Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01112005 - SD.6 URB AN NMES LEGISLATIVE UPDATE CAUCUS January 10, 2005 Schwarzenegger as Surgeon - A Budget to Save the Patient Saying that "Last year's Budget stepped the bleeding, but now we need to save the patient," Governor Schwarzenegger submitted his second State Budget to the Legislature today. It is a plan that would spend$3.2 billion more than in the current year, but would close a gap of$8.5 billion that would otherwise occur without cuts and borrowing. The gap is essentially the difference between the workload budget--the expenses required under current law($92.6 billion) --and the available resources ($84.2 billion). It is created by an operating deficit in 2004- 05 of$1.7 billion, a gap of$5.2 billion between the+grc th in mandated expenditures and estimated revenue, the fact that last year's Budget included the one-time use o€$2 billion in Economic Recovery Bonds, and other holes in the State's pockets. Haw does the Administration propose to close the gap? By reducing Proposition 98 spending increases by $2.3 billion, issuing$1.7 billion in unused Economic Recovery Bonds authorized by the voters last year, and making a series of program cuts and suspensions. The Governor cited the goad news that state:venues are up about.$5:billion, and the economy continues its slow and now "manure" recovery. However, he continually noted that the current formula problems "make us spend more than we have." He reiterated numerous times his intent to reform the system so that "California can live within its means." He called for"big ideas, big reforms, and big solutions." His: said that he has had conversations with the legislative leaders and they are ready and willing to work with him to achieve this goal--"there is a good tune in the capitol." The tenor of today's presentation was conciliatory•- in sharp contrast to the insinuations during last Wednesday's State of the State speech that if the Legislature didn't respond to his wishes with haste he would leave them in the dust and go directly to the voters. Following the Governor's remarks, new Department of Finance Director Tom Campbell provided a few more specifics regarding the Governor's proposal and teak questions from reporters. One of his most notable responses came when asked about the possibility of new revenues and he replied, "Don't take any means of solving the problem aff the table." He prefaced the remark with a comment, however, that he personally was not suggesting tax increase. Key components in the Administration's plan to bring spending in line with revenues include those listed below, many of which are significant to counties. This is by no means a comprehensive list since our goal is to limit this epistle to two pages, but it is representative of the major proposals in the Governor's Budget. -Suspend Proposition 42 to save $1.3 billion. -Continue the $1.3 billion local government contribution to the State's Budget, as agreed in negotiations on Proposition 1A last year. -in CalWORKS, cut grants by 6.5 percent, suspend the July 1, 2005 cost of living adjustment (COLA), and reduce the earned income disregard to save $449 million. Further, strengthen work requirements and pay counties based on performance. -Save $280 million in Medi-Cal by maximizing federal revenue through a fund shift in prenatal care, redirecting Proposition 99 funds, and redesigning Medi-Cal ($12 million this year). -Capture $259 million in Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) savings by foregoing the January 1, 2008 State and federal COLAs. -Reduce State spending on In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) by $195 million by rolling back the State's share Iof eny wages and benefits to a maximum of the minimum wage ($6.75 per hour). The Administration suggests that counties can reinvest the $112 million in 2004-05 savings and $93 million in 2005-06 savings that they gained from the IHSS waiver granted by the federal government last year if they want to maintain higher IHSS wages. *Switch support for local probation activities from General Fund to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Federal TANF) but maintain the same level of funding as in earlier years. -Reduce Department of Corrections inmate and parolee programs by $95.3 million. -Cut Local Juvenile Justice grants by$75 million and have the Board of Corrections distribute the remaining $25 million to counties. -Reduce the States contribution to the State Teachers Retirement System by $469 million and transfer this responsibility to the school districts or teachers. -Save $296 million by requiring state employees to fund more of their retirement costs and $112 million by authorizing the Governer to furlough state employees for up to five days, by eliminating two state holidays, by changing how overtime is calculated, and by reducing the State's contributions to its employees' health benefits. -Reduce the Senior Citizen Renters Tax Assistance Program for a savings of$100 million and eliminate the Senior Citizens' property Tax.Assistance Program while expanding the Senior Citizens' Property Tax Deferral Program for about $35 million in additional savings. Eliminate the Small/Rural Sheriffs' Program to save $18.5 million. -Reduce .support of the county Property Tax Administration Grant Program by $5.6 million. -Suspend most state mandates, including AB 3632 meatal health services for special-ed kids. While many of the reductions that the Administration proposes will help address the structural deficit, the Governor is also proposing several "reforms" to change the way that the State operates. These include changes to the budget process itself, juvenile justice, CalWORKS (as highlighted above), retirement systems, and Medi-Cal. Budget reform proposals include requiring the Controller to reduce state payments across the board if the Governor and the Legislature fail to come to agreement on how to address a shortfall within forty-five days; changing Proposition 98 to prevent the huge arrearages that currently accrue when the State cannot meet its school funding obligation; prohibiting the suspension of Proposition 42 after 2007-08, prohibiting borrowing from special funds; and restructuring current debt including Proposition 42 loans, Proposition 98 pay-backs, and deferredlocalmandate payments and allowing repayment over fifteen years. The Governor announced plans in the Budget to work with local governments and others to "develop a comprehensive plan to reform California's juvenile justice system and redefine the role of the Youth Authority (CYA) in this system." Items that might be included in this debate are shifting responsibility for supervising juveniles on parole from the State to counties, limiting the types of wards that counties tread courts) can send to the CYA, and changing the focus of the CYA to the most serious offenders and those who need mental health or sex offender treatment. The budget package also includes the much-awaited Medi-Gal redesign. Key components are: expansion of managed care to additional counties, rewriting the way safety net hospitals are financed, limiting dental benefits for adults to $1,000 annually, requiring certain beneficiaries to pay monthly premiums to maintain their coverage, and hiring a vendor to monitor county compliance with federal and state standards. The reforms will be phased in over a few years. S-0-S The Joint Legislative Audit Committee held its first hearing today on the State Auditor's report regarding Help America Vote Act (NAVA) activities and expenditures by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. Committee Chair Assembly Member Nicole Parra stated clearly that Shelley should notify the Committee immediately of his intent to appear at a subsequent hearing or she Will request a Subpoena ordering hart to do so. SD.6 01/11/2005 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 11,2005 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Ililkema, Greenberg, DeSaulnier and Glover NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SD.6 RELISTED to an undetermined date consideration to accept the report from the Employment and Human Services Director on Child Welfare Services Redesign. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED 0\ 1t� John Sween,,Cnof the Boazd of Supervisors and County Administrator t ByA � "�`"" Deputy FHS #69 .. Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa CountyFROM: Family and Human Services CommitteeDATE: January 11, 2004 SUBJECT: Child Welfare Services Redesign SPECIFIC REQUEST($)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation: ACCEPT the report from the Employment and Human Services Director on Child Welfare Services Redesign, as recommended by the Family and Human Services Committee. Fiscal Impact: None Children's Impact Statement: This action impacts five of the community outcomes: 1) Children Ready for and Succeeding in School; 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood; 3) Families are Economically Self-Sufficient; 4) Families are Safe, Stable and Nurturing; and 5) Communities are Safe and Provide a High (duality of Life. Background: On September 28, 2004, the Children and Family Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department presented its System Improvement Plan to the Board of Supervisors, which was then submitted to the California State Department of Social Services on September 30, 2004. The System Improvement Plan was developed as a plan of action to address issues identified in the Self Assessment submitted to the State at the end of June 2004. The System Improvement Plan identifies four areas for improvement: a. Rate of first entries to care of African-American children under one year of age; b. Percent of children reunified within 12 months; c. Percent of child welfare investigations wit a timely response; and d. Timely social worker visits with child. The attached report provides progress to date on the System Improvement Plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIG ATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): RK DeSAULNIER JOHN GIOIA ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIF T THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT } AND CORRECT COPYACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MIN OF THE BOARD AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE N. