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunifications: The
county’s performance in the 4 measures that make up this composite are mixed.
Our county does well in that our recidivism rate for reunified children is low (C1.4).
Our performance on rates of reunification within 12 months are somewhat below the
national goal – especially when examined using an exit cohort methodology (C1.1).
As would be expected, the median time to reunification (using an exit cohort) is
longer than the national goal (C1.2). Using an entry cohort analysis (C1.3), however,
the latest available scores are nearly equal to the national goal (i.e., 47.9% versus
48.4% reunified within 12 months of entry). It is possible that the discrepancy
between the entry and exit cohorts are related to a relatively high number of children
who do end up reunifying – but do so slower than the 12 month timeline set by the
national government. Thus, we appear to reunify a reasonable number of children
within a year of entry (nearly equal to the national goal), and we also reunify a
significant number of children in a period of time over 12 months – thus deflating the
percentages on the exit cohort analysis. Of course, safely reunifying children is a
part of our mission and even though a large portion of those that do reunify (35-
40%) do so in greater than 12 months, it is better to safely reunify these children
rather than keep them in care. We will be looking at factors that cause children to
reunify in greater than 12 months in order to see if there is anything that can be
done to safely and legally speed up the process.
Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions: This composite is composed of
5 distinct measures related to adoptions. In general, Contra Costa County is
performing well in this composite – our composite total score is above the national
goal – as are 3 of the five measures making up the composite (C2.1 Adoption within
24 months, C2.2 Median time to adoption, C2.5 Adoption within 12 months if legally
free). The performance on measure C2.3 – Adoption within 12 months if a child has
been in care at least 17 months is significantly below the national standard and the
California average. This may be related to the poor performance the County sees in
it’s long-term care composite – which will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Contra Costa also performs poorly on measure C2.4 which assesses the
percentage of children who have been in care for at least 17 months and who were
not legally free for adoption on the first day of the year, who then become legally
free within the next 6 months. The low percentage of children who become legally
free for adoption as measured in C2.4 is likely related to policy which does not
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 91
support moving towards termination of parental rights unless an adoption is
imminent. There is debate as to whether performing well on this measure is in the
best interest of the child and their biological family.
Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Youth in Foster Care: This
composite is composed of 3 distinct measures related to long term care and
permanency of foster youth. This is an area in which both Contra Costa and State of
California perform poorly. As discussed earlier in this report (see PQCR section),
measure C3.1 – exits to permanency for children who have been in care at least 24
months, is an area in which we perform very poorly. This is related to C3.3 which
examines the percentage of youth who emancipate or turn 18 while in care who
were in foster care for 3 years or longer. Contra Costa and the state also perform
poorly in this outcome. Contra Costa does relatively well (nearly meeting the
national goal) on measure C3.2 – which examines children who were legally free for
adoption and whether they were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th
birthday. For example, in calendar year 2009, there were 4 children who were
legally free for adoption who did not get discharged to a permanent home prior to
their 18th birthday (and 107 who did; county data pull).
Overall, the area of achieving permanency for children who have been in care for a
period of time is one of our highest priorities and will be included on the upcoming
SIP.
Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability: This composite is composed of 3
distinct measures related to placement stability. Overall, Contra Costa is doing
relatively well in this area and slightly above the national standard for the composite
score using the latest data from SafeMeasures (calendar year 2009). Contra Costa
does especially well with keeping the number of placements to 2 or less for children
who have been in care for less than 2 years (measures C4.1 and C4.2). For children
who have been in care 2 years or more, however, performance suffers. This means
that the longer children are in care the greater number of placement moves they
experience and a smaller percentage of children have had 2 or fewer moves
(national goal is 41.8% and Contra Costa’s percentage is currently 32.6% for
calendar year 2009; county data pull).
Self Assessment
Discussion
WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT?
• There is more attention in making placement changes that put siblings together.
• Adoption resources are more available for sibling sets.
• Stepping-down placements (higher to lower levels)
• Staff recognize families needs supersede federal outcomes/timelines
• Populations we are not serving well are being identified (stratifying/more real
applications), for example, MH kids - the issues are changing/different today
• Placement TDMs (previously limited to specific zip codes)
Identify issues before they become problematic can prevent placement
disruption
Utilized as prevention supports caregivers
• FR (permanence) “looking at dads more”
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 92
• Parents – involve birth parent in emancipation process/long term care
• Survey provided information/data on what did we do well – what is/is not working
• Parent Partner Model – doing right
Parent Parents never close a case, provide continues support
Parent Partners stay with families through “learning curve”
Program supports empowerment of parents
GAPS IN SERVICE
• Latency age (ages 7-11) – placement options are limited
Residential
Group homes
“Tough age”
• We need to look at the kinds of placements that work.
• What are the choices/ placement options that work? Look at successes! For
example: Kinship Care
Supports connectness to family
Keeps identity
New law changes Kinship Care to permanent status, status was not seen as
valued previously
Guardianship vs placement
• Receiving center database provides information
Child focused – input by child
Capturing family data
• Need to utilize more non-traditional community services
Faith-based – phlethora of support and services
• There is a continued need to come together to look at assessing ourselves
Multiple agencies (not just CFS)
CHALLENGES
• Data is not available to examine homeless rates and the impact on FR kids
Other organizations may query this and we could utilize their data
• Ending Foster Care for youth cuts off of ILP, Chaffee grants – this limits
youth/families willingness to go to permanency.
Money
Support
Connection to community supports
Older children – question if they want to be adopted
ILP
• What can be done to support parents who are just “unwilling” to care for their
children with no “CPS” issues – parent/child conflict?
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 93
• Limited access to birth parent information presents difficulties in supporting
emancipating youth in:
Obtaining finances/financial aid
Applying for College
Receiving services
Securing Housing
• Social Workers need to research for more information on birth father and
relatives – whole new group of family members.
• Siblings with mental health issues/diagnosis
Teaching youth to deal with these issues
• Need to establish relationships with clients (SW client)
Keeping “pulse” on community with your client base
Commonalities on referrals
What is common with the community?
Remove what is familiar to child when place away from community
Need to be sensitive to child’s culture/views
• With staff reductions, there is less time to work with families
• Legal status vs continued placement
Systemic issue of “having to be in the system”
Resources – can they be accessed?
• FR/homeless statistics/what are the numbers returned home
This is a “bigger picture”
Outcomes are poor
Limited engagement
• How to prevent/stop staying in system
FR rates
LTFC
• More work is needed to support dual parents even when they are not co-
parenting.
Need to stress Children & Family Services not Children and Mom services
Rehabilitate together/parent together
Address both parents in closing plan
There is a need for more co-parenting classes
• Relative placements – explore removing barriers to place children with relatives:
Space
Criminal history
More services quickly
More exceptions/exemptions
CPYP/broke down statistically
• Relative Liaisons services are both a challenge and a positive influence:
Limited hours they are available
Social workers are reminded to connect families to kinship services
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 94
GAPS IN SERVICES
• Need more Treatment programs for fathers
Can they identify with program? (primarily female clients)
How do we reach those service providers about these issues?
• Addressing MH kids in a continuum of care; there are agency issues in
determining “whose kid is it?” and who determines placement
• Probation – active placement orders drive the placement/services
Dual jurisdiction cases
Complexity of needs of children coming into either system
Informal probation – 601 behavior
• Are we looking at services with a strength-based perspective?
• Are there other services available for youth when they are 18 and dependent of
court?
Return to family – what is CFS role
How to get family to see what their role is
Adoption vs. guardianship – differences in services/funding
• Talking/working with parents to teach them about college age youth needs and
issues and to support returning children
Need more available training and services
Parent partners provide some support
• Need more supports for families in transition
Contracts with CBOs
Declines in financial support/lack of training
Open trainings to community
Getting this information to family/caregiver/social worker from receiving center
database
• Increased workload (change/reduction in staff)
• ILP Issues
Wait list for social workers in ILP
All staff should have same knowledge of ILP resources
All kids can go to ILP services – not just those on ILP caseload
• Youth are changing, S.W. staff are not “keeping up” with these new
dynamics/challenges
Work for individualized planning not Cookie Cutter plan
WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE?
• Contact/relationship with attorney
“public pretenders”
Quick interactions – need to be open, communicators
Take time to develop relationships – “these are our children” – need
information
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 95
• DV houses/programs for men
• How do we teach/work with parents upon return of children
General child development
PREVENTION SERVICES
• Kinship Centers
Develop independent living skills
Teaching and modeling
• Different pockets that are working with families
Assume parents can do this (including caregivers)
PROBATION
• Kids are removed due to their delinquent behavior
where to tap in for continuum of care/aftercare
WRAP/family preservation
Parents have not really embraced them
Need supports/help (parents)
• Big Brother/Big Sisters programs
• Mentoring programs
• Lifelong commitments
After turning 18
• Shelters versus housing (waiting game/place for father and children)
• Knowing what resources exist to refer families
• Some social workers “don’t mix” with their clients
Biased
Too negative (father figures)
Background of social workers my influence decision making
Do we evaluate social workers? (complaints)
Accountability
• Faith-based – using faith/spirituality as a support (encourage this)
Comfort level to share information with church personnel
• “My Space” was tapped into/used against client
“not necessarily who I am as a person”
Privacy versus public issues
Don’t stereotype clients
• Life conference (Solano County) resource
Family searches/finding
Youth connecting with youth 1:1
Youth advocates/partners
Knowing resources (ex: ILP)
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 96
3. Well Being Outcome Indicators
Performance Introduction: The broad area of “well-being” outcomes is one that was added to the
areas of safety and permanence – which have long guided practice and policy in
child welfare, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
Despite the common sense appeal of “well-being” as an outcome, developing
measureable outcomes has proven to be difficult (see Beyond Common Sense:
Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for Policy Reform, by Wulczyn,
Barth, Yuan, Jones-Harden, and Landsverk; 2005; Aldine Transaction Publishers,
USA). There are no established federal outcomes with national goals/standards
using administrative data as there are within the areas of safety and permanence.
Despite the lack of established administrative standards, there are several areas of
child well-being we have examined and which California has established
administrative data measurement. These areas include 1) siblings placed together,
timely medical and dental exams for foster children, psychotropic medication
authorizations for foster children, least restrictive placement settings, and youth
transitioning to self-sufficiency/emancipating.
Siblings placed together: Placing siblings together whenever possible is a Bureau
goal. The overall rate of placement with all or some siblings has increased slightly
over the past 5 years to just over 60%. The placement of all siblings together has
shown a similar trend and is now over 40%. We are below the State average for
both of these measures. While the Bureau works hard at placing siblings together in
care, various factors impact our ability to improve the rate at which we do so. These
include the high cost of housing in the county and the ability of caregivers to afford a
home with extra bedrooms that can accommodate sibling groups.
Timely Medical and Dental Examinations: Contra Costa has significantly improved
the percentage of children who receive timely medical and dental exams according
to the Child Health and Disability Prevention periodicity schedule. This is an area we
are continuing to work to improve and have several innovative processes in place.
First, there is an MOU in place between Health Services and CFS which allows for
regular data sharing with public health - leading to increased awareness of new
foster care cases to be seen for medical and dental assessments and treatments.
Secondly, a “foster care clinic” has been running for the past 2 years. This clinic
focuses upon the needs of foster children and allows for timely scheduling of
medical exams.
Psychotropic Medication Authorizations for Foster Youth: The data for both Contra
Costa County and the State of California show an increasing percentage of foster
youth who have been authorized psychotropic medications. While there may be an
actual increase in authorizations, some of the increase can be explained by better
recording of authorization information. For example, in Contra Costa we partnered
with our Chief Psychiatrist of Mental Health (who oversees all psychotropic
medication authorizations) and we were able to update CWS/CMS so that it
captured over 90% of the current authorizations, compared to less than 30% (our
baseline). We are continuing our quest to fully capture all of the authorizations in a
timely and accurate fashion. We will use our current data to compare with future
trends.
Least restrictive placement setting: The Bureau performs well when examining its
least restrictive setting placement rate. Contra Costa County has a significantly
higher percentage of youth initially placed in foster homes compared to the State
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 97
average, and a lower percentage placed in group homes. In terms of a youth’s
primary placement within a reporting period, Contra Costa has a much higher
percentage of youth in Foster Homes than the State average (which has more youth
in FFA’s). The percentages for youth in group homes are approximately the same
(8%).
Youth transitioning to self-sufficiency: The Bureau’s Independent Living Services
program is a vital, dynamic program that serves a large number of the youth eligible
for services. The County’s performance on the indicators related to ILSP services
and outcomes show improvements – although further refinement of the data is
needed. ILSP data indicates a greater number of their youth have received a High
School diploma or GED, are enrolled in higher education, are employed or have
other means of support, and have received ILSP services.
Self Assessment
Discussion
WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT?
• Trained pediatric doctors to using “Xylitol” –dental medication that
reverses/protects further dental problems (pre-cavity state)
52 pediatricians in Contra Costa County trained to using this.
• Liaisons were maintained through budget cutbacks
Know their specialty areas
Helps staff resolve issues quicker
• Number of children placed in foster care is declining due to:
More strength-based in assessments to prevent placement
More efforts to support families so children can remain at home
More proactive vs. reactive work.
• Review of disparity chart – African American families/youth showing stability
compared to general population
• Statistics of African Americans (primary and secondary ethnicity coding in
CWS/CMS) may not accurately capture the “ethnicity-identity”
Staff ask families what ethnicity they identify with and use that coding
• Community partnerships continue to be a strength
Sharing ideas/resources support families and children.
• Services for emancipated youth including peer counseling
• Health risks –CFS shares responsibility with caregivers in informing youth
• Teaching youth to be self-sufficient – impacts foster youth most
CHALLENGES
• Is there a correlation between time in care and economic indicators and poverty
levels at location of removal?
There is limited economic family information in CWS/CMS to analyze
Data from census bureau provides some information on average income
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 98
• Students obtaining a high school diploma vs. not graduating – Are staff utilizing
educational supports and services?