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contact Person_ Dorothy Sansoe(5-1009) CC: CAO EHSD BY: DEPUTY a 1 w f k k a r a § M k r S!.--.v.M. Improveo*,ntl.Pl 7 ; y 'Ic ` O's a County h.1,11"OrIle,n, :& � � ' ervc J A � Emoo rneut &'Human Services DepattroeofM,6 ptei mi ei 004,, SIP Cover Sheet California's and Family Services - ImprovementSystem County: Contra Costa Responsible County Child Children and Family Services Bureau Welfare Agency: Employment and Human Services Department Period of Plan: October 1, 2004-September 30, 2005 Period of Outcomes Data: 1 Quarter ending June 30, 2003 [late Submitted: 2 September 30 2004 County Contact Person for County System Improvement Plan Name. Ray Merritt Title: Child Welfare Division Mana er Address: 4549 Delta Fair Blvd. Antioch CA 94509 Phone/Email 925 522-76051rmeri# cws.state.ca.us Submitted by r for s• Submitted by- County Child Welfare Agency Director Lead A enc Name: Dqqna Fabella Signature: Submitted by: County Chief Probation Officer Name: Lionel D. Cha an Signature: -�-�- Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section System Improvement Plan Narrative 1. Local Planning Bodies Self Assessment Team The Self Assessment Team that assisted with the Bureau's self assessment represented a wide array of stakeholders. The input and contributions of this group informed the choice of outcome indicators for inclusion in the System Improvement Plan. The concerns and interest of Team members also helped to bring racial disproportionality to the fore as a major focus for intervention in this initial SIP. Members in the first list below also provided comment and input to the development of the SIP. Members of the Self Assessment Team included: Probation I Richard Birss, Probation Manager Bill Grunert, Manager Mark Morris (consultant to Juvenile Systems Planning Adviso Committee or JSPAC 1 Parent Cheryl Barrett Youth Narcissus Hogue, Former Foster Youth Menta# Health Rich Weis al, Supervisor i Gary Solak, Mental Health Liaison Education Loretta Morris, Vocational Administrative Specialist $ Catherine Giacalone, Manager E Public Health Marilyn Condit-Fonseca, PHN Alcohol and Other Drugs Amelia Gonzalez-Valle, Manager Court Appointed Special Advocates Keith Archuleta, Executive Director f Court Martha Rosenberg, Assistant to the Director Labor Kate Acosta, Social Casework Specialist ll Community Taalia Hasan, Executive Director Youth Services Bureau Final 1 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section Self Assessment Members and Guests, Children and Family Services Bureau Ken Adams, Social Work Supervisor 1€ Ray Merritt, Division Manager Evelyn Aguilar, Social Casework Specialist 11 Lisa Molinar, Staff Development Specialist Ann Arvanian, Social Casework Specialist €1 Carl Nishi, Social Casework Specialist 11 Yvonne Chevalier, Social Work Supervisor 11 Kristine Nish!, Social Casework Specialist 11 Melissa Connelly, Social Work Supervisor 11 Michelle Paterson, Social Work Supervisor 11 Victoria Danby, Social Casework Specialist 11 Patricia Perkins, Social Work Supervisor 11 Leslie Davis, Social Work Supervisor 11 Steve Peavler, Division Manager Ted Gempf, Social Casework Specialist 11 Jessie Rous, Social Casework Specialist 11 Preston Gilmore, Social Work Supervisor 11 Ellen Scharffenberg, Social Casework Specialist 11 Gloria Halverson, Division Manager Jeri Smith, Social Casework Specialist 11 Holliedayle Hertweck, Social Work Supervisor 11 Rhonda Smith, Social Casework Specialist 11 Bree Marchman, intern Stefanie Thomas, Social Casework Specialist 11 Neely McElroy, Social Work Supervisor 11 Pam Wilson, Information System Analyst CWS/CMS Redesign Steering Committee The Redesign Steering Committee grew out of the Bureau's stakeholder group that was formed over three years ago when the Bureau began its own "redesign" and strategic planning process simultaneous with the launch of Family to Family. The group has since expanded and reformulated in support of Contra Costa County's role as a Cohort 1 County in the state-supported child welfare redesign process. Members of the Steering Committee participated in the Self Assessment process in a variety of ways. As all geographic areas of the County are represented on the Steering Committee members helped to identify service strengths and gaps in their regions when the Self Assessment process was first launched. Staff involved with the Self Assessment shared the analysis and findings related to the Bureau's performance on the outcome indicators as well as the findings related to racial disproportionality within the local child welfare system. Steering Committee members identified the need to reach out, dialogue and educate the African-American community about the differences between physical discipline and child abuse and a sub-committee has been formed to continue this work. This suggestion has also been included in the SIP.A presentation was made to Steering Committee members as the SIP was drafted and input and comments were gathered from all members present. Final 2 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Flan Narrative Section Members of the Redesign Steering Committee members are; Kate Acosta Local 535 Steven Bautista Contra Costa County Probation Department Brenda Blasin ame First 5 Contra Costa Bianca Bloom Contra Costa County Office of Education Kevin Bristow Independent Living Skills Program. Barbara B siek Family Stress Center- CBO Carol Carrillo Child Abuse Prevention Council Sister Roberta Carson St. Bonaventure's Church Danna Fabella Children and Family Services Director Larry Hanover Contra Costa County Mental Health, Health Services Department Rev. Yaahn Hunter New Faith Cathedral Church of God David Lee ' STAND Against Community Violence Cheryl Maier Opportunities West - CBO Rev. HenryPerkins First Baptist Church Lois Rutten Children and Family Services Division Mana er Dorothy Sansoe County Administrator's Office Intisar Shareef Contra Costa Community_College Brenda Underhill Underhill & Associates Rich Weisgal Contra Costa County Mental Health, Health Services Department Ron Wetter Independent Business Consultant Il. Findings that Support Qualitative Change Contra Costa embarked on its own local redesign process in 2000. Since that time, community meetings have occurred throughout the County to solicit input from families, community based organizations, local schools, faith-based organizations, the business community and other interested parties. Thriving "Redesign partnership" meetings regularly occur in all three of the Bureau's district offices. The Self-Assessment process brought many of these interested parties together on the Self Assessment Team itself or through the Redesign Steering Committee. This strong history of community involvement, inclusion and increased transparency supported Contra Costa in the Self- Assessment and System Improvement Plan effort. In addition, in the summer of 2003, money supplied by CDSS to counties interested in preparing for the Redesign was used to survey over 2000 parents and families in Family to Family target neighborhoods. The purpose of the survey was to learn about which services families used and which they believed that "families needing help with their children" might need. Community-based organizations received contracts to hire surveyors from the target neighborhoods, training was provided by the Bureau and the surveys were administered door-to-door in the native language of the respondents. The results of this survey have been reviewed in the district offices by the Redesign Partnership meetings, informed the planning of these community groups, and Final 3 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County system Improvement Plan Narrative Section addressed through mini-grants. Further information and the findings can be found in Contra Costa's Self Assessment report, pp. 74-77. III, Summary Assessment (Section V, Self-Assessment) System Strengths and Areas Needing Improvement Contra Costa County's Children and Family Services Bureau has a rich history of innovative, creative and collaborative program development and service prevision. Conducting this Self-Assessment has provided Bureau staff, community members and collaborating partner agencies the opportunity to further explore Bureau performance, identify areas for improvement, and underscore what is already working and deserves expansion or preservation. The next several years will further enhance the Bureau's capacity to provide improved services to children, youth and families. As a Redesign Cohort 1 county, Contra Costa is looping forward to piloting a safety and risk assessment framework that combines the best of the Fresno and the new risk/safety constructs developed by the Safety and Risk Assessment Workgroup of the Stakeholders Committee. Bureau staff and partners have worked diligently in designing an operational plan for a differential response system which is already being piloted with a small dumber of families using Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) funding. Once in place, differential response should reduce the number of families being referred for investigation, help reduce recidivism and foster care reentry by providing families served by the Bureau with culturally appropriate and community-based after care services, and support efforts to address racial disproportionality. The Redesign's emphasis on permanency and youth transition will assist the Bureau in addressing racial disproportionality and the fact that over 50% of children still in care after 54 months are African-American. While respecting the cultural viewpoint of African-American families regarding terminating parental rights and adoption of kin, the Bureau recognizes that it needs to improve its permanency focus for African-American children and youth. We intend to work with our collaborating agencies, faith-based communities and African-American community members in crafting an approach that will address this need. The recently-awarded Family to Family System of Care grant will further the efforts of the Bureau in addressing permanency and the needs of youth in our system. The grant provides the funding to expand TDlvls for children already in placement, provide peer mentoring to parents involved in the system, and address the needs of children at high risk for multiple placements. This discussion of strengths and areas for improvement is a summary of this report. Detailed explanation of the outcome indicators and systemic factors can be found in their respective sections of this document. Final 4 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section Participation Mates and Outcome Indicators Contra Costa has identified the following four areas for inclusion in its System Improvement Pian: • Number and rate of first entries to foster care +► Outcome indicator 3A: Percent reunified within 12 months Both of these components of the SIP are directed at addressing the disproportionate representation of African-American children in the child welfare system. First entries to care will examine the overrepresentation of African-American children under 1 year old entering the system. Addressing reunification rates will also target this population in addition to older African- American children (and children of other ethnic groups as well). • Outcome indicator 2B: Percent of child welfare investigations with a timely response Outcome indicator 2C: Timely social worker visits with child The Bureau recognizes the need to improve its performance in completing 10-day investigations within the mandated timeframe as well as improving its required social worker visits to all children without a visit exception. A word about participation rates: While not a federal or state-required outcome indicator, per se; participation rates are an important tool for analyzing the representation within the system of the ethnic groups served by the Bureau. Referral and substantiation rates, first entries to care, and point-in-time counts of children in care are ail important measures of Bureau efforts to address racial disproportionality. Safety Outcome Indicators For both state-enriched measures of recurrence of maltreatment, Contra Costa performs better than the statewide average. For indicator 1 B (recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months) the state average is 14.6% with Contra Costa performing at 11.1%. For indicator 213 (rate of recurrence in homes where children are not removed) the state average is 9.4% with Contra Costa performing at 9.3%. Recurrence of maltreatment is a perfect example of a counterbalanced outcome"; i.e., when a change in one outcome may affect other outcomes. In this case, the County's efforts to improve reunification within 12 months of system entry may result in an increase in the rate of recurrence as staff works hard to return children home sooner. The goal of any public child welfare system is to minimize recurrence of maltreatment by families already served. Contra Costa hopes to address its recurrence rates through implementation of both a safety and risk assessment framework and a differential response system over the next several years. While the County has a myriad of services available to families already, further improving community capacity to provide Fina! 5 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section preventive services to families and aftercare services to families already served by the child welfare system will positively impact recidivism. The Self-Assessment Team identified services for parents of adolescents and Afro- centric parenting classes as service needs within the county. As discussed in the Service Array systemic factor, mini-grants have been provided to community agencies to expand community capacity and address needs such as these. Parenting classes for 60 parents, a Spanish-language father support group, respite for special needs children, and gang prevention and reduction activities for youth have all been funded in targeted communities. Providing increased numbers of TDMs by expanding the population served to include children age 0 to 1 in Family to Family and providing TDMs to children and youth in placement through the System of Care grant will address recidivism as well. Improved data collection and ability to further analyze the data would help all counties to address recurrence rates. Only the 2A data provides information on the type of abuse or neglect for the initial substantiation and subsequent substantiated report. Not surprisingly, general neglect is by far the highest number of recurrences. Providing this type of data for both indicators and the ability to analyze family versus child cases and whether some of the recurrence is a function of multiple reports on sibling groups would also assist in analysis. The rate of maltreatment in foster care is at 0.67% as compared to a statewide average of 0.81% and a federal benchmark of c 0.57%. Contra Costa anticipates the possibility of this rate increasing in the near term with data entry correction underway. Given the high number of county-licensed foster homes and the lower rate of usage of foster family agencies as compared to many counties, one could anticipate that Contra Costa would have a higher rate of maltreatment in care. Finally, the process indicators 213 (percent of child welfare investigations with a timely response) and 2C (timely social worker visits with child) are two areas in need of improvement for the County. For 2B, only 52.1% of all 10 day investigations were responded to within the 10 day timeframe. As discussed in the body of this report, the Bureau has already worked to address this rate but will refocus attentions on increasing this rate to 95% or above. This will be a major focus of the SIP. As for indicator 2C, timely social worker visits with the child ranged from 55.6% to 58.5% during the 3 months of the County Data Report. Staff members on the Self Assessment Team maintain that often visits are completed but work demands result in delayed entry into the CWS/CMS system. Concern was also raised that visit exceptions may not be entered correctly. While both of these points may have some validity, the Bureau intends to address this indicator in the SIP as well. All children in care deserve regular, on-going contact with their social worker. Final 6 September 28. 2004 Contra costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section Permanency and Stability Outcomes The County's performance on the length of time to exit foster care to reunification is 36.9% as compared to a statewide average of 34.6%. Contra Costa hopes to improve its timety exits from foster care to reunification with a special emphasis on African- American children in foster care. In addition to further analysis of first entries to care, improving reunification rates will be another way to address the issue of racial disproportionality. One factor impacting reunification rates is the litigious nature of child welfare practice in general and within the County in particular. While progress has been made in improving relationships with Juvenile Court and the private attorneys and public defenders representing parents and children, attorneys continue to advise parents not to speak with workers, sometimes making it difficult to engage families early in the casework process. The County's performance on the percent of children adopted within 24 months is 5.4%. As discussed earlier in this report, there are both practice and court-related factors that impact this rate. Many adoptions do not occur until 36 months or later. While of concern, it is not an area that will be addressed in the SIF' this year. The County is doing relatively well on limiting the number of foster placements for children in care. It exceeds both the federal benchmark on the federal indicator and the statewide average on the state-enriched indicator. Possible explanations for this are the high number of kin placements, the dedicated group of county-licensed foster care providers, the training provided these providers, and the diligence and expertise of staff in providing services to both kin and non-kin care providers. Rate of foster care reentry is an area to continue to monitor. Further analysis of this data will be done by the new quality assurance team that is under development. Contra Costa's performance on the state-enriched indicator, 3G (percent of children who reentered care within 12 months of reunification), is slightly above the statewide average and approximately 50% greater than the federal benchmark (12.9% versus a benchmark of 8.6%). Family Relationships and Community Connectedness Placing siblings together whenever possible is a Bureau goal. Even with small sibling groups of 2, 45% of those children are placed separately. However the overall rate of placement with all or some siblings stands at 60%. 