Need more collaboration with education for foster youth
Foster youth services avavailability known to students and families on
resources they provide?
Youth Advisory Committee meets-Neely attends
Community Partnership meetings used as a forum to share information
(involve education)
• Parent employment/unemployment statistics – need to review CalWORKS
• Percent of seniors who don’t get diploma
• Front end – when/who steps in for meeting child’s needs?
• Have hearings (241.1) with probation/not mental health to review cases
• Knowledge on working cross-agency has changed
• Need collaborative structure to review cases
• Inter disciplinary meeting (Sup/DM/line staff) = who can best meet child’s needs
• Community misperception: Is child in danger or at risk,
• Becomes court driven system
Not easy to dismiss
• Previous system review committee – look at “holes” in system
• Missing AWOLS in data
What data are we collecting?
Permanency –health, etc./What are we doing for them?
How are they marked in CWS/CMS and does social worker know where they
are?
• They still have medical/dental needs (AWOL’s)
Does Medi-Cal stop so they cannot be seen?
Can set up separate Medi-Cal after foster care money stops
Need to know/get info needed to process application
Better communication with benefits/CFS staff
Review for ‘process’ change. Should be the default that Medi-Cal continues.
• Notification/having communication about how clients are advised of services
available?
How being communicated to care provider what our clients needs are?
• What services are they entitled to?
• Services in community not through CFS?
Kids placed in other counties
What supports are available?
• Mental health – statewide issues on “right” services when placed out of county
of origin
Example – Solano – managed care system/difficult to access
Many CFS kids in Solano County
Authorization systems do not work
• High end mental health/CFS kids – no sub-acute placements
Psychiatric hospitalizations
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 99
Psychiatric services in general for kids not being seen and monitored
• Solano – their ILP program – out of county youth not hearing of services
Want youth to be proactive in reaching out for services
• Community colleges provide classes for foster parents and kin providers- do
they attend?
• ILP services – drop in centers/youth do not utilize
GAPS
• Restructure of CFS system/budget cuts
Detention – dispo
Who “owns” case
Not addressing child’s trauma at this point
• Well-being – ability to continue to attend school district where they were
removed from
Limited transportation options
Trauma of removal – what service are we providing?
• Increase use of TDMs on well being issues of kids in placement for a period of
time
Selective use over time
• Classes – specific to youth (economically/culturally) – can they relate to the
class content? (ex. Can I afford those food products?)
How to cook, clean (classes while in care ) geared toward their
economic/cultural background(life skills training)
ILS as an example
Budget needs to be considered (lost 1/3 of staff)
• Group home providers/foster parents – need to reinforce these skills in
placement/reinforce the learning
• Cutbacks mean we need to be more creative/engage family to think “outside the
box”
How are we delivering the services?
Need place to discuss critical decisions about families.
Difficult to make decisions without knowing pulse of community.
• Services for pregnant teens
Parenting education services lacking
• Relationships (permanency connections) are they evaluated if these are “good
or bad” level of contact
Need qualitative data
CHALLENGES/GAPS
• Need to start life skills at an earlier age (versus 16)
Behavioral skills
Need to widen our focus
Start now at deficit vs. strength-based
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 100
These children are growing up in our system – establish permanency earlier
What age do kids enter system/young children
Children may chose a “connection” we may not “approve of”
• Lack of support for young youth
We think they do not know/understand what is going on (birth family may tell
them (“sick vs. dirty test”)
We keep it a “secret” whey they are in system
• Discipline – line between abuse & discipline (cultural aspects)
Types of discipline (spanking), “whooping”
How family was raised/parenting styles
Classes that teach different types of parenting
Geared toward younger children
Need teen focused classes
• Social workers can work with parents on effectiveness of parenting
(classes/techniques)
Alternative methods to set limits
• Access to therapy services
Don’t understand CWS clients
Affordability
Spanish speaking population
RESOURCES
• ILP manual ( Put on Formstar & keep updated)
• Surviving Parenthood (ILP section- stand alone section) Are these being
disseminated
• Child abuse prevention website
Suggest they be put in placement packets
• Foster parents/mandatory therapy- can we make them go?
Caregiver plan can order therapy
• Teen pregnancy – all foster youth (youth oriented)
Do they learn parenting?
How to communicate with adults on what “they are feeling”
Communication skills
Pro-social behavior
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 101
4. Systemic Outcome Indicators
Performance There are many system strengths in Contra Costa County in addition to a few areas
of need. Systemic factors that are strengths include use of a management
information system, foster/adoptive parent recruitment, licensing, and retention,
service array, staff/provider training, and agency collaborations.
Areas identified that need improvement are:
• Reorganization of the social worker and supervisors workload so they can
spend more time engaging with families and for supervisors to provide
support.
• Easy access to effective services so families can receive the services they
need to reunify quicker.
• Support staff and improve communication flow within the agency to improve
worker morale and the implementation of new initiatives to better serve
families.
• Continue to work on how to improve the relationship between CFS and the
Court.
• Continue to address language/cultural issues to ensure engagement of
families and appropriate services identified.
• Develop visitation methods that support family assessment, engagement
and a place for families to try out new positive parenting behaviors with
support.
• Further support social workers, children and families by exploring creative
methods of finding out of home care options that meet the individual needs
of the child and develop outcome measures to ensure excellent services
delivered by placement homes.
• Continued work – with fresh and evidence informed practices – on lessening
the ethnic disparity present within the child welfare system.
5. Strategies for the Future - Looking Forward to the Systems Improvement Plan
Summary
Assessment
All in all, the general trend in Contra Costa continues to be toward performance
improvement. One year following major cut-backs Contra Costa is poised to again
demonstrate the excellence for which it is recognized.
Contra Costa continues to build on strengths of past years even in the current
environment of budget constraints. Evidence based and evidence informed practice
and best practices influence policy decisions and direction and have been a
hallmark of Contra Costa’s philosophy of quality service to families and children.
Those strategies put into place in past years when funds were more plentiful have
certainly been reviewed for efficacy and competence.
Looking Forward
to Systems
Improvement Plan
With the completion of the Peer Quality Case Review and the Comprehensive Self
Assessment, Contra Costa has begun plans for the 2010 – 2013 Systems
Improvement Plan.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 102
To begin, Contra Costa’s Project Management Team reviewed performance
indicators and determined those areas where need for improvement is apparent.
Those areas are listed below:
• Increasing permanency for children in care 2 years or longer, and,
decreasing the number of youth that stay in care 3 years or longer until they
emancipate
• Timeliness of 10-day referrals
• Timeliness of monthly social worker visits
• Disparity and disproportionality
• Increasing the percentage of emancipating youth with a High School
degree/equivalency
For those five identified areas, the Research and Evaluation Manager prepared a
survey for staff asking for their input in identifying areas of priority. Eighty-four staff
completed the anonymous survey. The priority ranking by staff is as follows:
• Highest Priority
– Increasing permanency for youth who have been in care for 2 or
more years
• 2nd Rank
– Timeliness of SW monthly visits
• 3rd Rank
– Timeliness of 10-day referrals
• 4th Rank
– Increasing HS equivalency for emancipating youth
• 5th Rank
– Disparity and Disproportionality
Consistent with Contra Costa’s philosophy of staff involvement, meetings have been
scheduled in each of operational district offices. These meetings led by the
Research and Evaluation Manager and attended by the full administrative team
presents an opportunity for a dialogue with line staff. Summary data about
performance in identified areas is reviewed and staff are then asked to brainstorm
activities that could assist in improvement in quality of services as well as impacting
outcome indicators.
Next steps will be to review suggested activities at the Project Management Team
and propose a Systems Improvement Plan.
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 103
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010 104
One of the questions asked in the survey to staff was their willingness to participate
and/or lead committees of staff and other partners to plan, implement, and monitor
new activities identified in the SIP for policy and procedural changes. Some of the
most innovative, responsive work for the last SIP came from supervisory led
workgroups, and approximately 1/3rd of staff have said they were interested in being
a part of our SIP workgroups and another 1/3rd said that that they may be interested.
Though budget reductions have impacted staff and workload, Contra Costa looks
forward to continued collaboration and commitment of staff at all levels in
performance improvement.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CHILDREN & FAMILY
SERVICES
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
2010
California’s Child and Family Services Review
System Improvement Plan
County: Contra Costa
Responsible County
Child Welfare Agency: Children & Family Services
Period of Plan:2010 - 2012
Period of Outcome Data: Quarter ending June 30, 2008
Date Submitted:
County System Improvement Plan Contact Person
Name & title: Patrick Harrington
Title:Research and Evaluation Manager
Address:2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 200 Martinez, CA 94553
Fax:(925)335-7013
Phone & E-mail: (925) 335-7059 harripb@ehsd.cccounty.us
Submitted by each agency for the children under its care
Submitted by: Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Director
Name:Valerie Earley, MSW
Signature:
Submitted by: County Chief Probation Officer
Name:Lionel D. Chatman
Signature:
Board of Supervisors (BOS) Approval
BOS Approval Date:
Name:
Signature:
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 1
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Contact and Signature Sheet
Period of Plan: 2010-2012
Date Submitted: April 14,2010
Submitted by: Board of Supervisor Designated Public Agency to
Administer CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF programs
Name & title: Valerie Earley, Director Children & Family Services
Signature:
Address: 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
Fax: 925-313-1696
Phone & E-mail: 925-313-1583 vearley@ehsd.cccounty.us
Submitted by: Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC) Representative
Name & title: Carol Carillo, Executive Director CAPC of Contra Costa
Signature:
Address:1410 Danzig Plaza, Suite 110 Concord, CA 94520
Fax:925-798-0546
Phone & E-mail: 925-798-0546 capcarol@sbcglobal.net
Submitted by: PSSF Collaborative Representative,
Name & title: Vern Wallace, Director, Children’s Mental Health
Signature:
Address: 1340 Arnold Drive, Suite 200 Martinez, CA 94553
Fax: 925-957-5150
Phone & E-mail: 925- 957-5126 vwallace@hsd.cccounty.us
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 2
Submitted by: CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Liaison
Name & title: Rhonda Smith, Administrative Services Assistant III
Address: 40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
Fax: 925-313-1696
Phone & E-mail: 925-313-1575 smithr@ehsd.cccounty.us
Board of Supervisors (BOS) Approval
BOS Approval Date:
Name:
Signature:
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 3
SIP Narrative
Contra Costa has integrated its self-assessment and SIP – utilizing the
team that went through the lengthy meetings outlining the current state of
affairs for children’s services in Contra Costa County (see list later in this
document). In addition to using this team, however, we also generated
an online SIP survey which was distributed to staff throughout Children &
Family Services. Over 80 (nearly 70% of total) staff completed the survey
– which gathered information on the outcome areas that the staff thought
were most important. This information was then followed with three staff
meetings in which the results of the survey were presented and staff
brainstormed ideas for increasing the quality of our services in the top
areas. Thus, we utilized data throughout the process used to determine
our SIP items. All of this information was also channeled through our
Project Management Team and Administrative Team for review.
Based upon our CSA and the development of the SIP – as described
above, we decided to focus on three areas – rather than the 11 areas we
had included on our previous SIP (see the CSA for a complete analysis
of these outcome areas and our progress). These outcome areas for
inclusion on our current SIP are:
1. Increasing timely social worker contacts (Outcome 2C)
2. Increasing the percentage of youth who have been in care at least
2 years who exit to permanency (Outcome C3.1)
3. Decreasing the disproportionate number of African American
children who enter foster care (Systemic Outcome)
These three outcomes were considered some of the most important by
staff and our SIP team members. The PQCR helped guide us into
choosing our permanency and disparity outcomes as outcome C3.1 was
the focus of our PQCR – and within this outcome itself there is significant
ethnic disparity. Ethnic disparity or disproportionate minority contact has
also been a significant issue for probation, and this outcome dovetails
nicely into their work in this area. Both ethnic disparity of removals and
outcome C3.1 are areas that the State of California, overall, is also
having difficulty with.
Increasing timeliness of our monthly contacts is extremely important to
us. This marker took a big drop after the loss of approximately 1/3rd of
our staff – and the restructuring of work responsibilities (i.e., loss of the
court unit). This was an area that we had shown progress in until the loss
of staff, and even after 15 months with the reduced staff, our compliance
in this area is still not at the State goal of 90% or better. We also believe
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 4
that increasing our visits – and the quality of our visits, can assist us in
increasing permanency for children who have been in the system for at
least 2 years.
Our goal is to increase the timeliness of our social worker contacts to
over 90% - with our goal being that this is sustained throughout the final
year of the SIP. For outcome C3.1, our baseline percentage of youth
achieving permanency as measured by C3.2 is 14.2% - far below the
National Goal of 29.1%. We believe that we can make sustained
progress – with a three year positive trend and each year showing an
increase of at least 5%. For example, if there was a 5% increase
between baseline and the end of year 1, a 10% increase between years
1 and 2, and another 10% increase between years 2 and 3, our final
percentage would be approximately 18.1. Admittedly, this is still far below
the national goal, but, this is a realistic outcome.
We plan to safely decrease the incidence rate of African American
children removed from home by 5% per year. Our baseline incidence
rate is 11.4/1000 African American children removed from home for at
least 8 days. If we are able to decrease this rate by 5% per year, by the
end of the 3 year SIP our rate of removals would drop below 10/1000 – a
rate that we have never achieved. This would likely decrease the
disparity between African Americans and children of any other ethnicity
unless the rate for children of other ethnicities drops further than that of
African American children. Given, however, that the rate for children of
any other ethnicity is already just over 2/1000 – and at historical lows,
this might be difficult.
As a Family to Family (F2F) site, our staff are trained in TDM’s and the
other 3 core strategies related to child welfare practice – recruitment and
support of resource families, building community partnerships, and self-
evaluation. F2F has been rated as a promising practice by the California
Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. F2F is rated as a
promising practice for increasing permanency. There is little empirical
research on the effects of programmatic/system changes upon disparity
in child welfare.