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. Licensing regulations also hamper the ability to address this issue in a creative manner. The Bureau performs well when examining its least restrictive setting placement rate. This is primarily due to the strong emphasis by the Bureau on recruiting, training, and retaining county-licensed foster homes. Final 7 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative section Well-Being Outcomes The Bureau's Independent Living Services program is a vital, dynamic program that serves a large number of the youth eligible for services. This Self-Assessment has surfaced the need to begin reaching out to and engaging youth at an earlier age than 16 years old and plans are already underway for monthly ILS open houses. The County's performance on this indicator regarding youth transitioning to self-sufficient adulthood is good. We look forward to the future development of targeted well-being outcomes. Systemic Factors 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. The first systemic area in need of improvement is case review, in particular parent and youth participation in case planning. An all-staff meeting was recently held that provided staff the opportunity to give input into how the Bureau is doing in the areas of family engagement and "good" case planning and future changes needed to support these practices. Court structure and relationship is another area for improvement given the highly litigious nature of the child welfare work within the County and the impact this has on case planning, reunification and adoption rates. The second systemic factor in need of improvement is the quality assurance system. Much activity is currently underway in addressing the County's needs in this area. This includes the purchase of Safe Measures, training all supervisors in its use and developing a policy regarding the use of Safe Measures in supervising staff and reporting to the Division Manager. The County also has Business Objects and a number of staff are learning how to use that application. Finally, a consultant with expertise in evaluation, data analysis and statistics has recently come on board. Areas for the Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) There are a number of practice-related areas that the Bureau wishes to explore through the Peer Quality Case Review process. Some of these areas of concern can be addressed through case file review to learn which type of family engagement assessment and case planning practices have the greatest impact on the practice area. The Bureau is also interested in learning from counties that are using new or creative best practices in responding to these practice areas. Potential areas for further exploration through the PQCR include: • Reunification of African-American children. Why aren't we more successful at reunifying African-American children sooner? Are some staff better at working with African-American families than others? What are the factors that contribute to their success? Now can this success be replicated? Final 8 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section • What can we do to improve concurrent planning practices at the front ends Examining concurrent planning practices to learn why we have a more difficult time doing concurrent planning early in the casework process with relatives versus non-relatives. • Examining permanency planning cases to discover the reasons why so many children are coming into adoption with insufficient exploration of relatives as a permanent resource. We would also like to look at ways to improve our work with kin care providers to help them understand the legal definition of permanency and identify ways we can persuade them to move from long term foster care to a more permanent, legally acceptable relationship with the child. Final 9 September 28, 2004 Contra Costa County System Improvement Plan Narrative Section Final 10 September 28, 2004 t E co 0 0 ID C14 (3) Q > C cs cod t j o CO ` 0 N �L aCO 110- (00 1(0 v 0 cmo cro �. w �, 0 o 0 E t i z o may' o c7C14 �. «% 1 0 C- C:, a� 1 0- co coCL �- a n (1) 1 U-) cc u) �• C - � +� o CO (on' N it co � - O 0cU N .� .t 40, cC [ N 0 �,, t � O ? @ Rf C cCf 00 0 0 c0t1 N vi ? 3 u� O G 0 . to 0K31 S W C cots N ? KC r- 0- 0 , O N 0 G 0 t U p � Lff N 0 mdl -c- 0 c4 +' r; C'S cif C7 N E C ni v� i s d F- C F O 7 D +-- G 0 u, N o. -00 Cl. LU 0 -0 It pt d CO % cup � U) o O �. C4 0 o o o 0 � rn Hca CD co � � �' =3 0-A � � o �� ° � � > ° ,.m 0 j I CD < CM (D C a d Lll .ate v C s C �j 43 dU L4 M (n to C a O X31 CN O tlti 0 Com, 4) �• ID * C � ., C7 C7 Cco i s .M yy 3 ' C Ct) C BS ; T3 +n , C7 CD C ; y as tla SCA v a s � e < sv � 4S rota "' ` x a -- to C 0 tv o M. ' a mo MCOM C�� � � cin C1 CD i ; to C 3 cD � C ,, cn c� � I oa ; CDN 0 ° in' ° C �' c� 0< � � o 0w c<Es ao CD yo =. � 3 E; i 3 CD sv � CD c 0 @ v � ° o v im• I a � cu CD r- CA1 ' I fl. C CD I I < I (D Co 0 1 m CL CD 0 r� 0 <cr I jCD CD � cr v CQ v �, , fQ CD as as ;31a O I o CL ' is ! to CD to CL s �' ;U © 'a o. ' �« cr CD o j 3ro 3 to z' v; m N m o CD '; o I ra to i CA — i CES i O 0 CL ch j to m ="a i 3: D cp C7 i X3 m M C:m � v L CD a cu T. CD 3 m CD d i a) i �' 1 CD w to °�' a I o 4 CL CA c o 3 �. �. cn < i R � � C (D cncm m �s mr i 0 cn C ! N C t. CN c06 f C14 I = `�"' m ,,,yc Q of y, C2. E s W m asp E > �. tests coo E tis Cy c co m8 I CU {6 ) m 0 W to o m r C C_ NZ �c > �Ln 0 .— o 0 C3 � � 3 � O U} C5 = ) N 3 CC) s to (D CL ez (� c" E o cv c o C. M — o E c m cis} to c . + ` d d u") N C2. Coi -0 1 .0 i>-% 1 2 C U} cc Cts ,. 0 a) till twit „ z3 Cri 4) cCL M _ Ci 1in C: � N C U ONO) U � L"iS � l? � � C "a W vCL 0 8+�y J ro 0 C: a} "�in E0 r- `0 o C: ' � T3 C to Y '- d c . E 0Ci I � aaas CLc cu iso EMS > �- vCsE is yCl .�? ® z� uatoS cs a� ccs ' ro CD to c o `m E �' M °'m 0 t u � co Ma' cDaas � Baa ash — ,o m ai N �'Yd o ro . a) m6 � «: m as CL Vic, 0as .— ui a3 ( N — (u — � ._ � u C4 m � 0) _ '�" Was cv, o az c res a to et s 1 o ' '0cc� cs vs cl E tau +,cy E 0 {T1 U m US tD O <D I A3 iA 0 r: lEf CSD € >y CSS tib :3 iSf ( Q ; 0 r C cr R5 C' O 01 C C„ ** m 1 ci z i c_n 3 m € cn 0 ° w aCDCD t, m j -h �? �' o ,a v, w CD < � ci �. 3 I um, @ 0 Cc m < o' a CLc (1) °CL 0 3 o i x- o '0 0 € 0 CD C cn � O to j a� i o € C/) .+ m w " cL m cn3 . c =r CD rn CL m ! j (D ' '* C `� Q @ m E N " 0 M ' I 0 cn(00 i 0 0 iD 0 to tt1 ! cn 0 4J i w � C cn l U1 C� i CD "C3 0 r € or0 CD cnj v G � 0 co ( co ctia CID- c0 �v co ton _ m 0 o i fey i c6 LO p 'CIO i v ( CO tc 0 co -16 10 wo- 0 m > 53alto u � � ;o o cram ea 1 � ca N NCl > N rye r r. cis { , CD $ V. � 00. 9 A U 0, 0 pE a co O` 0 C4 U t"> 4v ryt O W CD 0s moo m ;oao iD d � Gn o �, Od. :. o PYA; = `� CW� C3 (D i )C (D ••� "°'�' �•(,� < CD i U!' O i +� Q i t 3 Vl V1 i O O 0 CL `, ? CD '�. ;a Cc CD =a i C EU :a 0 (D Z7 s Wi Sll * V =' , r- Q 0)i O CA (�� i► aS Cil CD o i O LT `-�` = N (dQ lU i c0 CD c i 9 = D m, O C 3 C C � O CD cn d 7` CD CD �" Q C1 3 � d IU �. < d - E CD �_ M C1 CD X' n (n o CD i 4 d _" ( Cus} 3 w w w O cin cn CD Z7 i CD �'C3 CD 63 Qin' S cn CD c cn a�' 0- C L v CD c7x m � O ' tDroro N3 I « ' -� 02 1 cn o � T. E a ° Z v � �—� d CDOl CD 3 =r i zs c v c -� t13o ; � us s n cn v, < � � 2 C"fc�n � � � � v `� z � � � � � � � 3 CU CD U_, a (A Z 0 O 0 0 ri' d O s + CCD L? � �, �. s cr i 3 CD m Ch 0 o mC2 cn (pcn — p i C7 CD �, d j CDw 5 N ;o Q. .d•+• � wd- m + CD=r mCL Q` CT m C d� CD CD CD (p O o CD �.(L] CD CO n p CO CD '< <? {J1 - � C) O O .� ; 0r•: =rCD (y, O (D Cv 0 tO C C � CD O CD tn Q l!) C? CD `� 3 .n c -I � � C CSD � d � � CD CD � s 0 v E Q 0 , N tn Q. n T; CD O tn' d i G i CD CL d 3 ; ice► 'I i NCA D -+ CD DJ f1S US' tCDD CD d cn = ICn d °� 3 tn d 3 dCD i -s -0 > CCD CD S. m 0 (DCL CD ? `� CD N d f~D d cam` ! d co N (D C CD i i N «. -act � a x d tgG t d 0 --, c0 t3 C 0 G 1z, �+ O tU k+Etli G v Al y %� r O .57r►3�) ca !y ✓ �s % 8 tib {11 p Y t�J t4 U c7 n C!3 �1 i in' D 0 + Z 0 O � ( 3 " a.V � N � o 3c ,.. + rn'v tD � CD \ Q- O -+ a O m crt cD t o t, 0 D O N 1 N 'a :s (D 0 -O p .s i o � i LSD t/� C c 0-0 2) C:rcD I _ C}} -�w U) ! N ;C? C7 In CD :3 croho � � CD t mm CD � = =. M z (D ka .°oro -a = Q °' o = � � + O W O � CD 41 I 3 =cu O � CD CD G `c" 0" _ O tD ,O, N lu C: CD i Amo ` _ Qsv � 3 _ CD O �. 0 0 3 O 't1 3 o o = O 3 3th : o � -, _ CD CD ° oro CD o o ocn svrn CD ?, � C o 0 CD su rid. < I moocr CD w CD CD 0 .n cn cs� a v to ©CA w �, ; 3 � CD Lam. i z o " D 0 m (nW C— C— � C' c a w i N tSl O N N CSD 0 on 00 Q O m _ m 3 {]. O Q O O. 0 (y C2 3 �. M N CC] O i1}Lt] N C ED W .+ I O I 3 t� n 0 (aj fly � � m i ° rmn 3 a � @ 3 3 m v � � o - m ! nv0 I u Cr n ' cD CD c to CJs I @ CL 1. 10 p CD o. CL f C11 f!) oo � e � � 3. 0oro v = W. tD t�D C1 O to _ G7 CD _%CD M 0 co C : + O o =3101t C"C3 CJ "" O G � � G o m m 7Dct > � =r -cszsv rn = > o � + 3 C. (D 0 co � I 3 � iDoo �'• � °' ;17 CD + ocD o �' + -� v ! CL O C14O CL t3 V M -p CsS Nt� U} o 0 C M N ! i > '�" ( 0 E t L E C cn C Gl ,u7 w �1 R1 C1 E m 7 CL (D ?; 0 � t— ` fl >+ 1 co tU E E E E rn.` . 0 C1 cU o E to ca a t 0 0 a CL c viiQ ��' c ( e - t0 o v ,. tt3 C45 0 CJS d c? L) M a r -r ? .0— E .0 M tp 1 49 m CO CU > o 0 c E E N �✓ .ao L 14 > 5 CJ 0 0 Ll. C sir+ TL > i+ " 0 � E -t in N C Q} cn C c 0 U-1etj h- do til �+. -0 Cl I N N C7 47 N U U N16 >+ >1 tT3 rr i o >> .0 C iLi O 4) 0 0 ) I i I C ti3 t7} E L .` CS tll CICU C c �l * {f? +r CD C N O C flS =1 U vi CU C C?S fD a -C = i d 6. to to O •C {;} G' +.. O tC1 (ll tJ aj U U U) ' CL.— C7 � Ca C c acs -o I — L cn LY C es4 LU 3 E w I c c � � � E CU >, E a m c E c se = csY c o f s� qy a) ' ¢s ca � � � vsCD `Y c Es Win. o Lcu � N >, c ' - c a� c vs ,r -- _ -- o r -c cn a c ro cn r; .CC V .c � r .a0 zw � , ," ca <C rxc > c crr � EE E r- as �- m vs rz 2 �- � �`" cv t° �' 1 �-- � � E � �= us c� E �t L3 h sa. tJ CL > � c {.7 Q. CL d -0 0 W U � s 2 E �s Fes— CD CD to C7 Chi � �yVFjjF: * C s N aro .a < �, ro a ^' .» 0 -' d O '< 'f i a -' O C �. O N j 411 i-cD � �. G+3 O O T. ro " hi i G N N �{ M -P-i EK N � : W 2) 0 o C1t s 'Cc) Ti 1' =r (p �' �4? ro C { a N u I a V01 0 a Cl * N,• yti a O � i CO CD < f to i SU � � � 4S * 0 N p N N 0-+r ? M O (n O ro = S O 'CS gl a CS �+ -z m i ' N 1U © tU f O Cp tD O �C 0 O 0 C7' 0 a ro 0 (p I UJ Gl i �C � 0 roQ0urs' � �1C�} = 3 "' (nv, vs i sang ? i cN � 0 roa -� i gym ', (i 0 w m CD -0 < M 0 � m � � to � i ill 5 w a "". � _� a O- m ' r». 0 a � � � (p � � ° N N ro 0 � = � C � ' c� ci c°, , ;; ro (o Wig (D 0 (° :3< _ �3 O (D i Cti =to n a N 0 f at a 4U 0 C3a O O } act, .N-« U+ �� �' (gyp O tll N, t1 ro 0 a N. =3 - N C1 =(0 CDi til N CD � 0 o =r CD 0 7L CD ro o Cr CL croam Lc a tv C: CDN 3 3 CD CD NJ 0 CD N 41 rQX 0gl i to o R a I 0 (i c ' i ' i 0 cn CD i 3 o i ! (D a N -0 0 tir N tU a c�. 7d C7 az CD CD z 0 cc I in c3 I a CD CD n 3 � ro roc rn CL CD i) 10 ro = �' i (Di -� -� .» (D� � o a ,� i t < .• 0 ro -n CD i to j 0 CD N CL 3 1 I! ro txl c 0 c N C) C3 e O ; tU cn m [13 C 0 C cn tL5 tl1 W tU m E cca sca C � ca L 4) x a O S O O fi7 a) L � -0 -2 0 E E Gl E �oa In E u) E t) E Ell t3 • E om ( cu E s.. 00 j E .0 m o {} � v9 tll �g E ttf N LO ma) 0 LO -� E E O i C11 C� O co � "C3 cn C7 C C C C7 tv E CL Cj C3 C_ c O CD m C tf1 C} fll C C { tU N X ' C U c E E a) 0 CD (( E o � � � i � �� � ca � o � E � �� E j o cz a� °_ u 4) 0 1 E c cuE ' � `a ° '° =)C E c �, c a a� c C6 a) c E E .2 � � c " � cuaj ccs � �*- roc ' o c c c E �, ZZ0 t3 L7 � c LES � r � M0o cac — cE c •cc tJcoc°., ,T .2 `-' cn a Erten ' o cis c c c (D > a) CL m c cap giro cc � c �: cis cC� as ? C} c 4) . Ute 3 ui 0U) 0 � � tai m tJf.7 � m � 5 � m is Z © p CD V ( 3 O 0 � � m 3cL = i O CL n Us 0 CCD n � ui c—,!' O w S O' `.0 CO = -t C7 CD !D E CD n to M CQ 0 0. !#? N fly O C0 0 N C O to5 -+s O t3 r« O 03 CD p C7 0C!) CLO (U O O X. cr I �� iv _ _ 1 O fl 3 O ,0-#, CD 0 � CL Nrr O ,� 0 C O 0 c 3 CL O< SL1 O i O CD — CD m CD '� sy m 0 .. ! �to (DD C O � 0) < * 0 : m a �:�. M =M o0 CA CL Aroma ' -a O cci cD O CD 'O fl1 CL U7 O to C i 3 3 O CCD 0 � m jW Z7 © CD i i COD CD M {7 a O rr th � _- CD = 0 � i CD O tCt � �. h CCD N �CD As a" O fli O ca O CD CD CD D3 O M 'O O CL . A CD ! t2 m i rh rt (D 0 `+ O (D O ; m iD i m i m viv rnO I m 0- 3 CD Co (0 j as 0- 3 n rri co -' l ! 5 CD ' 2. to CD i (D -r! CL 3 m i cs- { CD CD N c rQ d � tct tS5 �: C3 J 00 00 � n ID It L �sl ti � -.r- C4 ✓C4 G %= U CO C7 c N m co U 87a G t3- coU 9 ` O v r- -0 G t? p ga C3 G1 O ) C5 4- C: - 00 C 0 0 3 CS „0 to tSS Op. d? O "d N (1) tf3 ✓ N N -0,Ic: 40E co VA co U- �• � t �, <' ?^ Vim $ g r ` 10 13) F � co 00 U •� 0 eq 0 G�w1 G� ©{ C33 CSU a r�C7 CD Q CQ +, C? CL "� v i C7 -s N CD w CD t/t CLQ I CD '* CD -� WCL 0 CD�+ "C3 Cn Cb � `C3 I _ �_ _ ! tp to 0 f� i CQ N 3 3 � � � n Cr 3 m CD CD 0 c Ci3 CB C3 _ '" �C}� C-,. CS CJ C� ;z CU e2 Cts —t C: s 0 Z3 (D �. ChCD CL = �y �� �. cDCD sum ! c°3 CD 0 m _ ' o , cra 0 CD Uy x `"• �, � (D c to w • 3 I �? r-. CD is =3 w 3 -� jiib c� t ;O tD M 0 -0 al to o CCD O 3 .. su 3 - iI M ' i CU CSD CL 0 € 0 ` 4T < =3 A CL �"" < tom) I tLI CD } {D cr ri CJ Ln CSD N u `0 (n'C3 Cp Q1 to a) MCA CD M C O M EE CLL l< N Co *0 f 0-7 ;o C3 CA 0 w CL CD m z' Cis Chfa1 CSD to 0 rr tC1 0 u1 O o =rN CD -0 -0 �? cr CD q Y. 5, 31 C13.(� 0 CU fD � i m C7 as C3. Q} "n `T 1 ; 't1 s cn =3 D 0 0 CD CD a) @ CD O 0 C7 0 CD c`0 CL @ 3 CU 5: 0 CD 3> ° 03 v I m CD to Ca. I co 4 fl N o )Stu k o w +� a © 0 :v t � j N tv � 1 N w fit r N cU O 1 N a , 0 ligglis �, ++ c a a � 95 W -p � C aha tg :0, a c� A--� C a CL a � N N uj nico NCo co ti- v `> _ � a� ter, ` ': s9 0 ; �= per— t sn , u to tz ,a' c� ccs + ress C3 a cs c co 7 sr ' E cf3 co a U CD x o C O r+ �+ p . : 5 Sam ;7M19 T. x . =r = x ® N. � encu Ma o 3 m o! o CL c�D r CD CD cr 0 . C�' C�1 � t j � � to M � p � Lti1 � .s`'� C7 n CD 5 (DN O 3 C? U2 f2 CD N rn I rn rn C .�-' -gyp 3 . o iD c v CA c i co 0 D ' o 5 C CD rn a,)< I un� to CB U: L7 0 CD 0 rn =3rn � � p' Cn t3 0 -* i � < CD � ® CD o i 3 w CD Cci n. N' � ocD0CL rnv .� os% " 0 rn cn 5• a to c c<D 0 C2 p CD ! v rn cu w 3 r« rno cn � =r me ' :3 o � rn 0 rs � i � � � x U! 41 CD -p : i 3 0 9L CL 0 CD (n � 0 0CA ° 3 = 5 t 0) CD CD � cn —0 CO 0 U) 4� � . 0 � cn no ° I (D ° o 0 3 0 CD C � 0 O tCD ' a m I cn n i am < (D C. CD i i ! 0 'cN CD 2 3. � i i CD Q � N 1 CD JU Crn tU 0 0 CD CD cnn -y 0 CL k r rn CD -0 O i i G f�Sa w O 3 3 CD @ C� i i N iU CD CL 3@ `� CDS 3 � © 0 3 i rn ! `n ' = � rn © t3 4i 0 GN � -� =r C CD < CA i w + to CD CC. tU N N C CL CD i .+ o Sll 3 CL CD N O rn CD C> tl3 N N i t1 O Ui > i co w CD i :3 C7 i = CLCD C D ry CC14 i 0 a� a) cm m � C 3 � � m (D i m E a �c m c 0c mai ar C�. en 0) �- ° o -a ° aa) E cCL C Cm CL m .cn � i c 0. cn0 > am E E � • E cs > w a`) a i Co o .'r C C: (D �+ I `E LIZ a`5 R! M ( U- a) CL to q Lf7 '0 C5 O tf7L E o 0 c N0 0 -0 r_ 04 C14 E i fa) C R5 CLL m r_ Lo m `C7 '> yU . L 1� 0 _ O O '{7 ui a) C3 i to CL to m CL c aD aJ tft C.c C77 "t � � � a � E a? m E ' cL CL (D n � as > o CL o 0-2 0- E cu m mt8iO ft-L ° v o - c? ?nU c9*ticp � > c �. asp as a3 c ""', j ,c' *� —�_� '> ami cmi a c' n w CD m cu > ca to x o CD c.o Croy _ sat cEDa om - a) •- ,� _ `gym " cam 0m 0 E �' c� ac 0cn un e+i c� zs ciy T- c o w o C4 M , 0 N "> . : m o 0 CM CL ,� o its a. ' riEtLa c"i '>' Mtll Mccis ro G3 a. � `> CaWrenc � s3 0U- ccq CL-0 > aCL � � � � Cpqllij� .1 � W p w o o d 0 V) {) 0 to Z E-L z 0 0 a 0 0 (D A. I CD 0 0 @ to & I (n -n sy ch 0 (D En —n CD SSD 0 CD CL (D CD CD CD CD 0 0) < 0 CL 0 7D. (in (D rp< = . < 0 CD < 0 ::r o Z i a) CD 0 e. (D '(1)n CD" 3 3 Z. 0 r-L M w m =3 =r 0 CL M o m 0 2 C CD 0 CD CA CL: 3 1= o 0 , lu c E r to 0 (D 0 CL (1) D (D (n Q U) =r 0. =r 0 0 0 o =r I W 0 —0. 0 tA C: 31 0 (D < o ;5. 0 1 r* fm < 0 C) to 0 is 0 0 0 0 (D F5 =r c 00 0 0 — 0 0 (D CD 0_ Z 0 co CD 0 a) cn C) "a CD cn :3 1 Q- Ln. 0 CSD QD tL7 U) V cD CD CD c 0 (o (n (0 (D U) n 0 0 tu Z3 (D (D 3 CD — 3 CD < =r CD cn --h A: 0 w W !A S Sll =3 C/) cr CD i CD E cn CD ii cn 3 CD cr tQ 0 co ...............................................- ..................... ............... EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Family and Human Services DATE: December 13, 2004 Committee Members cc John Sweeten FROM: John Cullen, Director Danna Fabella, Director of Children &Family Services Bureau SUBJECT: Child Welfare Redesign & Outcome Measure Update Recommendation Accept this report from the Employment and Human Services Department; and Continue to support the Children and Family Services Bureau efforts on Child Welfare Redesign and implementing the System Improvement Plan required by the State's Child Welfare Performance Outcomes and Accountability Act, also known as the California Child and Family Services Review. California Child and Family Services Review Since our last report in August 2004, we completed the System Improvement Plan (SIP) after completion of the Self-Assessment described in the previous report. The strategies described in the SIP should have a positive impact on our county's performance outcomes. Progress to date: 1. The C'DSS has released four quarters of outcome-related data for all California counties. This Committee was provided with the first three quarters' worth of data in August 2004 (the Board received it in September 2004). That report provided outcomes data for the quarter ending July 31, 2004. Since then, a subsequent report was just released in October 2004. As you can see from the data contained in the attached table, the Bureau continues to improve its performance for most of the indicators over time. 2. The System Improvement Plan (SIP) was submitted to CRSS on September 30, 2004. As you will recall, when we reported to your Committee on our Self- Assessment elfAssessment process, we identified four areas for improvement. The SIP is our submission to the state regarding the actions that we plan to take as a result of the Self-Assessment. Our most pressing concern is the over-representation of African- American children in our foster care system. While African-American children represent about 11% of our county's child population, they represent about 49% of children in foster care. The specific performance measures that we hope to improve in this area are the following: a. Rate of first entries: To address the rate of first entries to care of African- American children under 1 year of age. b. Outcome indicator 3A: Percent of children reunified within 12 months If children must be removed from home, the Children and Family Services (CFS) Bureau wants to increase the rate at which it safely returns those children home. There were two other outcome indicators that will be addressed in the System Improvement Plan. These outcomes were selected since they are key to ensuring safety of children, and our data reveals a need to improve in these key outcome .indicators. c. Outcome indicator 2B: Percent of child welfare investigations with a timely response The Bureau intends to improve its compliance in timely 10-day investigations to 90%. d. Outcome indicator 2C: Timely social worker visits with child The Bureau recognizes the need to improve its required social worker visits to all children without a visit exception. The Bureau charted out what needed to be accomplished each month in order to meet the improvement goals in the SIP and assigned a Division Manager to each task. The following is a list of some of our accomplishments in the first three months of SIP implementation (September, October, November 2004): 1. Completed analysis of Team Decision Making(TDM) impact on under one- year-old African American children entering foster care system to better understand the impact of TDM on this population, 2. Prepared report on referrals of under one-year-old African American children in order to determine need for building capacity, 3. Implemented policy regarding TDMs for under one year olds African-American children; 2 4. Analyzed data regarding length of time to reunification for African-American children in kin and non-kin placements; 5. Re-negotiated existing contracts with one of our Family Preservation providers in order to build community capacity for providing services to at-risk populations specifically in communities with minority population; 6. Established partnerships through the Community