A literature review of our outcome related to timely social worker contacts
did not reveal any clear guidelines. Having said that, it is well known that
increasing awareness by staff, supervisors, and managers and a clear
system of rewards/punishments can have an effect upon behavior.
These behavioral principles will be part of our strategy in this area.
As stated earlier, Contra Costa is a F2F site and has either partially or
completely implemented the four core strategies of F2F. We plan to use
these strategies to assist us on our SIP items. We also hope that our
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 5
federal grant related to comprehensive family assessment may assist us
with our outcomes. As a part of the grant we are increasing the breadth
of the assessment we are giving our families as they enter care and are
also working to enhance our engagement with families through
motivational interviewing.
Our SIP matrix – found later in this document, is similar to a logic model
in that it clearly articulates our outcome and lists specific steps in which
to achieve that outcome.
The information from the CSA – and information similar to it that has
been gathered over the past several years, has been used to help guide
the type of preventative services that are funded in Contra Costa County.
The complete list of preventative programs funded though
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF is included in Part II of this document.
PQCR
Summary
Contra Costa County conducted its Peer Quality Case Review in April
2009. This collaborative process between Children and Family Services
(CFS), Juvenile Probation, Bay Area Academy and California
Department of Social Services is designed to reflect on a practice area
that CFS and Probation would like to focus on to better understand
where the agency is succeeding and how to improve services. To further
enhance the learning, Contra Costa County invited Alameda, Orange,
Riverside and San Joaquin Counties to participate as peer reviewers
because they are doing better in the focus areas chosen for this PQCR.
Probation also chose to have Community Partners participate. This
fostered a dynamic county exchange of information and practices to
further assist continuous improvement efforts.
The area of focus chosen by CFS was the outcome indicator, measure
C3.1; exits to permanency: if in care at least 24 months; more
specifically, for children who have been in out of home care for over 2
years what percentage achieved permanency within the next 12 months
and prior to turning18 years old. This focus was chosen as the county is
performing below the State average and below the National Standard of
29.1%. In addition, this outcome is consistent with Children and Family
Service’s mission: “When children cannot be cared for by their families
due to safety issues, we place them with families that can make a lifelong
commitment to them.”
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 6
Juvenile Probation selected the outcome indicator of reentry into care,
aftercare services focusing on family engagement. This area of focus
was chosen so that work practices and its impact on children and
families could be assessed and collaboration encouraged. This area of
focus parallels the county’s System Improvement Plan which will help
guide the county’s improvement efforts.
The PQCR process occurred from April 27 -30, 2009. Two full days were
set aside for interviews. Nine interviews occurred per day for a total of
18 interviews. Additional cases were identified for purposes of backup.
A total of twelve social workers and three probation officers were
interviewed. The probation officers were interviewed twice. In addition
Contra Costa conducted 6 focus groups with foster parents, supervisors,
social workers, young teens in Specialize Placement, older teens in the
Independent Living Skills Program and with birth parents.
Rich information was gained from the PQCR process which was
ultimately crafted into detailed observations (please see section IV of the
report: Final Summary and Next Steps). The system’s strengths were
identified and recorded. Strengths of both agencies were included
(please see section III of the report: Summary of Practice).
One of the objectives of the PQCR process is to gain practice information
to guide areas to be furthered assessed in the self-assessment process.
The PQCR process uncovered challenges that social workers, probation
officers, supervisors, youth, parents, service providers and caregivers
see regarding the focus areas. This process uncovered observations
regarding practice, system, training and areas to be addressed at the
state level.
The following list identifies recommendations from the Peer Quality
Review for Children & Family Services:
• Agency-wide assessment and training focusing on valuing
permanency and the practice of concurrent planning throughout
the agency; extended for all children.
o Helping social workers have difficult conversations.
o Helping social workers work with ambivalence with foster
parents, relatives and birth parents.
o Managers and supervisors supporting permanency efforts
and working through ambivalence within the agency.
o Business processes that support continual concurrent
planning and permanency
o Make “Adoption” the goal for all children in long-term foster
care.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 7
o Consistent permanency meetings for all children detailed in
the case plans and court reports.
• Assess and integrate the Adoptions workers into the regular child
welfare continuum of practice from the beginning
o Consider a teaming process between the case carrying
social worker and the adoption’s social worker.
o Adoptions workers provide information and counsel on all
permanency options to birth parents and caregivers,
working through questions and concerns.
o Social workers work with youth’s common ambivalence
around adoption and guardianship.
• Consider offering social workers support around grief and loss
associated with recent layoffs and movement of staff positions
o Consider ways to streamline the workload so that social
workers are not experiencing strain.
• Offer relative caregivers resources and support with successfully
completing the relative assessment process
o Work with relatives on the effects of trauma on child
development and their expectations and strategies for
parenting in their home.
o Consider reviewing other county’s relative assessment and
supportive practices to get ideas for resources and support.
o Offer Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) consistently
throughout the child welfare continuum of practice.
Implement participatory case planning with parents and
children
• Examine the group home system and effective ways for moving
children toward family care and permanency
o Spot check group homes for quality of care.
• Consider offering a brief risk and safety tool that supports social
worker decision making and consistency of practice.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 8
CSA Summary Overall, Contra Costa County is performing relatively well in the area of
safety outcomes. The layoffs that occurred in January 2009 have
affected our compliance measures in this area, but luckily have not
appeared to have a significant effect upon other safety measures. The
compliance area that has seen the biggest sustained drop is timely social
worker contacts for open continuing services cases.
No recurrence of maltreatment - CFSR measure S1.1: Looking at
federal measure of no recurrence of maltreatment within 6-months of a
substantiated allegation, Contra Costa is currently performing at above
the state average and slightly over the national goal.
No maltreatment in foster care – CFSR measure S2.1: Although Contra
Costa County is performing slightly under the state average as well as
the national goal (0.2%) in this outcome area, the number of children with
a substantiated allegation of abuse or neglect is relatively small (in the
last 3 quarters examined it has hovered around 10) – although having
any children in foster care abused or neglected is unacceptable. We
have a dedicated emergency response investigator who only handles
investigations of potential abuse/neglect by substitute caregivers.
Investigations with a timely response – AB636 Measure 2B: The
process/compliance indicators 2B (percent of child welfare investigations
with a timely response) were previously included in the SIP and have
shown significant improvement (10-day referrals) until our recent layoffs.
The compliance for our immediate referrals has consistently stayed
above 90%, while our 10-day referral compliance has shown a decrease
for calendar year 2009 compared to previous years. We have, however,
shown month – to – month improvement in this area over the past 9
months, although we still need to improve in this area.
Timely social worker visits – AB636 Measure 2C: Timely social worker
visits was also a previous SIP item and the County had not completely
met the goal of having sustained compliance of 90% or greater –
although we were close. Since the layoffs in January 2009, this particular
measure has shown the greatest decline and the weakest recovery.
Even though recovery has been somewhat slow, there has been some
increase seen. For example, in December 2009, the compliance for
timely social worker visits was at 88.6% - the highest compliance seen
since November and December 2008.
A significant amount of time has been devoted to assisting staff in
effectively managing their continuing services caseloads. This includes
geographic assignments/visits, focusing upon closing cases that can
safely be completed, and the opening of a visitation center in order to
assist staff with supervised visitations.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 9
The area of permanency outcomes is a broad one and encompasses 4
federal composite outcomes and 15 distinct measures. We will discuss
each composite area in general and then get more specific by looking at
the individual measures that make up the composite. Overall, Contra
Costa County’s performance in this area is mixed. While we do well in
the areas of adoptions and placement stability, we do poorly in the long
term care composite – which examines how well a county does in
gaining permanence for youth who have been in care for an extended
period of time. In addition, our performance in the reunification composite
is mixed – we do well in keeping children from coming back into foster
care after they have reunified, but we would have to do better at getting
more children reunified within the 12 months the federal government
uses as the timeframe for timely reunifications. While the 12-month
timeline is a federal measure, the measure may not be a realistic
timeframe for the families for children to return home safely. Our single
measure in which we perform most poorly – as does the State of
California, is the C3.1, which examines the percentage of youth who
have been in care for at least 2 years who then move to permanency
within the next year.
Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of
Reunifications: The county’s performance in the 4 measures that make
up this composite are mixed. Our county does well in that our recidivism
rate for reunified children is low (C1.4). Our performance on rates of
reunification within 12 months are somewhat below the national goal –
especially when examined using an exit cohort methodology (C1.1). As
would be expected, the median time to reunification (using an exit cohort)
is longer than the national goal (C1.2). Using an entry cohort analysis
(C1.3), however, the latest available scores are nearly equal to the
national goal (i.e., 47.9% versus 48.4% reunified within 12 months of
entry). It is possible that the discrepancy between the entry and exit
cohorts are related to a relatively high number of children who do end up
reunifying – but do so slower than the 12 month timeline set by the
national government. Thus, we appear to reunify a reasonable number of
children within a year of entry (nearly equal to the national goal), and we
also reunify a significant number of children in a period of time over 12
months – thus deflating the percentages on the exit cohort analysis. Of
course, safely reunifying children is a part of our mission and even
though a large portion of those that do reunify (35-40%) do so in greater
than 12 months, it is better to safely reunify these children rather than
keep them in care. We will be looking at factors that cause children to
reunify in greater than 12 months in order to see if there is anything that
can be done to safely and legally speed up the process.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 10
Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions: This composite is
composed of 5 distinct measures related to adoptions. In general, Contra
Costa County is performing well in this composite – our composite total
score is above the national goal – as are 3 of the five measures making
up the composite (C2.1 Adoption within 24 months, C2.2 Median time to
adoption, C2.5 Adoption within 12 months if legally free). The
performance on measure C2.3 – Adoption within 12 months if a child has
been in care at least 17 months is significantly below the national
standard and the California average. This may be related to the poor
performance the County sees in its long-term care composite – which will
be discussed in the next paragraph. Contra Costa also performs poorly
on measure C2.4 which assesses the percentage of children who have
been in care for at least 17 months and who were not legally free for
adoption on the first day of the year, which then become legally free
within the next 6 months. The low percentage of children who become
legally free for adoption as measured in C2.4 is likely related to policy
which does not support moving towards termination of parental rights
unless an adoption is imminent. There is debate as to whether
performing well on this measure is in the best interest of the child and
their biological family.
Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Youth in Foster
Care: This composite is composed of 3 distinct measures related to long
term care and permanency of foster youth. This is an area in which both
Contra Costa and State of California perform poorly. As discussed earlier
in this report (see PQCR section), measure C3.1 – exits to permanency
for children who have been in care at least 24 months, is an area in
which we perform very poorly. This is related to C3.3 which examines the
percentage of youth who emancipate or turn 18 while in care that were in
foster care for 3 years or longer. Contra Costa and the state also perform
poorly in this outcome. Contra Costa does relatively well (nearly meeting
the national goal) on measure C3.2 – which examines children who were
legally free for adoption and whether they were discharged to a
permanent home prior to their 18th birthday. For example, in calendar
year 2009, there were 4 children who were legally free for adoption who
did not get discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday
(and 107 who did; county data pull).
Overall, the area of achieving permanency for children who have been in
care for a period of time is one of our highest priorities and will be
included on the upcoming SIP.
Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability: This composite is
composed of 3 distinct measures related to placement stability. Overall,
Contra Costa is doing relatively well in this area and slightly above the
national standard for the composite score using the latest data from
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 11
SafeMeasures (calendar year 2009). Contra Costa does especially well
with keeping the number of placements to 2 or less for children who have
been in care for less than 2 years (measures C4.1 and C4.2). For
children who have been in care 2 years or more, however, performance
suffers. This means that the longer children are in care the greater
number of placement moves they experience and a smaller percentage
of children have had 2 or fewer moves (national goal is 41.8% and
Contra Costa’s percentage is currently 32.6% for calendar year 2009;
county data pull).
The broad area of “well-being” outcomes is one that was added to the
areas of safety and permanence – which have long guided practice and
policy in child welfare, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997. Despite the common sense appeal of “well-being”
as an outcome, developing measureable outcomes has proven to be
difficult (see Beyond Common Sense: Child Welfare, Child Well-Being,
and the Evidence for Policy Reform, by Wulczyn, Barth, Yuan, Jones-
Harden, and Landsverk; 2005; Aldine Transaction Publishers, USA).
There are no established federal outcomes with national goals/standards
using administrative data as there are within the areas of safety and
permanence.
Despite the lack of established administrative standards, there are
several areas of child well-being we have examined and which California
has established administrative data measurement. These areas include
1) siblings placed together, timely medical and dental exams for foster
children, psychotropic medication authorizations for foster children, least
restrictive placement settings, and youth transitioning to self-
sufficiency/emancipating. We also examined ethnic disparity and
disproportionality. Similar to the State of California, Contra Costa has an
overrepresentation of African American children who are referred and
removed from their homes. We believe this is an important community
issue that deserves our attention. The data also show ethnic disparity
across a broad range of measures of children’s health and well-being
(e.g., education, incarceration) and a focus upon ethnic disparity
dovetails nicely with the probation department’s work on decreasing
disproportionate minority contacts.
Siblings placed together: Placing siblings together whenever possible is
a Bureau goal. The overall rate of placement with all or some siblings
has increased slightly over the past 5 years to just over 60%. The
placement of all siblings together has shown a similar trend and is now
over 40%. We are below the State average for both of these measures.
While the Bureau works hard at placing siblings together in care, various
factors impact our ability to improve the rate at which we do so. These
include the high cost of housing in the county and the ability of
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 12
caregivers to afford a home with extra bedrooms that can accommodate
sibling groups.