Partnership Workgroups to increase attendance by community partners at TDM meetings to assist in making safety plans for children; 7. Wrote and distributed draft policy directives on Differential Response which is part of child welfare redesign and offers services to children and families after we have closed a low to medium risk case; 8. In the process of selecting Community Engagement Liaisons that will assist us in Differential Response; 9. Contract with AmeriCorps for grant funds to support Redesign effort which is on the December 14th Board agenda; 10.Researched, evaluated, updated policy, and trained staff regarding Emergency Response (ER) compliance for timely contacts entered into CWS/CMS•, 11.Exploring, developing and planning for ER pilot in East County to assign staff geographically and have dedicated 10-day response workers to test whether this is a more effective way to keep in compliance; 12.Provided TDM readiness training for our Community Partners; 13.Trained all supervisors and managers in Safe Measures which is a data tool that will assist in tracking compliance on emergency responses and monthly home contacts by social workers; 14.Implemented policy and trained staff regarding ER contacts and distributed CWS/CMS entry tools to ER supervisors and staff; 15.Trained all staff regarding mandatory relative approval process and the need for required assessments that focus on safety and permanency; 16.Reviewed and discussed overall performance for timely 10-day investigations and face-to-face contacts on a monthly basis; 3 . . 17.Developing plans with subcommittee of Redesign Steering Committee for community dialogue regarding early childhood development in African American community, 18.Presented information to the judicial system regarding the components of Redesign, TDMs, family engagement, and"good case planning" State Pilot 1~tedesian Activities (Formerly Cohort 1) Contra Costa County is one of eleven pilot counties designated by the State of California as a county to provide leadership and testing of the Redesign system. Redesign efforts continue to focus on three key areas. Each of these areas is listed below with a brief summary of Bureau activities that have occurred over the last three months (since our report to your Committee in August 2004): 1. Comprehensive safety and risk assessment Staff continues to work on the State Committee that is charged with the development of this statewide safety and risk assessment. Our staff has piloted questions at the hotline to determine whether certain questions would assist staff in obtaining better information for the ER worker. ER workers have tested use of new tools to determine their usefulness. The process continues at the state committee reaches consensus on areas for the assessment tools. 2. Develop an early intervention intake structure (Differential Response) Our CFS Director chairs the State Committee on Differential Response. This committee continues to develop the protocols for statewide implementation of this strategy. At the local level we have developed draft policy, worked with our contractors to assist us in providing early intervention services, evaluated types of services that would be needed by families, and are in the process of letting an RFP in January or February for community- based agencies to provide what is known as Path 1 response (services to cases that we have evaluated out at the hotline), and Path 2 response (services to families that have had a face-to-face assessment, and the case is closed to formal services) as part of our Differential Response plan. 3. Address permanency and youth transition to self-sufficient adulthood CFS staff participates on the State's Permanency & Youth Transition workgroup. That workgroup is in the process of developing protocols and best practice guides around emancipation. We are fortunate that our county received a Federal System of Care (SOC) grant since we 4 are focusing on our older youth and permanency issues for that grant. This has assisted us in developing the strategies that are required by our State pilot grant. Two subcommittees of our county's Permanency and Youth Transition workgroup are dealing with the issue of successful emancipation. One subcommittee is the Systemic Barriers to Successful Emancipation and one is the Caregiver Involvement/Support to Successful Emancipation. Each has been meeting for approximately four months and each has strong youth and caregiver representation. Housing has been identified as one of the challenges for emancipating youth. For many years, beginning in the mid 1990's when our county was selected as one of three pilot counties for funding transitional housing for emancipating youth, we have put a strong emphasis on transitional housing programs for youth. Independent Living Skills staff participates on our SOC committees as well to ensure housing remains a focus of our efforts, and a Youth Housing Liaison position will continue to be part of our Redesign efforts. Additionally, as part of this grant, we hired a Parent Partner Coordinator and have received technical assistance from the Annie E. Casey Foundation to assist us with this service. We are in the process of hiring two parent partners to work with us by attending TDM's, serve on committees, and mentor parents that have children in the system. Other subcommittees continue to work on other emancipation issues such as; Placement stability, Case planning that is inclusive of youth and parent, Caregiver involvement, and a Guaranteed Exit Package. As the workgroups make progress we will be implementing other strategies throughout the year. Internal Redesign Efforts In October, the Director of the Bureau held "brainstorm" sessions with staff to determine whether there were areas that might be streamlined to make a more effective child welfare program and to eliminate duplication. Given the budget crisis and the loss of positions in child welfare and adoptions, it was hoped that we could review tasks that could be eliminated. The Bureau was able to find some tasks that could be streamlined and is in the process of working on those areas; however, it became clear that most of the things that are being done are mandates and cannot be eliminated. In doing this "brainstorm" work, an idea was presented to look at the whole system and how we could be more effective by reducing the change of workers and at the same time create a system more "friendly" to the children and families we serve. At this time, we are looking at a "vertical case management" system where the child and family are given a worker that will stay with them until reunification and closure or through adoption or emancipation. This plan will require that a case (or family) receives a worker at the time 5 of detention and that we will not move the case from Court Workers to Continuing Services Worker as we do now. While this may not appear to be a big change, it is a monumental shift in how we are organized and will require development of new skills by some of our staff. The plan also involves the use of either Paralegals or Technical Writers that will assist the workers in the gathering of information for the Court Report and the actual writing of the report with the content being the responsibility of the social worker. We are only at the conceptual stage of this work and expect to form a Task Group after the first of the year to include staff and county counsel to flesh out this concept and to hopefully, test its merits. Summary The CFS Bureau continues to meet Federal and State performance improvement expectations and goals. While it has been a difficult year with the loss of positions, the Redesign efforts have been able to continue as a result of funding from a variety of sources: State Redesign Pilot grant, Federal System of Care, and smaller grants from the Stuart Foundation and Hedgefunds Care. Over the next several months, we will move into the first phase of implementing Differential Response by letting RFP's for community and faith-based providers to bid on the contracts. While we have provided overviews to community partners and staff on the different "Paths" in Differential Response (DR), we will be conducting more in-depth training to our ER workers and the providers that obtain contracts for delivery of services. We will be developing a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of DR in order to begin plans for countywide implementation in FY 05/06. With the Board's continuing support and the commitment of our CFS staff, we are confident that Contra Costa will lead Child Welfare System changes that will positively impact outcomes for children and families. 