Timely Medical and Dental Examinations: Contra Costa has significantly
improved the percentage of children who receive timely medical and
dental exams according to the Child Health and Disability Prevention
periodicity schedule. This is an area we are continuing to work to
improve and have several innovative processes in place. First, there is
an MOU in place between Health Services and CFS which allows for
regular data sharing with public health - leading to increased awareness
of new foster care cases to be seen for medical and dental assessments
and treatments. Secondly, a “foster care clinic” has been running for the
past 2 years. This clinic focuses upon the needs of foster children and
allows for timely scheduling of medical exams.
Psychotropic Medication Authorizations for Foster Youth: The data for
both Contra Costa County and the State of California show an increasing
percentage of foster youth who have been authorized psychotropic
medications. While there may be an actual increase in authorizations,
some of the increase can be explained by better recording of
authorization information. For example, in Contra Costa we partnered
with our Chief Psychiatrist of Mental Health (who oversees all
psychotropic medication authorizations) and we were able to update
CWS/CMS so that it captured over 90% of the current authorizations,
compared to less than 30% (our baseline). We are continuing our quest
to fully capture all of the authorizations in a timely and accurate fashion.
We will use our current data to compare with future trends.
Least restrictive placement setting: The Bureau performs well when
examining its least restrictive setting placement rate. Contra Costa
County has a significantly higher percentage of youth initially placed in
foster homes compared to the State average, and a lower percentage
placed in group homes. In terms of a youth’s primary placement within a
reporting period, Contra Costa has a much higher percentage of youth in
Foster Homes than the State average (which has more youth in FFA’s).
The percentages for youth in group homes are approximately the same
(8%).
Youth transitioning to self-sufficiency: The Bureau’s Independent Living
Services program is a vital, dynamic program that serves a large number
of the youth eligible for services. The County’s performance on the
indicators related to ILSP services and outcomes show improvements –
although further refinement of the data is needed. ILSP data indicates a
greater number of their youth have received a High School diploma or
GED, are enrolled in higher education, are employed or have other
means of support, and have received ILSP services.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 13
Part I – CWS/Probation
A. Guiding Principles of the Systems Improvement Plan
The state of California has defined guiding principles for the Systems
Improvement Plan. The principles are:
• The goal of the child welfare system is to improve outcomes
for children and families in the areas of safety, permanency,
and well-being.
• The entire community is responsible for the child, youth and
family welfare, not just the child welfare agency. The child
welfare agency has the primary responsibility to intervene
when a child’s safety is endangered.
• To be effective, the child welfare system must embrace the
entire continuum of child welfare services, from prevention
through after care services.
• Engagement with consumers and community is vital to
promoting safety, permanency and well-being.
• Fiscal strategies must be considered that meet the needs
identified in the County Self-Assessment (CSA) and included
in the SIP.
• Transforming the child welfare system is a process that
involves removing traditional barriers within programs, within
the child welfare system, and within other systems.
Contra Costa County Children & Family Services embraces the
principles as stated. There is a long standing history in Contra Costa of
mutual respect and collaboration with partner agencies, community
organizations, foster parents, youth, families, and staff.
The participation of the all partners in the review of current child welfare
practices and identification of successes, challenges, and service gaps
has generated this Systems Improvement Plan. Partners participating in
this review and identification of performance improvement areas are
listed in the table below.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 14
In addition, follow-up meetings with staff in the Child Welfare Service
agency to seek broader input on planning strategies supported the
process.
This Systems Improvement Plan has incorporated the feedback from the
Peer Quality Review and the Self Assessment.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 15
The following table identifies staff, partners, and stakeholders invited to
participate in this process.
NAME AGENCY/DEPT PARTICIPATION
REQUIREMENT
Vern Wallace
Rich Weisgal
Mental Health
Core requirement
Michelle Williams Health Department Core requirement
Nancy Valencia
Donna Anderson
Todd Billechi
Probation Department Core requirement
Valerie Earley Children & Family Services Core requirement
Carol Carillo Child Abuse Prevention
Council, Children’s Trust Fund;
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF
Administrator
Core requirement
Rhonda Smith
Prevention/Early Intervention
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Liaison
Core requirement
Judi Knittel Parent Partner Representative Core requirement
Antoinette Harris PSSF Collaborative Core requirement
Antinette Kelly
Kareena Blackmon
Youth Representatives Core requirement
Patrick Harrington Children & Family Services Core requirement
Bryan Balch Monument Corridor
Community Partnership
Recommended
Haven Fern County AOD Recommended
Sean Casey First Five Contra Costa Recommended
B. Partners in the Performance Review and Systems
Improvement Plan Process
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 16
Devorah Levine Domestic Violence
Prevention Provider
Recommended
Pat Stroh Early Childhood Education,
Child Care
Recommended
Stephen Baiter Economic Development
Agency
Recommended
Catherine
Giacolone
Education Recommended
Pastor Perkins Faith Based Community Recommended
Bart Grossman UC Berkeley School of
Social Welfare
Recommended
Paul
Buddenhagen
Fatherhood and Healthy
Marriage Programs
Recommended
Judge Lois
Haight
Commissioner
Houghton
Judge Stark
Judge Becton-
Smith
Juvenile Court Bench
Officers
Recommended
Sam Cobb First Place for Youth –
Service Provider
Recommended
Ella Liggins DSS Regional Center Recommended
Judith Lefler
Cyndia Cole
Regional Training
Academy
Recommended
Charles Mead Court Appointed Special
Advocates
Recommended
Patricia Perkins
Richard Bell
Gloria Halverson
Ray Merrit
Neely McElroy
Lois Rutten
Division Manager - CFS Recommended
Toni Nestore Supervisor - CFS Recommended
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 17
Donna Anderson
Holliedayle
Hertwick Stefani
Thomas
Don Graves
Carl Nishi
Christian
Hutchings
Joann Lofton
Leslie Davis
Nannette Dupree
Social Worker - CFS Recommended
Cheryl Barrett Parent Partner Recommended
Brenda
Sutherland
Cynthia Wright
Rachel Foster
Analysts - CFS Recommended
C. Outcomes Selected for Performance Improvement for this SIP Period
Based upon our CSA and the development of the SIP – as described
above, we decided to focus on three areas – rather than the 11 areas
we had included on our previous SIP (see the CSA for a complete
analysis of these outcome areas and our progress). These outcome
areas for inclusion on our current SIP are:
4. Increasing timely social worker contacts (Outcome 2C)
5. Increasing the percentage of youth who have been in care at
least 2 years who exit to permanency (Outcome C3.1)
6. Decreasing the disproportionate number of African American
children who enter foster care (Systemic Outcome)
These three outcomes were considered some of the most important by
staff and our SIP team members. The PQCR helped guide us into
choosing our permanency and disparity outcomes as outcome C3.1
was the focus of our PQCR – and within this outcome itself there is
significant ethnic disparity. Ethnic disparity or disproportionate minority
contact has also been a significant issue for probation, and this
outcome dovetails nicely into their work in this area. Both ethnic
disparity of removals and outcome C3.1 are areas that the State of
California, overall, is also having difficulty with.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 18
Increasing timeliness of our monthly contacts is extremely important to
us. This marker took a big drop after the loss of approximately 1/3rd of
our staff – and the restructuring of work responsibilities (i.e., loss of the
court unit). This was an area that we had shown progress in until the
loss of staff, and even after 15 months with the reduced staff, our
compliance in this area is still not at the State goal of 90% or better.
We also believe that increasing our visits – and the quality of our visits,
can assist us in increasing permanency for children who have been in
the system for at least 2 years.
Our goal is to increase the timeliness of our social worker contacts to
over 90% - with our goal being that this is sustained throughout the
final year of the SIP. For outcome C3.1, our baseline percentage of
youth achieving permanency as measured by C3.2 is 14.2% - far
below the National Goal of 29.1%. We believe that we can make
sustained progress – with a three year positive trend and each year
showing an increase of at least 5%. For example, if there was a 5%
increase between baseline and the end of year 1, a 10% increase
between years 1 and 2, and another 10% increase between years 2
and 3, our final percentage would be approximately 18.1. Admittedly,
this is still far below the national goal, but, this is a realistic outcome.
We plan to safely decrease the incidence rate of African American
children removed from home by 5% per year. Our baseline incidence
rate is 11.4/1000 African American children removed from home for at
least 8 days. If we are able to decrease this rate by 5% per year, by the
end of the 3 year SIP our rate of removals would drop below 10/1000 –
a rate that we have never achieved. This would likely decrease the
disparity between African Americans and children of any other ethnicity
unless the rate for children of other ethnicities drops further than that of
African American children. Given, however, that the rate for children of
any other ethnicity is already just over 2/1000 – and at historical lows,
this might be difficult.
CWSIOP
Narrative
The redesign or CWSOIP funds are being used to help fund
community engagement specialists who work with families potentially
being offered diversion services through our differential response
program. In addition, the funds help pay for some of the differential
response services themselves. Finally, the funds also support the
parent partner program – which allows parents who have been
involved with child welfare at one point in their life – to help mentor
families navigate through the child welfare system.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 19
SIP Matrix
Outcome/Systemic Factor
2C Timeliness of Social Worker Contacts
County’s Current Performance
The timeliness of social worker contacts shows a somewhat similar pattern to that of the 10-day referrals.
There was a decline in January of 2009 after the loss of 36% of child welfare staff, but unlike the 10-day
referrals, the past 12 months of data do not show a significant increase. Contra Costa is at 78.7%
compliance, state average is 92.3% for the September 2009 sampling.
Improvement Goal 1
Though Contra Costa ultimately seeks to have 100% compliance in Social Worker contacts, the goal set for
this Improvement Plan period is a sustained 90% or greater compliance for at least the final year of the SIP.
We expect to see gradual improvement during the first 2 years of the SIP.
Strategy 1A
Consistently use Safe Measures and provide ongoing
training to staff and supervisors to enhance use of Safe
Measures by staff as a tool to manage caseload visits.
Strategy Rationale
Safe Measures is a desk top case management tool
available to all levels of staff. Improving use of
monitoring compliance and increasing accountability
for compliance will increase performance.
Assess the ongoing use of
safe measures by social
workers and supervisors.
Year 1 Administrative Team
Re-train all staff in the use of
safe measures to ensure they
have a full understanding of
the way the tool can assist in
managing their caseload
Year 1 ,2 & 3 Staff Development Manager Milestone Develop a recognition program
for staff and supervisors
demonstrating excellence in
ongoing visits Timeline Year 1 ,2 & 3 Assigned Research and Evaluation
Manager
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 20
Strategy 1B
Continue geographical assignments of cases. Explore
ways to support staff in reducing amount of travel while
increasing compliance in visits.
Strategy Rationale
More efficiency in scheduling continuing services
social worker contacts and referral investigations
reduces travel time allowing more time for timely and
quality contacts.
Use CWS/CMS data to
provide staff and supervisors
with a list of locations of each
staff members caseload
Year 1-3 Research and Evaluation
Manager
Assess the ability to manage
visits for out of county
placements which ensures the
primary assigned worker
completes 75% of the visits.
Year 1-3 Research and Evaluation
Manager Milestone Continue to monitor
geographic assignment and
consider refinement to
address work flow and
different requirements in
different geographic areas i.e.:
TDM, DR Timeline Year 1-3 Assigned Operational Division Managers
Strategy 1C
Train all staff on the changes to the policies regarding
face to face contacts and waivers/exceptions
Strategy Rationale
Recent federal and state law changes have occurred
which will impact the way in client contacts are
completed. Assessment and training will ensure staff
are prepared to complete and document visits.
Assess the status of current
training availability regarding
social worker contacts .
Year 1 Staff Development Manager Milestone Develop and implement
training for staff on regulations
and policies related to timely
social worker contacts. Timeline Year 1 Assigned Staff Development Manager
Run reports for supervisors
and managers detailing all the
current cases with visit
exceptions
Year 1-3 Research and Evaluation
Manager
Develop mechanism for
supervisors to work with staff
to increase the quality of the
social worker visits
Year 1-3 Administrative Team
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 21
Outcome/Systemic Factor
C3.1 Exits to Permanency (24 Months in Care)
County’s Current Performance
Performance in the July 2008 – June 2009 sampling is 14.2 %. National goal is 29.1%. Contra Costa has
recognized that this particular are represents an area of weakness. This is the area that was chosen as the focus
for our PQCR. The 10-year trend does show improvement.
Improvement Goal 2
Increase the percentage of youth reaching permanency by 5% the first year, and 10% the following years. Thus,
at the end of year 3, the % would be approximately 18.1%.
Strategy 2A
Enhance family and caregiver engagement activities
Strategy Rationale
Engaging birth families supports reunification and
facilitates discussions about other permanency
options should reunification not be effective.
Develop a training/education
plan focusing upon permanency
options and difficult dialogues –
for birth families, caregivers and
staff
Year 1 Staff Development Manager
Increase the use of team
meetings in order to enhance
permanency
Year 1 Administrative Team Milestone Fully implement the visitation
policy for parents and children
to include transitioning from
supervised to unsupervised
visitation. Timeline Year 1-2 Assigned Administrative Team
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 22
Strategy 2B
Improve provision of individualized, culturally competent
reunification services with multi-agency case
coordination.
Strategy Rationale
Families who receive culturally competent
individualized services with access to multiple support
systems will reunify faster.
Continue linkages with Cal-
Works and develop
partnerships for streamlining
specific services for families
preparing to reunify.
Year 1 Linkages Workgroup
Increase the use of wrap
around services to families by
15% per year.
Year 1 Administrative Team Milestone Continue work towards
increased cultural awareness
through use of Parent Partners Timeline Year 1-3 Assigned Administrative Team
Strategy 2C
100% of children will have at least one identified
Notification of Relative informational sent on their behalf
Strategy Rationale
Locating family and establishing connections presents
more options for permanency should reunification fail.
Develop and train a team of
staff who will be responsible for
family finding activities.
Year 2 Staff Development Manager
Maintain contract with internet
database search engine to
search for relatives and absent
parents
Year 2 Administrative Team Milestone Train staff on how to have
permanency discussions with
social work staff. Timeline Year 2-3 Assigned Staff Development Manager
Strategy 2D
Develop strategies and practice expertise in early and
continuous Concurrent Planning.
Strategy Rationale
Early review of options for concurrent planning and
continual focus on permanency will support exits to
Permanency and reduce number of children who
languish in care.
Re-train 100% of staff on the
process of concurrent planning
Year 2 Staff Development Manager
Identify challenges related to
the delay of concurrent planning
and develop a plan which will
address the challenges.
Year 1-2 Administrative Staff Milestone Measure compliance in
concurrent planning Timeline Year 3 Assigned Research and Evaluation
Manager
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 23
Strategy 2E
Engage fathers and extended families of fathers.
Strategy Rationale
Previous focus in Child Welfare has been on mothers.
Engaging fathers in both reunification planning and
other permanency options increase opportunities for
permanency as well as support child well being and
connectivity.
Develop and implement
fatherhood initiative survey
Year 1 Research and Evaluation
Manager
Use results of survey to plan
and implement trainings
Year 1-2 Staff Development Manager Milestone Measure contacts and listings
of fathers in CWS/CMS Timeline Year 2-3 Assigned Research and Evaluation
Manager
Strategy 2F
Continue providing transitioning planning meetings in
the TDM style for youth in preparation for emancipation,
including assessing educational needs of youth.
Strategy Rationale
Children continuing in education to high school
graduation or equivalency are more likely to retain
permanency in placement and have greater successes
following exit from foster care.
Develop coordinated data
exchange to supervisors and
staff regarding youth age 17 or
older
Year 1 Research and Evaluation
Manager
90% of youth exiting foster
care at the age of 17 or over
will have a life planning
meeting within 6 months of
their emancipation.
Year 2 ILSP Manager Milestone Fully utilize CWS/CMS to track
accurate educational
outcomes for youth. Timeline Year 1-3 Assigned Research and Evaluation
Manager
Strategy 2G
Increase recruitment of families that can offer
permanence to children removed from home.
Strategy Rationale
We need to have a pool of families to help children
who have been in care at least 24 months – and are
unable to reunify, the ability to achieve permanence.
Data analysis of all children
currently in care for 24 months
or longer in order to provide a
demographic profile
Year 1 Research and Evaluation
Manager Milestone Develop a plan to increase the
use of community partners and
regional offices in recruiting
families to offer permanence
for children Timeline Year 2 Assigned Administrative team
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 24
Outcome/Systemic Factor
Disproportionality/Disparity
County’s Current Performance
Contra Costa selects to continue efforts to address issues of Disproportionality and Disparity of African
American children in the following areas:
• Children entering Foster Care - There is a significant disparity between African American children
compared to children of any other ethnicity entering care. African American children are
approximately 5 times more likely to enter foster care.
• Children in Foster Care - African American youth are disproportionally represented in Foster Care
compared to their percentage in the population.
Improvement Goal 3
Reduce the incidence rate of removals for African American children by 5% per year. The baseline incidence
rate for removals of African American children is 11.4/1000. Thus, by the end of the 3-year SIP, we hope to
have the incidence rate of removals of African American children reduced to less than 10/1000 – a rate that
we have never previously achieved.
Strategy 3A
Continue efforts to support staff in culturally and
ethnically competent Family Engagement.
Strategy Rationale
Use of culturally competent engagement strategies
will assist families to build on their strengths and link
families with community leaders and resources.
Provide ongoing training for
cultural knowledge and
competence in communication
and engagement with families,
peers and community partners.
Drill down into the
individualized family culture
rather than just ethnicity/race.
Year 1 - 3 Staff Development Manager
Explore non-traditional
resources and services that are
relevant to case plan goals and
support families in attaining
goals in a manner that best
matches the cultural values of
the family.
Year 1 Administrative Team Milestone Develop conversation guides
for supervisors to lead staff in
discussions of disproportionality
at all unit and review meetings
every other month. Timeline Year 2 Assigned Operational Division Managers
Strategy 3B
Provide a forum for discussing cultural and ethnic issues.
Raise disproportionality and disparity awareness of
Social Services Staff, community and agency partners,
legal entities, and community members
Strategy Rationale
Increase the awareness of the issue of
disproportionality allows for the on-going
enhancement of knowledge regarding the youth in the
foster care system and their needs which would allow
them to remain in their family homes safely
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 25
Reconvene the Cultural
Competency Oversight
Committee
Year 1 Administrative team
Address issues of personal bias
and support staff in strength
based language in written case
documentation.
Year 2 Staff Development Manager
Present information to
mandated reports on
disproportionality and disparity
in reports of suspected abuse
to enhance awareness of how
bias may impact families
reported within in their own
organizations
Year 2 Administrative Team
Present regular data reports to
staff on the topic of
disproportionality
Year 1-3 Research and Evaluation
Manager Milestone Re-establish regular training
which addresses staff personal
biases related to poverty vs.
neglect and standards for
adequate care of children. Timeline Year 1-3 Assigned Staff Development Manager
Strategy 3C
Prior to entering care or within 7 days of being in care all
African American children ages 5 and under and their
families will be scheduled for a TDM.
Strategy Rationale
In an effort to address the disparity in African
American families being offered Family Maintenance
services the department will invite families with
children ages 5 and under to participate in a family
centered activity whose goal will be to identify
alternative safety services available to families which
allow children to remain in their family.
Continue Team Decision
Making meetings for African
American Children under the
age of 5 who are as risk of
removal or immediately
following removal
Year 1-3 Operational Division Managers,
TDM Supervisors
Review for compliance with
children eligible compared to
those served.
Year 1-3 Research and Evaluation
Manager Milestone Explore reasons why TDM’s
are not held and address
process based on outcome of
assessment. Timeline Year 1-3 Assigned Operational Division Managers,
TDM Supervisors
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 26
Develop a case review process
for African American children
who have been removed from
home Year 2-3 Operational Division Managers
Strategy 3D
Utilize feedback from consumers – parents and youth, in
order to assist in improving culturally informed services.
Strategy Rationale
We need feedback from our consumers in order to
understand their experience in being a part of our
system in order to improve our service delivery.
Develop a mechanism for
getting feedback from parents
and youth who have been
involved in our system
Year 1 Research and Evaluation
Manager and Administrative
Team Milestone Analyze information gathered
from consumers and look for
ways to improve service
delivery as well as service gaps Timeline Year 2 Assigned Administrative Team
2. CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Plan
Please reference the SIP team listing earlier in this document.
Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC)
The Director for the Child Abuse Prevention Council in Contra Costa has played an
integral part in improving the coordination of the county’s child abuse and neglect
service system, while providing the most broad-based educational programs for
professionals, service delivery staff, consumers and community residents. In addition
to being part of our SIP team, she sits as an ex officio member of the FACT
Committee (CAPC is ex officio only because the they are funded with CAPIT/CBCAP
monies and they would be in a conflict position if they were permitted to vote on the
allocation of other funds).
The Contra Costa Child Abuse Prevention Council has a long and successful history
in this county. Established in 1976, it was designated as the county’s Child Abuse
Council by the Board of Supervisors in 1982, when the Council was assigned the task
of being the Coordinating Agency of the Interagency Child Abuse System Review
Committee. It is a strong, active Council that has been instrumental in developing
numerous prevention programs and activities in the local child abuse delivery system.
They have also taken a leadership role within the California Consortium of Child
Abuse Councils and are involved in other statewide activities. Specifically, the Council
provides:
1. Coordination of Services: To facilitate coordination and communication between
public and private agencies involved in child abuse prevention/treatment.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 27
a. Child Abuse Systems Review Committee (CASRC):
CAPC serves as the coordinating agency for the CASRC, a multidisciplinary
committee to identify problems in the child abuse response system, which
hinders effective delivery of services, and to make recommendations to
improve the child abuse system in Contra Costa County.
b. Child Death Review Team
CAPC acts as the coordinating agency for the Contra Costa County Child
Death Review Team. This is a multidisciplinary team, which reviews cases of
child death for the purpose of enhanced coordination among agencies involved
in child death investigation and prosecution.
c. Multidisciplinary Training and Education Committee
The purpose of this committee is to coordinate planning and development of
regular cross training bringing law enforcement, child welfare, schools, health
and other disciplines together to improve multidisciplinary working relationships.
d. Children’s Sexual Abuse Interview Center Advisory Committee (CICAC.) CAPC
serves on the CICAC and provides the administrative support for the committee
and assistance in policy development for the effective use of the Interview
Center.
2. Information Sharing: To produce and disseminate information and materials on
child abuse prevention, reporting and treatment.
a. West County Satellite Office:
CAPC maintains a satellite office in the Richmond Police Substation as
clearinghouse for information and a base for training volunteers.
b. Surviving Parenthood Resource Directory: (attached)
A comprehensive resource directory of primary prevention and support services
throughout the County. The publication is available in multiple languages and
covers an array of services ranging from housing and shelter to childcare.
c. Baby Bag Project:
Baby bags are canvas tote bags filled with educational materials such as
“Surviving Parenthood” and “Bringing Up Baby: A Guide to Parenting” and
handouts on SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome and other parenting issues. Baby
Bags are given to every new mother delivering at Contra Costa Regional
Medical Center, Doctor’s Hospital, and Sutter Delta Hospital.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 28
d. Lending Library:
CAPC maintains a lending library including books, films, video and audiotapes,
periodicals, and educational handouts for children and adults.
e. Educational Handouts and Brochures:
CAPC develops and distributes a wide range of informational brochures and
handouts available free to the public.
f. Phone Referrals:
CAPC acts as the County’s clearinghouse for child abuse prevention
information and education responding to approximately 900 calls from
concerned community members, parents and professionals regarding
suspected cases of child abuse.
3. Public Education: Coordinate community education and training for professional
regarding child abuse prevention/treatment.
a. Community Education Program:
The Community Education Program reaches over 20,000 people throughout
the county by providing workshops and trainings and distributing Baby
Bags, bi-lingual as appropriate.
b. Multidisciplinary Training and Education Committee:
The purpose of this committee is to coordinate planning and development of
regular training for professionals in child abuse issues.
c. Annual Conference
CAPC sponsors an educational conference addressing child abuse and
domestic violence issues.
Each April, CAPC coordinates Contra Costa County’s participation in
National Child Abuse Prevention Month activities.
4. Advocacy: To advocate for child abuse prevention on the local, State and Federal
level and through program development.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 29
a. Legislative Committee:
CAPC’s Legislative Committee meets monthly to review and take action on
legislation effecting children’s issues, including the California Children and
Families First Initiative.
5. Family and Children’s Trust Fund (FACT):
CAPC acts in an advisory capacity to the FACT Committee providing
advocacy for needed services for children and families and input regarding
priorities for services to be funded by the County’s Children’s Trust Fund.
6. Special Needs Fund:
CAPC continues to maintain its Special Needs Fund to support clients of
community-based agencies and the general public by providing small cash
grants to help meet the “special needs” of families in which children may be in
jeopardy or at-risk for abuse.
Contra Costa County is fortunate to have this proactive Child Abuse Prevention
Council that has been diligent in its efforts to provide public education about child
abuse and neglect, promote the development of comprehensive services within the
county and provide a forum for the overall planning and coordination of services
through public and private providers. The Council meets monthly, with additional
meetings on an “as needed” basis.
The Following chart indicates the dollar amount Contra Costa uses from varied
sources to support our local CAPC:
FUND Dollar Amount
CAPIT $103,860
CWS $20,822
PSSF Family Support $93,556
SA HIV $93,658
Keller Canyon $44,000
Other: (State Family Preservation
Funds, Federal Grants, CWSOIP, )
$158,000
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 30
C. Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Collaborative
The Child Welfare Redesign (CWR) Steering Committee is the collaborative body that
provides oversight and direction to the county’s PSSF program. This Committee was
convened in February 2001 by Children & Family Services (CFS) from various
stakeholders comprised of community agencies (including PSSF collaborative
members), faith based community, key county officials, law enforcement, the Child
Abuse Prevention Council Director, former foster youth, and parents/consumers, to
help CFS shape its new approach to child welfare system. With the help and guidance
of the Steering Committee, CFS adopted a Child Welfare Redesign Plan, which now
puts emphasis on prevention and early intervention and promotes developing strong
partnerships with the community and sharing responsibility to child protection. Since
our PSSF services are aligned with our overall Child Welfare Redesign efforts, the
CWR Steering Committee’s role has been expanded to include the provision of
oversight to CFS related to the PSSF program.
A Contra Costa County remains committed to a high level of collaboration with its
community partners and has included a wide variety of stakeholders in the
development of its SIP, CWR and CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF plans. Moreover, local
community partnership committees comprised of individuals from local community-
based agencies, and faith-based organizations, schools, county agencies, foster
parents and parent partners/consumers, meet in each target area on a monthly basis.
These local based meetings keep the community apprised of the progress of our
overall child welfare redesign efforts, promote ongoing collaboration, and ensure that
there is an avenue in which community members can share ideas and concerns, and
work as a team towards the shared responsibility of protecting children in the
community.
Local community partnership committee members were active in the development and
implementation of the “Keeping Children Safe” survey that was conducted in 2003.
They also helped to establish the funding priorities for the CWR mini grants issued
over the past six fiscal years.
Children & Family Services has also worked closely with the First Five Commission,
the Family and Children’s Trust Fund, the Health Department’s Partnership for Public
Health, and other funders to promote coordination of local efforts and minimize
unnecessary duplication.
Our current PSSF plan builds upon the foundation that was created during the early
years of our PSSF program. As we move towards the implementation of this Plan,
Contra Costa County recognizes the need to continually employ a collaborative,
transparent and community-driven planning process.