6 California Child Welfare Services Outcome & Accountability Comparison Data Report (Welfare Supervised Caseload) Contra Costa CounW v. California October 2004 CHILD WELFARE SERVICES PARTICIPATION RATES This section provides data on the number, and number per 1,000 children in the county/state, for key child welfare indicators. It is intended as background information to assist your county in analyzing your county's performance by the outcome indicators. This section was developed by the University of California, Berkeley (UCB). These numbers and rates are updated once per year. Please note: Since the methodology for computing the number of children with referrals has been changed, both 2002 and 2003 data have been revised. In addition, UCB has updated 2002 first entries incidence rate data as part of the regular update schedule. New October data information is indicated in red. Number of children < 18 in population Population projections have been revised using California Department of Finance data. This revision affects reported population numbers and the denominator of rate calculations. Year State Number County Number 2003 (revised) 9,536,260 260,799 2002 (revised) 9,436,475 259,056 Number and rate of children with referrals Unduplicated count of child clients < age 18 in referrals during the indicated year, per 1,000 children < age 18 in population URL `Ott :r%cssr.aerketov.edulCtlVSC.VISre orfs"Referrals/rates.asp#countvrates Year State Number State Mate , County Number County Rate 2003 (revised) f 493,299 51.7 per 1,000 9,854 37.8 per 1,000 26 2002 (revised) 489,600 51.9 per 1,000 10,4 40.2 per 1,000 Number and rate of children with substantiatedreferrals Unduplicated count of child clients < age 18 in referrals during the indicated year that had substantiated allegations, per 1,000 children < age 18 in population URL np:f/wssr.berkelev.edu1 CyVSCN,9Sreportsi.Referraisirates.aso#countvrates i Year State Number State Rate CountyNumber Count Rate 2003 (revised) 110,570 11.6 per 1,000 1,979 7.6 per 1,000 2002 (revised) 1 115,745 12.3 er 1,000 2,242 ; 8.7 per 1,000 7 Number and rate of first entries Unduplicated count of children < age 18 entering a child welfare supervised placement episode of at least five days duration for the first time during the indicated year, per 1,000 children < age 18 in population URL: .asp Year i State Number State Rate County Number ! County Rate 2003 ! 27,126 2.8 per 1,000 645 2.5 per 1,000 200263 2.9 per 1,000 663 ! 2.6 per 1,000 Number and rate of children in care Number of children < age 19 in child welfare supervised foster care on the indicated date, per 1,000 children < age 19 in population. URL: taw:,(cssr.Gerke#ay.ec#u/CVISCN35reparst€ofrtiniimelf°stercare/chiid+rfei/prevaierce.ttsp Date State Number State Rate 'County Number County Rate Jul 1, 2003 89,309 8.9 per 1,000 2,087 7.6 per 1,000 SAFETY OUTCOMES Recurrence of Maltreatment (1A and 1B) This measure reflects the percent of children who were victims of child abuse/neglect with a subsequent substantiated report of abuse/neglect within specific time periods. It is both a state and federal outcome measure. This measure was developed by UCS. Federal: Of all children with a substantiated allegation within the first six months of the 12-month study period, what percent had another substantiated allegation within six months? (limited to dispositions within the study year, according to federal guidelines). URL nt,,p:%7cssr.be*e1ey.eduiOWSCMSrep°rtslcfs,datalstandardstcfsr recurrence.as 1A. Percent recurrence of maltreatment (Fed) 12-month study period)— State Contra Costa 07/01/02-06/30/03 (revised) 9,8% 6.9% 10/01/02-09/30/03 (revised) 9.7% 6.3% 01/01/03-12131/03 (revised) 9A% 5.8% 4/1/03-3,131/04 8.9% 5.0% State: Of all children with a substantiated referral during the 12-month study period, what percent had a subsequent substantiated referral within 12 months? URL: nt p:/lcssr.berkeiev.edutvvVSCMS.,eports/RRelerraisirecurrence.asp 1 B. Percent recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months 12-month stud eriod State Contra Costa 07101/01-06/30/02 (revised) 13.2% 11.1°l0 10/01/01-09/30/02 (revised) 13.4% 11.5% 01/01/02-12/31/02 (revised) 13.5% 10.4% 4/1/02-3/31/03 13.5 8 State: Of all children with a first substantiated referral during the 12-month study period, what percent had a subsequent substantiated referral within 12 months? URL: # i :/, ssr.be€k2iey.edulCJSCty#Srortsi�2eferra#sirecu;rer: .asw 1 B. Percent recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months after first substantiated allegation 12-month study period State Contra Costa 01/01/02-12/31/02 (revised) 11.6% 9.1% 10/01/01-09/30/02 (revised) 11.7% 10.2% 07/01/01-06/30/02 (revised) 11.6% 10.2% 411/02-3/31/03 11.6% 9.0% Rate of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care (1C) This measure reflects the percent of children in foster care who are abused or neglected while in foster care placement (currently limited due to data constraints to children in foster or FFA homes). This data was developed by UCS. It is a federal outcome measure. For all children in county supervised or Foster Family Agency child welfare supervised foster care during the nine-month review period (timeframe established according to federal guidelines), what percent had a substantiated allegation by a foster parent during that time? URL: abuse asp 1C. Percent rate of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care (Fed) (9-month reviewperiod) State Contra Costa 10/01/02-06/30/03 0.81% 0.67% 01/01/03-09/30/03 0.87% 0.90% 04/01/03-12/31/03 0.900lo 0.53% 7/l/03-3/31/04 0.84% .077% Rate of Recurrence of Abuse and/or Neglect in Homes Where Children Were Not Removed (2A) This measure reflects the occurrence of abuse and/or neglect of children who remain in their own homes. This data was developed by CRSS. It is a state outcome measure. Of all the children with allegation (inconclusive or substantiated) during the 12-month study period who were not removed, what percent had a subsequent substantiated allegation within 12 months? URI.: htto:,'/c--sr.berkeley.edu/CWSC!MSrepors/Ccfsr.asp#2A 2A. Percent rate of recurrence of abuse/neglect in homes where children were not removed 12-month study period) State Contra Costa 7/01/01-06/30/02 (revised) 8.9% 9.3% 10/01/01-09/30/02 (revised) 8.9% 8.6% 1/01/02-12/31/02 (revised) 8.9% 7.9% L4/l/02-3/31/03 8.8% 8.5% 9 Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response (213) This is a process measure designed to determine the percent of cases in which face-to- face contact with a child occurs, or is attempted, within the regulatory time frames in those situations in which a determination is made that the abuse or neglect allegations indicate significant danger to the child. This data was developed by CRSS. It is a state process measure. Percent of child abuse and neglect referrals in the study quarter that have resulted in an in-person investigation stratified by immediate response and ten-day referrals, for both planned and actual visits. URL *±F_r'l�ssrfs� el�v.edur u�1SCi475reprts/Ccfs�.asp#2 2S. Percent of child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely response j State Contra Costa i Immediate 10-day Immediate 10-day Response Response Response Response Compliance Compliance i Compliance Compliance Q2 2003 94.5 88.6% 92.1% 50.7% Q3 2003 i 93.6 90.6% 88.2% 88.4% Q4 2003 93.9 88.0% 94.2% 74.6% Q1 2004 94.5% 88.6% 93,4% 76.310 Timely Social Worker Visits With Child (2C) This is a process measure designed to determine if social workers are seeing the children on a monthly basis when that is required. Children for whom a determination is made that monthly visits are not necessary (e.g. valid visit exception) are not included in this measure. This data was developed by CDSS. It is a state process measure. This report is based on CWS/CMS only. (Other data analysis measurements such as the SafeMeasures application may provide different results.) Please note: Since the methodology for computing social worker visits has been changed, Q2 and Q3 data have been revised. Of all children who required a monthly social worker visit, how many received a monthly visit? URLi N:Jlcs�r.b?}cefv ecutCL�ISC�#Srenoris/Ccfs;. sp#2C 2C. Percent of timely social worker visits with child Q2 2003 (revised) ; Apr 2003 May 2003 Jun 2003 State 84.6% 85.2% 85.8% Contra Costa 1 77.9% 78.6% 79.4% Q3 2003 (revised) i Ju12003 ' Aug 2003 Sep 2003 ' State 85.4% 85.9% 86.4% Contra Costa ! 77.1% 78.3010 78.9°l0 04 2003 Oct 2003: Nov 2003 Dec 2003 State 85.7% 86.3°l0 86.8°l0 i Contra Costa 82.5% 83.5% 84.1% Q1 2004 Jan 2004 Feb 2004 March 2004 State 83.0% 87.8% 88.5% Contra Costa 76.9% 85.0% 85.5% 10 PERMANENCY OUTCOMES These measures are designed to reflect the number of foster care placements for each child, the length of time a child is in foster care, and the rate that children re-enter foster care after they have returned home or other permanent care arrangements have been made. Length of Time to Exit Faster Care to Reunification (3E and 3A) This is an outcome measure reflecting the percent of children reunified within 12 months of removal of a child from the home. The data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state outcome measure. Federal: Of all children who were reunified from child welfare supervised foster care during the 12-month study period, what percent had been in care for less than 12 months? URL: h;,p:tfssssr.betcei€y.ed.'.,/CWSCMSrepoitis:€fsrdata/standards/cfsr s;ancardsForm.asp 3E. Percent reunified within 12 months Fed (12-month study eriod State Contra Costa 07/01/01-06/30/02 65.3% 64.9% 10/01/01-09/30102 65.1% ! 