D. County Children’s Trust Fund (CCTF) Commission, Board, or Council
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 31
In 1982, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County established the Family and
Children’s Trust Committee (FACT), to make recommendations to the Board on the
allocation of a variety of funds for prevention and intervention services to reduce child
abuse and neglect, provide supportive services to families of young children, and
promote a more coordinated, seamless system of services for families.
FACT Committee members are appointed by the Board and include private citizens
with expertise in a variety of family and children’s issues including: child welfare and
child abuse/neglect services, public health, education, substance abuse, family law,
early childhood education, mental health, and family, maternal and child health. In
addition, the Director of the Contra Costa Child Abuse Prevention Council sits as ex-
officio member of the Committee and participates in all matters except actually voting
on funding recommendations (as the Council is a FACT-funded contractor, this would
constitute a conflict of interest.) All other FACT Committee members are without any
conflict of interest in relationship to any FACT-funded community-based non-profit
agency, nor any agency that might apply for funds.
The broad areas of expertise brought by the members of the FACT Committee have
helped to ensure an unbiased, multi-disciplinary and focused approach to the planning,
coordination and funding of prevention and intervention services through community-
based agencies, and the improved functioning of the child abuse and neglect system in
the county.
Every two years, the Family and Children’s Trust Committee (FACT) conducts a
Community Needs Assessment to identify gaps in prevention services and help
determine the priorities for the use of the funds for which the Committee has
responsibility (CAPIT, CBCAP, Birth Certificate, and Trust fund donations.) This
assessment consists of an on-line survey sent to an extensive number of local non-
profit service agencies, representatives of public agency programs, community leaders,
and other private citizens to elicit their input regarding service needs.
The FACT Committee also holds well-publicized Public Hearings to encourage
interested individuals, clients, and community service delivery staff to provide in-person
testimony about needs in their communities. Phone surveys of “key community
informants” are also conducted to provide additional information about needed services
from politicians, agency staff, community-based organizations (CBO’s) and community
residents not normally involved in the county’s child abuse system.
The results of these assessments and hearings, along with information from needs
assessments done by other agencies/programs (e.g. First 5, Health Department,
United Way, etc.), are analyzed to develop the priority areas for services. Following
this priority setting, the Committee develops and releases and RFP to interested
private, non-profit CBO’s, soliciting proposals for programs addressing the priority
service areas. The Committee reviews, discusses and ranks each resulting proposal
during an open public meeting and then makes its’ recommendations to the Board of
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 32
Supervisors on the programs to be funded based on the available monies in the Trust
Fund. The final decision on program awards rests with the Board of Supervisors.
Programs are funded for one year with the possibility of continuing for a second year
pending availability of funds, adherence to all contract requirements, and evidence of
goal achievement based on data collection and twice-yearly project monitoring site-
visits conducted by FACT Committee members.
Currently, the FACT Committee makes funding recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors on the combined Child Abuse Prevention Intervention and Treatment
(CAPIT) funds, Birth Certificate revenue, Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention
(CBCAP) funds, and private donations to the county’s Family and Children’s Trust
Fund. They also are responsible for allocating a portion of the county’s childcare funds
derived from a hotel occupancy tax.
D. Parent Consumers
Understanding that parents and consumers of services provide the most tangible
evaluation of the interventions offered, we fully integrate the support of our parent and
other consumer base into all facets of our self-assessment, program design, and
service implementation. To that extent, former foster youth and parents participate in
our Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) and sit on the SIP Team Composition.
Furthermore, through a partnership with our local CAPC, we have a Parent Partner
Program. The mission of the Parent Partner Program is to help families to develop
supportive relationships that will strengthen and support parents and families involved in
the child welfare system, and to honor their ability to draw on family strengths and
resources in order to facilitate timely permanency for their children. Parent Partners are
life-trained paraprofessionals who have successfully negotiated the child welfare
system.
Over the duration of this 3-year plan, we will be exploring the viability of expanding the
Parent Partner Program to include a Youth Mentor Program. Similar to the Parent
Partners, Youth Mentors will be former foster youth who have emancipated the foster
care system. Their primary function will be to work one-on-one with current pre
adolescent and adolescent foster youth, providing peer support and information
regarding invaluable resources such as education, life skills, housing and employable
skills as the youth navigate his or her way through foster care placement and prepare
for independence. Our Parent Partner program offers a wealth of knowledge and
experience in two ways:
• As parent advocates, the Parent Partners serves as a mentor for parents currently
involved in the system.
• As parent leaders, the Parent Partners act as the “parent’s voice” as participants on
various committees and workgroups.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 33
Parent quotes:
“You have an attorney. You have a social worker. And then there’s a
judge. There’s all these people against you. They’re all sitting over here,
and you’re this little lone person sitting over here by yourself, and they’re
telling you all this stuff that you’ve been doing wrong. (Your Parent
Partner) is like that star, like that light in a bunch of blackness that you’re
like – oh, god; somebody that will help me. (She’s) here for you.” ~~Birth
Parent
“She’s like a steady rock. When we are in a difficult situation about this or
that and we want to know what we can do, she orients us” ~~Birth Parent
F.The Designated Public Agency
The Employment and Human Services Department, through the Children & Family
Services Bureau (CFS), is the county public agency designated to provide oversight for
CAPIT, CBCAP and PSSF programs.
The mission of Children & Family Services (CFS) is to protect children from abuse and
neglect and to promote the well being of children and their families. When children
cannot be cared for by their families due to safety issues, they are placed with other
families that are willing to make a lifelong commitment to them. CFS works in
collaboration with the community toward healthy independence for families and their
children.
CFS believes in the following core values:
• Children should be raised by family.
• All people should be treated with respect
• Cultural diversity should be respected.
The Child Welfare Redesign Committee and the Family and Children’s Trust Committee
also provide guidance and policy direction to CFS. CFS also has a staff person that
serves as program monitor for PSSF and CAPIT/CBCAP funded programs. The
program monitor, who serves as the liaison between the service providers and the
County, is responsible for ensuring that these programs are carried out in conformance
with state and federal regulations. Regular site visits (quarterly and/or biannually) are
conducted to ensure program compliance.
CFS formulated and adopted its existing CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF approved Plan and
vendor contracts. The Plan is a collaborative product of the county and its community
partners, and takes into account community needs assessments, child welfare statistics
and county demographics. The Plan targets areas of high-risk communities in the
county based on factors such as poverty, unemployment, school success, child health
and welfare, and child removal rates. Our services target the most vulnerable children
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 34
and families in our communities including monolingual Spanish speaking families and
foster and adoptive families.
The Plan builds upon our core vision of providing neighborhood-based services that
promote safe, stable, and healthy families and communities. In addition, this plan is
closely aligned to our Child Welfare Redesign plan (Contra Costa is one of 11 Cohort 1
counties implementing state-supported child welfare reforms), which places emphasis
on prevention and early intervention and promotes strong partnerships with the
community. The services funded are designed to offer comprehensive, community-
based, culturally competent family support that utilizes a coordinated, family-centered
approach. The prior plan included a way to respond to the widespread problem of
disproportionality among African Americans in the child welfare system by providing
intensive case management services to African American families with children 0-2
years of age throughout the County with special focus on our West County
communities. While this continues to be a focus for the county the funds which now
funds this activity is thru the use of First Five, County Trust Fund and Medi-Cal.
To avoid a break in the delivery of services to children and families, we are extending
our contracts with currently funded non-profits who were selected under the original
plan as we prepare the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, a requirement to be held
every three years. Current contracts were awarded following a strict adherence to
county RFP procedures and ensured a fair selection process. Successful bidders
demonstrated certain basic qualifications such as the ability to deliver effective,
collaborative, community-based, culturally competent services, the evidence of broad-
based community support and the ability to sustain programs through use of leverage.
We have strong collaborative with our community partners and have elected to continue
our existing contracts as we complete the RFP process. Our current community
partners have both exhibited a commitment to providing optimal services to our
communities and have maintained an exemplary compliance to our agreed upon
contracts.
Current services funded under this integrated plan include parent education and support
services, family counseling services, substance abuse prevention and intervention
services for families and/or children, community-based case management, after school
care, respite services, kinship supportive services, mentoring programs, gang
prevention services and information and referral services. Each service component has
specific goals and outcomes that are closely monitored through regular site visits,
monthly collaborative meetings and other reporting tools such as surveys and mid-
year/year-end reports. Data collected from each project during the site-visits and from
reports are compiled for county reporting purposes. The county has designated a
Liaison who is administratively responsible for the oversight, and monitoring of the
service components as well as county reporting and fiscal oversight of all
PSSF/CAPIT/CBCAP funds PSSF-Funded Projects.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 35
County data for child welfare participants is collected and compiled in our CWS/CMS
database to measure incidents of abuse and neglect. Abuse and neglect rates are
categorized according to age, race, sex, and abuse type. Through this baseline data,
zip codes in Contra Costa County with high child abuse and neglect rates were
identified and PSSF programs are located in these communities.
The PSSF collaborations are located in child welfare redesign target areas and we are
working with the county redesign data group to measure child abuse and neglect rates
over time. These rates will be analyzed in conjunction with PSSF internal outcomes,
objectives, and indicator data to make judgments on service impact and future service
delivery.
Each year, reports describing PSSF service provision and effectiveness are developed
and analyzed. These reports help explain how many people are served, how effective
services are, and how much variance there is from the previous year’s baseline data.
In addition to the data that is collected from each project during the site-visits, the
CAPIT/CBCAP projects are required to maintain accurate data to comply with the
State’s Reporting forms for these projects. Site-visit teams are responsible for
monitoring adherence to these reporting requirements during the visits.
The final report for each project is compilation of data for the two years that provides
service statistics (how many people, how many visits, etc.), data on the achievement of
specific goals that were outlined in their proposals, and anecdotal information to explain
in what ways clients have indicated their satisfaction with services and the effectiveness
of the services to ameliorate problems. All of the CAPIT/CBCAP and PSSF projects
have the ability to transmit data and information electronically.
The County’s Employment and Human Services Department has responsibility for the
fiscal oversight of these programs. Our Fiscal Unit maintains all of the financial and
accounting records (in electronic formats) related to these programs, including demands
and invoices. Separate tracking of CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF fiscal data is done by our
Fiscal Unit. Our contracts also have audit requirements that must be met by our
providers.
As we review the hard work and effort put forth since our last County System
Improvement Plan, we remain steadfast in our commitment of collaboratively working
with our community partners towards the shared responsibility of protecting our children
and building stronger communities. We are proud of the strides we’ve made through our
CAPIT, CBCAP, and PSSF programs. Through our funded services, we continue our
efforts of improving the lives of our most vulnerable children and families and effecting
positive changes that would promote stronger and safer communities in Contra Costa
County.
As the designated public agency, CFS utilizes three separate needs assessment
processes, along with recent county child removal statistics, in the development of its
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 36
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF plan. The first needs assessment used was the Community
Needs Assessment conducted by the Contra Costa Community Services Department in
July 2003. This report includes basic county demographic information, including birth
rates and county educational statistics. The second needs assessment process used
was the August 2003 Keeping Children Safe survey conducted by CFS in collaboration
with its community partners. The goal of this survey was to identify service gaps in the
specific target communities of Child Welfare Redesign. The third process utilized was
the FACT Committee’s three-part Needs Assessment. Data collected from these 3
different needs assessment were used to guide CFS in making service priorities for our
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Plan.
A. Community Needs Assessment/County Demographics
Contra Costa County’s Community Services Department conducted a needs
assessment and demographics report (based on 2000 census data) in July 2003.
While the data reflects a median family income of $73,039 - overall, the county is
economically disproportionate and divided. There are areas of great affluence as
well as many areas in the county that are extremely impoverished and have
significant problems in areas of family and community stability, low school
achievement rates, rapidly growing immigrant populations whose language is other
than English, high rates of child abuse and neglect reports and out-of-home
placements, inadequate housing and transportation, and poor perinatal and other
health outcomes. San Pablo and Richmond in West County, and Pittsburg and Bay
Point in East County are the communities in Contra Costa that have the highest
percentage of its population below the poverty level. The unemployment rate for the
county overall is 4.9% as of April 2004, with San Pablo (10%), Richmond (9.3%) and
Pittsburg (6.9%) once again having the highest level of unemployment within the
county.
Per the 2000 Census, Contra Costa County has a total population of 948,816. The
population is predominantly white (58%), followed by Hispanic (17%), Asian (11%)
and African American (9%). Less than 1% of the population is Native American.
Although whites make up about 60% of the county’s population, they constitute only
46% of the child population. This trend is reversed in the Hispanic population due to
a higher birth rate – they constitute 18% of Contra Costa’s population but 25% of the
child population. The Hispanic community is fast growing in Contra Costa and if
State projections hold true, Hispanics will make up 40% of the county’s population
by 2050 (as per California Department of Finance projections). The Monument
Corridor in Central County is the area that has the highest concentration of
Hispanics in the county.
The 2000 census also shows there were 251,794 children between the ages of 0-17.
Of this number, close to 10% are living in poverty. 19,082 of the children are 0-5
living in very low-income household. Upwards of 44,000 children in the county
qualify for free or reduced lunches. Contra Costa ranks 47th in highest rate of child
poverty out of the 58 counties of California.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 37
The county experiences approximately 13,000 births per year. Of these, an average
of 613 are to teen mothers, (28.4 per thousand) 5,121 to first-time parents (40% of
all births,) 858 are low birth-weight babies (6.6% of all births,) and 1508 mothers
received no or only 3rd trimester prenatal care.
As the children age, additional poor outcomes are prevalent. The dropout rate for
children in grades 9-12, is 6.4% with the heaviest concentration of dropouts in the 8
specific zip codes that correspond to the target areas for the Plan.
B. 2003 Keeping Children Safe Survey
Contra Costa is one of 11 Cohort 1 counties in the state that has implemented
significant state-supported child welfare improvements through our Child Welfare
Redesign Plan. The plan calls for early intervention and prevention services and
building strong communities in the targeted areas (by zip codes) through community
partnership. In August 2003, CFS, in collaboration with our community partners,
conducted a Family-to Family community needs survey to identify service gaps in
the target communities of Child Welfare Redesign. The survey, of which 60% was
administered door to door in the respondent’s native language, was conducted in
West County (Richmond 94801,94804 and San Pablo 94806), Central (Monument
Corridor 94518,94519,94520) and East County (Antioch 94509 and Pittsburg
94565). The intent of the survey was to identify the types of services families
currently use, what services they believed that “families needing help with children”
might need, what services were lacking in the community. It also identified types of
barriers families had accessing needed services. There were 2,165 survey
respondents.
More than 70% of the survey respondents were women. In terms of ethnicity, the
majority of West County respondents (58%) were African American, while the
majority of respondents in Central County (89%), Antioch (68%) and Pittsburg (44%)
were Hispanic. The survey results illustrate the unique service needs in each area of
the County. For example, in West County, alcohol and drug prevention services,
after school care, and gang violence prevention/intervention ranked among the top
service needs identified by families. In Central County, English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes, after school childcare and mental health services were the
top service needs. In East County, respondents identified alcohol and drug
prevention services, after-school childcare and gang intervention, as the services
families needed most. In Central County and East County (which both have a high
number of Hispanic families), language was identified as the top barrier to accessing
services.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 38
C. Child Removal Rates By Zip Code
In terms of child welfare statistics, there were 9,848 unduplicated counts of child
abuse/neglect reports in 2003 and of this number, close to 2,000 were substantiated.
In that same year, 843 children entered a child welfare supervised placement for the
first time. East County had the highest number of child abuse and neglect referrals in
2003, with Antioch (zip code 94509) leading at 1,230 and Pittsburg (zip code 94565)
at 1,187. West County followed with Richmond (zip codes 94801 and 94804
combined) at 1,302 and San Pablo (94806) at 640. Concord’s Monument Corridor
came third with a total of 1,013 referrals (zip codes 94518, 94519, 94520 combined).
In 2009 there were 7610 unduplicated counts of child abuse/neglect reports. In that
same year, 647 children began receiving child welfare supervised services for the
first time. The children and families receiving services continue to come from the
area’s targeted in the 2003 report with a shift in the percent from each area served.
In 2009 46% of the families live in the eastern part of the county with our central
county region serving 29% and west serving 25%.
Results of the Needs Assessments: PSSF Service Priorities
Based on careful analysis of the aforementioned assessments, we have established
funding priorities for comprehensive, culturally competent family support services that
may include:
Increased linkage to community resources including housing, childcare, health
services
Case management services for at-risk families
After-school resources
Teen programs including drop in centers, mentoring, and gang prevention
Parent education
Supportive services for relative caregivers and adoptive families
Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) prevention/education
Mental Health services
Domestic violence/anger management services
In the target areas of:
Richmond and San Pablo (zip codes 94801 and 94804)
San Pablo (zip code 94806)
Concord (Monument Corridor zip codes 94518,94519,94520)
Pittsburg and Bay Point (within zip code 94565)
Antioch (within zip code 94509)
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 39
Results of the Needs Assessments: CAPIT/CBCAP Service Priorities
The results of the FACT Committee’s needs assessments (see page 6 for a description
of the process) is the basis for development of the priorities for services. These priorities
are reviewed and further refined by the Family and Human Services Committee of the
Board of Supervisors to ensure their congruence with county policies.
Following this priority setting, the Committee develops and releases an RFP to
interested private, non-profit, community-based organizations soliciting proposals for
programs addressing the priority service areas. The Committee reviews, discusses and
ranks each resulting proposal during an open public meeting and then makes its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on the programs to be funded based on
the available dollars within the four funding streams. The final decision on program
awards rests with the Board of Supervisors.
Programs are funded for one year with the possibility of continuing for a second year
pending availability of funds, adherence to all contract requirements, and evidence of
goal achievement based on data collection and twice-yearly project monitoring site-
visits conducted by FACT Committee members
The most recent needs assessment was completed in the late winter of 2008. Following
analysis of all the surveyed information, an RFP was released in March 2009 to solicit
proposals from community-based agencies countywide.
The funding priorities for the RFP derived from the needs assessment were:
Culturally and linguistically appropriate, evidence-based parent education
programs in two high-risk areas of the county;
Supportive group, individual and peer-led counseling for families with children
who have developmental, physical and low-incidence disabilities;
Bilingual/bicultural case management, counseling and parent education services
for Spanish, Farsi, Bosnian and Russian speaking families;
Case management, group counseling, resiliency training and child therapy for
children and families impacted by sexual assault and family violence;
Educational, supportive and therapeutic services to children of substance-
abusing parents and their families;
Parenting and life skills education, mentoring/tutoring, child care and health
education to teen parents that encourages continued school enrollment,
understanding child development and the adoption of positive parenting
practices;
Hospital outreach and engagement services to enroll high-risk families in
coordinated home visiting programs immediately after the birth of their child.
In addition to these specific priorities, the FACT Committee requires that all projects
integrate the following principles into their projects:
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 40
1. Adopt a strong family-centered approach in the design and delivery of services
for families and children.
2. Apply best and promising practices in program design, methodology, and
delivery of services.
3. Demonstrate planning and coordination with other public and private agencies
serving the same client population.
4. Provide access to culturally and linguistically appropriate client-driven
services.
5. Systematically encourage client and community resident participation in
planning, developing and assessing services.
6. Facilitate accessibility of services (location, transportation, hours of operation,
availability of childcare, etc.)
7. Leverage FACT funds with funding from other sources.
G.The Role of the CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Liaison
CFS has designated a program monitor who serves as the liaison to ensure that all
program, fiscal, and statistical requirements are met in a timely manner. In addition to
other assigned duties, the liaison is responsible for the RFP process, the creating and
monitoring of contracts, routine site visits, contractual compliance, data collection and
analysis, and preparing and submitting all required state mandated reports.
Additionally, the liaison sits on the FACT Committee as a staff person overseeing
CAPIT and CBCAP funding compliance. In this role, the liaison is also responsible for
reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors and the Family and Human Services
Committee in regards to funding priorities, committee membership, and budget review.
PSSF collaborative agencies meet with the program monitor every month to review
progress towards achievement of program goals and work on any plan amendments
that may be needed. The program monitor also ensures that required data collection is
done properly and consistently, and that providers comply with the reporting
requirements of their contract. The program monitor also provides technical and fiscal
assistance and is responsible for the overall program coordination and preparation of
required reports.
The program monitor works with the FACT Committee who has developed a
monitoring/evaluation and project oversight plan for all of the FACT-funded projects (not
only CAPIT/CBCAP) whereby each project receives site-visits by a team of FACT
Committee members and provides significant outcome and process data during the
course of their project. There are two site-visits conducted in the first year to ensure
projects have been able to implement their new services according to the agreed upon
timetable. This allows FACT committee members to provide technical assistance, if
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 41
required, before any problems/issues can escalate and jeopardize the success of the
programs.
In the second year of funding, only one site-visit is conducted because the Committee
spends such a significant amount of time on the Needs Assessment process and
developing the RFP for the next two-year funding cycle. However, in lieu of a second
site-visit, each project is required to submit a comprehensive final project report for the
entire funding period (two years).
To ensure that each project receives the same careful monitoring, the FACT Committee
has developed a specific instrument that is universally used during the site-visits. Each
Project Director submits the completed form prior to the site-visit so the Team has time
to review it, note any questions, and then use the questionnaire to structure the
conversation with all of the staff of the project. This approach has worked well for FACT
and the site-visit teams have often been able to provide significant technical assistance
before any problems serious barriers to goal achievement.
I. Local Agencies – Request for Proposal
PSSF: During this Plan (FYs 2010-2011), Children and Family Services will continue
to deliver PSSF services under the existing PSSF collaborative agencies. These
contractors were selected through a competitive bid process - Request for Proposal
(RFP) # 1085 in March 2006. In 2009, understanding that the CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF
plan would be integrated into our county System Improvement Plan, we elected to
extend all existing contracts under the plan to be in sync with the SIP. At this time, we
are extending said contracts for an additional fiscal year as we begin the new RFP
process that reflects the areas of improvement as identified in our County Self
Assessment.
The previous RFP reflected program/service delivery changes that complemented our
original SIP and CWR plans, as well as, better streamlined our combined funding
allocation for CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF.
The following activities were conducted in preparation for the issuance of the RFP:
1. Updated the 2003 Keeping Children Safe Survey to ensure that the results were still
current and relevant in the target communities.
2. Collected updated data regarding CFS child removal rates.
The results of the aforementioned activities, along with our CWR goals and basic
service tenets, provided the foundation for our RFP. As in the past, successful bidders
were expected to demonstrate the following:
1. Ability to deliver collaborative, community-based family support services that are
culturally competent and sensitive;
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 42
2. Effective programs in child abuse and prevention that offer a strong family-centered
approach in the design and delivery of services for families and children;
3. Ability to leverage PSSF funds with other public or private funding sources;
4. Capability to transmit data electronically and provide meaningful evaluation using
specific and measurable outcomes;
5. Active involvement within the CWR target area and evidence of broad-based
community support;
6. Sound fiscal practices and procedures.
With strict adherence to county RFP procedures (in terms of publishing, conducting
mandatory bidders’ conference, selecting review panel members, evaluating proposals)
the RFP was an open and fair process. At least one of our parent partners and a
community member (who has no conflict of interest) was invited to sit on the
independent review panel. The successful bidders were recommended for funding to
our Board of Supervisors, after which individual contracts were awarded. Programs
were funded for one year with the possibility of renewal pending availability of funds,
adherence to all contract requirements, and evidence of goals achievement.
As we move forward with our new RFP process, we will conduct a comprehensive
process that mimics prior processes.
CAPIT/CBCAP: Please refer to pages 18-20 of this Plan (CAPIT/CBCAP Needs
Assessment: Priorities for Service) for discussion of CAPIT/CBCAP RFP process.
Based on the RFP process concluded in 2009, six projects were awarded contracts for
FY 2009-2010. These projects are eligible for a second year of funding pending
availability of funds, adherence to all contract requirements and achievement of stated
goals per their proposals.
Another RFP cycle, beginning with a new needs assessment process, will be
undertaken beginning fall, 2010.
J. CBCAP Outcomes
Each of the CAPIT/CBCAP projects has specific goals and objectives identified in their
contracts. These short term, intermediate and long-term goals as well as specified
measurement and data collection plans. Goal and outcome achievement are monitored
by the FACT committee via reports, site-visits, and survey data collection (e.g.
satisfaction surveys.) Our specific CAPIT/CBCAP services goals and outcomes are as
follows:
i. Engagement: Through our multiple collaborations and contracts with Community
Partners, Contra Costa County strives for optimal client participation and
satisfaction. Through pre and post tests, and client satisfaction surveys, programs
are evaluated to determine the following:
• 100% Client satisfaction
• 95% Client voluntary participation
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 43
• Increased outreach efforts
• Client expressions of trust of service providers and programs that are both
readily accessible and culturally sensitive
ii. Short –Term Outcomes: Through our extensive contract monitoring and site visit
process, Contra Costa County ensures that PSSF/CAPIT/CBCAP funded programs
are carried out in conformance with state and federal regulations and program
compliance. The short term goals for Contra Costa County are as follows:
• Improved self-esteem
• Improved academic performance
• Improved confidence in parenting and coping skills
• Better awareness of positive discipline techniques
• Better awareness of community resources
• Recognition of personal responsibility
• Increased awareness and education of community/health related issues
• Increase awareness of domestic violence
• Increase in personal leadership skills
• Increase in housing acquisition skills
• Increase awareness of adoption related topics including but not limited to
PTSD, attachment, family violence and child development
• Increase awareness of child abuse and neglect
• Increase understanding of the disease of addiction and the impacts of alcohol
and drug abuse
iii. Intermediate Outcomes:
• Increased use of community resources
• Increased awareness of domestic violence, family violence and abuse and
participants ability to create safety plans
• Increased positive conflict resolution skills
• Increased family functioning
• Increased social functioning and basic life skills
• Increased physical fitness/activity levels
• Increased collaborative efforts between community partners/service providers
• Increased family connections to multiple family activities
• Decrease instances of alcohol and illegal substance abuse Increased
academic success and rates of high school graduations
• Decreased truancy and school drop-out rates
iv. Long-Term Outcomes:
• Decreased instances of community violence/gang involvement
• Decreased instances of domestic violence, child abuse and neglect
• Decreased instances of family isolation
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 44
• Decreased rates of teen pregnancy
• Affordable housing for at risk families
• Healthy and stable family lifestyles
• Stable and permanent adoptions
• Improved employment rates and decreased rates of poverty
• Improved community based support networks for families
• Increased healthy development and self-sufficiency into adulthood
• Increased coordination and integration of contractor services to improve
family stability and prevent child abuse and neglect
K. CBCAP Peer Review Activities
The county has a rigorous evaluation system for all of the CAPIT/CBCAP, Birth Certificate,
and private funds that are placed in the County’s Children’s Trust Fund. The funds are
blended to achieve maximum impact form the services, and are all monitored by the FACT
Committee. Likewise, the FACT Committee has developed an evaluation system over the
years that both tracks goal achievement of individual projects, but also identifies needs for
technical assistance to minimize lack of goal achievement.
Specific peer review activities will include the utilization of the county’s collaborative of
community partners representing multidiscipline’s across the county as well as parent and
other consumers. The collaborative will also serve as a vehicle whereby CBCAP funded
projects and their impacts on the community are reviewed.
L. Service Array
The combined CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF funded programs are supporting an array of programs
designed to provide prevention and intervention services to reduce child abuse and
neglect, provide supportive services to families of young children, promote the overall well-
being for children and their families, and promote a more coordinated, seamless system of
services for families.