64.2°l0 01/01/02-12/31/02 64.9% i 63.6% 411/03-3/31/04 64.4% i 68.7% State: For all children who entered foster care for the first time (and stayed at least five days) during the 12-month study period, what percent were reunified within 12 months? URL: nta:i/CS3f.tikeeY.2tfi7/�:15r@pQftiS/{ 10 5/PX#tS/ 3A. Percent reunified within 12 months (ant cohort) 12-month study period) State Contra Costa 107/01/01-06/30/02 34.6% 36.9% 10101/01-09/30/02 35.0% 36.0% 01/01/02-12/31/02 35.2% 39.7% 1411/02-3/31/03 35.9% 42.4% Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Adoption (313 and 3A) This is an outcome measure reflecting the percent of children adopted within 24 months of removal of a child from the home. The data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state outcome measure. Federal: Of all children who were adopted from child welfare supervised foster care during the 12-month study period, what percent had been in care for less than 24 months' URL: http:;;cssr.herke#ev.edu/GvvScrosreports/cfsrdata/5ta#jaards/cfsr standard sForm.asp 3D. Percent adopted within 24 months Fed 12-month study period) State Contra Costa 07/01101-06/30/02 23.6% 33.8% 10/01/01-09/30/02 24.7% 36.17% 01/01/02-12/31/02 25.5% 36.6% 4/1/03-3/31/04 i 26.8% 38.4% 11 State: For all children who entered child welfare supervised faster care for the first time (and stayed at least five days) during the 12-month study period, what percent were adopted within 24 months? URL: http:/Icssr.bErkPIE'. v`�ISdISrECr�Sfflk03S/2X#SSI 3A. Percent adopted within 24 months ent cohort12-month study period) State Contra Costa 07/01/01-06/30/02 5.0% 5.4% 10/01/01-09/30/02 5.2% 6A% 01/01/02-12/31/02 5.3°l0 6.7% 4/1/01-3131/02 5.4°l0 6.7% Multiple Foster Care Placements (313 and 3C) These measures reflect the number of children with multiple placements within 12 months of placement. This data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state outcome measure. Federal: For all children in child welfare supervised foster care for less than 12 months during the 12-month study period, what percent had no more than two placements? URL: Ii.?to:,I ssr.berke:ev.edu/OWSCMSr oo.ts/c`srdatatsiandards/ofsr standardsForm.aso 38. Percent with 1-2 placements within 12 months (Fed) 12-month study period) State Contra Costa 07/01/01-06/30/02 63.9% 85.1% 10101/01-09/30/02 83.7% 86.9% 01101/02-12/31/02 83.7% 88.3% 4/l/03-3/31/04 84.5% 87.7% State: For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and stayed at least five days) during the 12-month study period, and were in care for 12 months, what percent had no more than two placements? URL: littN:/;cssr.b,3rkeiey.edu/CWSC v1Sreports/ccnorts/stability/ 3C. Percent with 1-2 placements — if still in care at 12 months (entry cohort) (12-month q4y.period State Contra Costa 07/01/01-06/30/02 63.2% 67.9% ! 10/01/01-09/30/02 63.3% 67.4% 01/01/02-12/31/02 63.3% 68.8% 4/1102-3/31/03 63.30la 67.6% Mate of Foster Care Re-Entry (3F and 3G) This measure reflects the number of children who re-enter foster care subsequent to reunification or guardianship. The data was developed by UCB. It is a federal and state outcome measure. 12 Federal: For all children who entered child welfare supervised faster care during the 12- month study period, what percent were subsequent entries within 12 months of a prior exit? URL: s andardsForm.asp 3F. Percent of admissions who are re-entries Fed 12-month study period) State Contra Costa 1_07101/01-06/30/02 10.8% 12.9% 10/01101-09/30/02 10.9% 10.6010 01/01/02-12/31/02 10.8% 10.7% 4/l/03-3131/04 10.4% 9.9010 State: For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and stayed at least five days) during the 12 month study period and were reunified within 12 months of entry, what percent re-entered foster care within 12 months of reunification? URL: htto:t/ edu/CWSCMSreDorts,Cohortslreentries/ 3G. Percent who re-entered within 12 months of reunification (entry cohort reunified within 12 months 12-month study period) State Count 07/01/01-06130/02 13.4% 14.1% 10/01/01-09/30/02 13.0% 15.2% 01/01/02-12131/02 13.3% 13.4% 4/1101-3/31102 13.2% � 14.0010 CHILD & FAMILY WELL-BEING OUTCOMES These measures are designed to reflect the degree to which children in foster care retain relationships with the family and extended communities with whom they are associated at the time of their removal from their parents. Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care (4A) These measures reflect the number of children placed with all or some of their siblings in foster care. The data was developed by UCS. It is a state outcome measure. For all children in child welfare supervised foster care on the point-in-time, of those with siblings in care, what percent were placed with some and/or all of their siblings? URL: ,as 4A. Percent of children in foster care that are placed with ALL siblings point in time State Count Jul 1, 2003 42.0010 39.0010 (pct 1, 2003 41.9% 37.9% Jan 1, 2004 42.9% 39.5% Apr 1, 2004 42.7010 38.1% 13 _. ........... 4A. Percent of children in foster care that are placed with SOME or ALL siblings (point in time State Count Jul 1, 2003 66.4% 60.4% Oct 1, 2003 65.9% 59.2% Jan 1, 2004 1 66.8% 58.9'/0 A r 1, 2004 66.5% 59.0% Foster Cage Placement in Least Restrictive Settings (413) This measure reflects the percent of children placed in each type of foster care setting. The data was developed by UCS. It is a state outcome measure. For all children who entered child welfare supervised foster care for the first time (and stayed at least five days) during the 12 month study period, what percent were in kin, foster, FFA, group, and other placements (first placement type, predominant placement type)? What percent of children in child welfare supervised faster care were in kin, foster, FFA, group, and other placements at the specified point in time? URL: (entry cohort)httc://cssr.cerke#ey.edu/CWSCMSreports/cohorts/#irstentries/ URL: (point in time)htt cssr.Nerke#ey.ed�fCWSCN4Srersorts/oZintli3tin}ef#csstercare{chi#d�veita eandethr ic.aso Initial Primary Point in Time Placement Placement Placement 07/01/02-06130103 07101/02-06/30/03 Jul 1,2003 413. Relative State 16.1% 33.9% 33.7% Contra Costa 14.7% 38.3°l0 36.2% 4B, Foster Home State 33.1% 22.9% 13.6% Contra Costa 63.1% 39.7% 17.7% 4B. FFA State I 28.0% 30.1% 22.2% Contra Costa I 8.9% 8.0% 16.9% 4B. Group/Shelter State 20.6% 9.1% 8.9% I Contra Costa 10.4% I 8.6% 11.3°1° 4B. Other j State 2.2% 4.0°10 21.7°lo I Contra Costa 2.9% 5.4% 17.9% Initial Primary Point in Time Placement Placement Placement 10/0110209/30/03 10/01102-09/30/03 Oct 1,2003 4B. Relative i State 16.2% 34.1% 33.3% Contra Costa I 15.7% 37.2% 35.0% 48. Foster Home State ' 33.0% 23.2% 13.7% Contra Costa 63.9% 42.1% 19.6% 4B. FPA State 28.5% 30.0% 22.2% I Contra Costa 6.5% 7.1% 16.4% 4B. Group/Shelter to#e 20.1% 8.8°l0 8.9% Contra Costa 10.7°10 8.8% 11.5% 4B. Other State 2.1% 3.9% 21.$% i Contra Costa 3.2% 4.8% 17.9% 14 Initial Primary Point in Time Placement Placement Placement 01/01/03-12131/03 01/01/03-12131/03 Jan 1,2004 413. Relative State 16.7% E 34.9% 33.6% Contra Costa 17.5% 37.3% 35.5% 4B. Foster Home State 32.6% 22.6% 13.6% Contra Costa 62.5% 43.5% 18.7% 4B. FFA State 29.0% 30.5% 22.4% 3 Contra.Costa 7.4% 7.6% 16A% 4B. Croup/Shelter State 19.5% 8.9% 9.0% � Contra Costa 9.5% 7.9% 12.2% 4B. Other State 2.1% 3.2% 21.4% i Contra Costa 3.1% 3.7% 17.2% Initial Primary Point in Time Placement Placement Placement 411103-3/31/04 4/1/03-3/31/04 Apr 1,2004 4B. Relative State 17.7% 35.4% i 34.1% Contra Costa 15.4% 34.3% 35.5% 4B. Foster Home i State I 31.3% 21.4% 12.6% Contra Costa 63.5% 44.8°/n 18.6°IO 4B. FFA I Stag 30.8°% 31.61° 22.7% � Contra Costa 8.0% 9.4% 16.1% l 46. Croup/Shelter State 18.2% i 8.6% 9.1% Contra Costa 1(3.1% 8.3°/n 122°ln 4B. Other State 2.0% 2.9% 21.5% ` Contra Costa 2.9% 3.2% 1769% **Efate of ICWA Placement Preferences (4E) This measure reflects the percent of Indian Child Welfare Act eligible children placed in foster care settings defined by the IOWA. This data was developed by C©SS. It is a state outcome measure. 4E (1)0f those children identified as American Indian, what percent were placed with relatives, non-relative Indian and non-relative non-Indian families? URL: l;'etp:!','cssr.herkelev.ed u,",'v JSCMS repdrts!Ccfsr.asp#4l Q2 2003 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Nome 41.3°l0 50.0% ` 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 9.5% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Famil 21.0% 0.0% 15 Q3 2003 ! State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 39.3% 37.5% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family_____ 9.4% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 23.0% 0.0%0 Q4 2003 State i Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 38.9% 29.4% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 9.9% 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 22.8% 17.6% Q1 2004 State Contra Costa 4E. Relative Home 42.0% 80.0% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 10.2 0.0% 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 24.8% 6.7% 4E (2) This measure reflects the percent of Indian Child Welfare Act eligible children placed in foster care settings defined by the IOWA. This data was developed by CRSS. It is a state outcome measure. URL: ht p:l;rssr.bar#elev.edu/CIAiSCMSroports/Cc#sr.asp 4E Q 1 2004 State Contra Costa I 4E. Relative Home 52.2% 77.8% 4E. Non-Relative Indian Family 11.2 0.0%0 4E. Non-Relative Non-Indian Family 18.6% 11.1% "Measure 4E (2) was recently developed to reflect percent of IOWA eligible placement types. For county information only. Children Transitioning to Self-Sufficient Adulthood (8A) These measures are designed to reflect the degree to which children and families receiving child welfare services are receiving the services necessary to provide for their care and developmental needs. This measure reflects the percent of foster children eligible for Independent Living Services who receive appropriate educational and training, and/or achieve employment or economic self-sufficiency. The data was collected by Cf3SS. This measure includes data regarding youths, ages 16 through 20, who receive services from the Independent Living Foster Care Program. It identifies the number of youths receiving Independent Living Program services, the program outcomes for those youths, and certain client characteristics. This report is limited to a subset population obtained from State of California form 406A. It is a state outcome measure. This data is based on hard copy reports submitted by counties to the CRSS for the time 16 period covered by the report. These numbers are updated once per year. URL: 415.htm Number of Children Transitioning to Self-Sufficient Adulthood with: 10/01/02-9/30/03 State Contra Costa 8A. High School Di lama 6,395 94 8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,450 52 8A. Received ILP Services 24,988 723 8A. Completed Vocational Training 1,461 0 8A. Employed or other means of support 5,643 1 157 10/01/01-09/30/02 State Contra Costa 8A. Hi h School Diploma 4,940 ! 66 8A. Enrolled in College/Higher Education 3,291 53 8A. Received ILP Services 23,361 642 8A. Completed Vocational Training 1,430 0 8A. Employed or other means of su ort 5,691 163 17