The determination of funding services is predicated on the participation and collaboration of
a vast number of professionals, agency/program staff, service providers, community
residents, consumers, and the general public. The various needs assessment processes
that we conduct and utilize are carefully constructed and implemented to ensure that the
largest number of respondents will participate and that the most accurate information is
achieved. In addition, in order to foster a completely unbiased and information-driven RFP
process, the county uses only the information from its extensive needs assessments to
develop funding priorities and the consequent service delivery.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 45
M. CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Services and Expenditure Summary
Please see attached worksheets.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 46
Appendix 1.
FACT Committee Membership
The following FACT Committee members were involved in the needs assessment process,
priority setting, and competitive bid processes.
1. Vacant; Chairperson
2. Naomi Zipkin: (nzip@prodigy.net) Child development specialist; early childhood
education consultant.
3. Marianne Gagen: (mgagen@pacbell.net) South County Board of Education.
4. Lisa Johnson: (lrjohnson@firstfivecc.org) Contract manager, First 5 Contra Costa
5. Carol Carrillo: (capccarol@sbcglobal.net) Executive Director, Contra Costa Child
Abuse Council.
6. Belinda Lucey: (blucey35@earthlink.net) Education specialist.
7. Mary Calvo: (mcalvo3@gmail.com) Education.
8. Cheryl Barrett: (cbarrett1@ehsd.cccounty.us)Parent Partner, Child Abuse Prevention
Council
9. Rhonda Smith: (smithr@ehsd.cccounty.us) EHSD Staff for Committee
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 47
Appendix 2. CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Services and Expenditure Summary
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Program Description
Description of Current PSSF-Funded Services for FYs 2010-12
The following service information relates to those PSSF projects that will be funded in FYs
2010-12, during the current SIP cycle. The PSSF target population includes: children at risk of
child abuse and neglect (in particular, children under the age of 5); low-income and/or at-risk
families; families impacted by domestic violence; at-risk children and teens; special needs
children; low-income and/or at-risk Spanish speaking families; children in foster care or out-of-
home placements; relative caregivers; adoptive children and their families.
Below is a list of PSSF services that will be funded under this Interim Plan. All of these
services are wholly or partially funded by PSSF dollars.
1. Collaborative Projects
Pittsburg/Antioch (East County)
The Healthy Families Collaborative: Brighter Beginnings as the lead agency, One
Day at A Time, Success Through Self Academy, and First Baptist Church.
ose of Program:
To provide a comprehensive, community-based continuum of services for low-
income, at-risk families, children and youth residing in Pittsburg and Antioch.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth residing in our East County
areas including minority populations, children with special needs and their
families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of
14.
ces:
Mentoring services, gang and violence prevention support and parenting
education classes
Recreational scholarships to low income families and at-risk children
After school tutoring and mentoring services
Housing referral and case management
Family Support, Advocacy and Referral Services
Summer youth program
Leadership training to community via an after school program specifically for
teens
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 48
Bay Point (East County)
Bay Point Teen Center and Project Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) :
Ambrose Community Center as the lead agency, Youth Development Leadership
Corps, Mt. Diablo Unified School District CARES after-school program.
ose of Program:
Bay Point Teen Center is a program that provides Bay Point teens an array of
services including youth development, mentoring, tutoring, and leadership
opportunities for low-income Bay Point youth between the ages of 12-18 years.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk youth residing in our East County areas including minority
populations, youth with special needs and their families, youth at high risk of
abuse and neglect.
Services:
Recreational scholarships to low income families and at-risk children
Youth leadership training
Spanish Parenting classes
After-school program
Richmond (West County)
The Neighborhood House of North Richmond/Helms Middle School
Collaborative: Helms Middle School as the lead agency and Neighborhood
House
Purpose of Program:
Integrates community-based case management services to both at-risk for
truancy and truant students and their families, providing supportive services such
as parenting workshops and food and/or housing referral assistance, and
individual and/or group counseling services.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth residing in our West County
areas including students who are truant or at-risk of truancy, minority
populations, children with special needs and their families, children at high risk of
abuse and neglect, and children under the age of 14.
Services:
Parenting workshops
Individual and group counseling
Tutoring and academic support
Food and/or housing referral assistance
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 49
North Richmond (West County)
North Richmond collaborative: Center for Human Development as lead, Neighborhood
House Multicultural Senior Center and the City of Richmond Public Library/LEAP
Purpose of Program:
To provide services that strengthen and support children and their families
(including foster and adoptive children and their families) who are primarily from
North Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo.
Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth residing in our West County
areas including minority populations, children with special needs and their
families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of
14.
Services:
Mentorship/academic support for grades 4-6 Verde Elementary school
students (Verde placed in the lowest percentile in standardized testing among
state schools)
Mentorship program by seniors for at-risk youth (many are foster youth)
Gang prevention services*
After-school care and recreational activities for low-income children and youth
Job Readiness training
Family Support, Advocacy and Referral Services
KidzLit academic reading program
Richmond-Coronado Area (West County)
The Greater Coronado All That collaborative: YMCA of the East Bay as lead, Early
Childhood Mental Health, Family Stress Center, and West Contra Costa Youth Services
Bureau
se of Program:
Through multiple programs, the collaborative provides services to assist teen
youth as they transition into adult, support the social and educational
development of children from low income families, and offer a therapeutically-
focused psycho-educational group for mothers of children preschool age and up
who are experiencing difficulty with parenting.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 50
Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth residing in our West County
areas including minority populations, children with special needs and their
families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of
14.
Services:
Support group for expelled students
Gang prevention services
Mentorship/support program for teen girls
Therapeutic services for violence-exposed children
Parenting classes
After school care and recreational activities for low-income children and youth
Therapeutic support group for Spanish-Speaking first time mothers via the
“Ser Mama” program
Therapeutic support group for grandparents and relative caregivers
Concord(Central County)
Monument Community Partnership Collaborative: The Monument Community
Partnership Collaborative and STAND! Against Domestic Violence as the lead
agency
ose of Program:
To provide comprehensive services to monolingual, low-income, at-risk families,
children and youth residing in Central Costa County.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth residing in our Central County
areas including minority populations, children with special needs and their
families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of
14.
Services:
Teen mentoring program
Immigration supportive services
Parenting Education classes
Spanish Speaking Domestic Violence support groups
Domestic violence awareness and support
2. Community-Based Case Management Services - Differential Response Services
provided by Multiple (8) faith and Community Based Organizations throughout the
County
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 51
ose of Program:
To provide preventative community-based case management services in phase-
in areas for families with children under five at-risk of entering the Child Welfare
System. Families are linked to community case management services to help
them secure needed services, enhance family functioning and avoid further need
for CFS involvement. Differential response serves families living in the
communities with the highest rate of child abuse/neglect referrals.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth, including minority populations,
children with special needs and their families, children at high risk of abuse and
neglect, and children under the age of 14.
3.Intensive Family Preservation Services - EMQ/FamiliesFirst
ose of Program:
The Intensive Family Preservation Program provides ongoing case management
services that engage and establish a positive rapport with families who have
been referred from existing Child Welfare cases who are experiencing multiple
stressors impacting their ability to parent effectively and who are consequently at
risk of having their children placed in out of home care. Services include but are
not limited to: case management, psychosocial assessments, family needs
assessments, and twenty-four (24) hours emergency response.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth, including minority populations,
children with special needs and their families, children at high risk of abuse and
neglect, and children under the age of 14.
4. Parent Partner Services - Child Abuse Prevention Council
Purpose:
To help families to develop supportive relationships that will strengthen and
support parents and families involved in the child welfare system, and to honor
their ability to draw on family strengths and resources in order to facilitate timely
permanency for their children. Parent Partners are life-trained paraprofessionals
who have successfully negotiated the child welfare system.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth, including minority populations,
children with special needs and their families, children and families who are
involved with child welfare due to abuse and or neglect.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 52
5.Kinship Services - EMQ/Families First as lead agent, Family Stress Center, and
Youth Services Bureau
Purpose:
To provide community based support services to relative caregivers so that
children can remain with their extended families and avoid placement in the
foster care system. Services include: respite care, therapeutic support groups,
educational forums, tutoring for children, case management, recreational
activities for caregivers and youth, limited emergency assistance, and legal
services including guardianship applications
Target Population:
Children and youth placed in out-of-home care and their relative care providers,
including low-income families, minority populations, children with special needs
and their families, children under the age of 14.
6. Adoption Services – Family Stress Center, Freddie Sharp, and S. Farnum-Sholer
Purpose:
To provide an array of support services to children and their adoptive families,
during and after the adoption process. Services include educational advocacy
and support services (including referrals to tutoring and other special educational
needs), mediation services and access to support groups and adoption resource
centers.
Target Population
Children and youth placed in out-of-home care and may be or are in the process
of becoming adopted and their families, including low-income families, minority
populations, children with special needs and their families, children under the age
of 14.
7. Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention Education and Awareness Services:
Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC)
ose of Program:
To improve the coordination of the county’s child abuse and neglect service
system and would also provide the most broad-based educational programs for
professionals, service delivery staff, consumers and community residents.
et Population:
Education, awareness and outreach efforts are for the general population
including education and supportive services to help low-income, at-risk families,
including minority populations, children with special needs and their families,
children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of 14.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 53
Services:
The coordination of services and communication among public and private
agencies involved in child abuse prevention
The coordination of community education and training for professionals
regarding child abuse prevention/treatment
Advocating for needed changes in existing services and/or the addition of
services to promote child abuse prevention/treatment
Dissemination of materials relating to child abuse and neglect
Promoting the coordination of child abuse prevention/treatment programs in
obtaining funding limited to generic programs rather than to specific agencies
Maintaining a library related to child abuse for use by professional and
general public
Advocacy on local, state and federal levels for legislative changes to promote
child abuse prevention/treatment
Collaboration with the Welcome Home Baby Program and the First 5 Contra
Costa Commission
Description of Current CAPIT/CBCAP Funded Services for FYs 2010-12
Following completion of the competitive bid process, the Board of Supervisors accepted all of
the funding recommendations put forward by the FACT Committee to be funded by
CAPIT/CBCAP. The Family and Children’s Trust Committee continues to oversee, monitor,
and provide technical assistance to the projects, all of which are designed to provide
prevention and early intervention services to isolated and at-risk families of young children, are
wholly or partially supported with the CAPIT/CBFRS funds. Each is described below.
Ujima Family Recovery Services
The Children’s Recovery and Education Project
ose of Program:
To provide intensive services to children ages 6 to 16 who have been affected by
parental substance abuse issues, and also provide services to their families,
including foster and kinship families.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children and youth of substance abusing parents,
including minority populations, children with special needs and their families,
children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of 14.
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 54
Services:
Kids’ Groups and Teen Groups
Individual and Group Counseling
Parenting Education classes and Multifamily Groups
Resource and Information Referral
Community Violence Solutions
Nurturing Families After Violence
Purpose of Program
To contribute to the overall well-being of children who have been sexually
abused and/or impacted by family violence by: 1) assisting children in healing
from the trauma through therapeutic interventions, 2) assisting parents to build
parenting skills, and 3) addressing obstacles to family stability through case
management. This combination of services promotes healing for the child while
also building parents’ skills and stability to nurture their child and support their
healing.
et Population:
Children who have been sexually abused or impacted by other forms of family
violence, including low-income, at-risk families, minority populations, children
with special needs and their families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect,
and children under the age of 14.
Services:
Case management services
Trauma Focused therapy
Resource and Information Referral
Contra Costa Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC), CARE Parent Network
Parent Connections III
Purpose of Program
To provide services to families with children who have developmental, physical
and low-incidence disabilities by training peer facilitators, operating nine support
groups throughout the County, including a parent education class for Spanish-
speaking parents, providing individualized support to families in need, and
educating the larger community about the care options for families whose
children have disabilities
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 55
et Population:
Families with children who disabilities, including low-income, at-risk families,
minority populations, children with special needs and their families, children at
high risk of abuse and neglect, and children under the age of 14.
Services:
Case management services
Peer support groups
Parent Education classes
One-on-one support
Community outreach
Resource and Information Referral
Jewish Family and Children’s Services of the East Bay
The Multilingual Family Support Program
ose of Program:
To provide comprehensive multicultural prevention and intervention services for
new refugees and immigrants identified as at-risk or with a history of child abuse
and/or neglect. Services will be targeted primarily at the immigrant populations in
the Latino, Afghan, Russian and Bosnian communities with the intent to improve
family functioning within refugee and immigrant families at risk of child abuse or
neglect and family dysfunction, or who have actual incidents of child abuse
and/or neglect.
et Population:
New refugee and immigrant families identified as at-risk or with a history of child
abuse and/or neglect including low income families, children and youth of
substance abusing parents, including minority populations, children with special
needs and their families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children
under the age of 14.
Services:
Bilingual/bicultural can management services
Individual and Family Therapy
Multilingual school/family interventions
Parenting Education and Support groups
Multilingual Resource and Information Referral
Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Crossroads High School Teen Program
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 56
Contra Costa County SIP – April 2010 57
ose of Program:
To provide supportive services to pregnant and parenting teens on the Crossroad
High School Campus of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. The services
address the emotional, social and academic needs of the students and their
children through the provision of counseling in English and Spanish, reading
enrichment, parenting support and education, quality child care while the teens
are attending classes, and life skills/self-sufficiency planning and development
activities.
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, children of teen parents, including minority
populations, children with special needs and their families, children at high risk of
abuse and neglect, and children under the age of 14.
Services:
Daily Child Care
Individual and Group Counseling
Parenting Education classes and Multifamily Groups
One-on-One Tutoring and Mentoring Services
Resource and Information Referral
Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC)
Nurturing Parenting Program
ose of Program:
To provide multilingual, culturally relevant parent education classes for families
at-risk of child abuse/neglect, the agencies
et Population:
Low-income, at-risk families, including minority populations, children with special
needs and their families, children at high risk of abuse and neglect, and children
under the age of 14.
Services:
Multilingual, culturally relevant parenting education classes
Resource and Information Referral