The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07112006 - D.2 6 E .L TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ? " Contra FROM: Danna Fabella, Interim Director Employment & Human Services Department `s Costa 4' DATE: July 11, 2006 �°SrA�aUx� � County SUBJECT: ACCEPT Report from the Employment and Human Services Department on the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) Report entitled "Broken Promises" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT report from the Employment and Human Services Department on the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) report entitled "Broken Promises" FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT This action will affect three of the Outcome Indicators: 1) Children ready for and succeeding in school; 2) Children and youth healthy and preparing for productive adulthood; and 4) Families that are safe, stable and nurturing. BACKGROUND: In April 2006, the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) released its report entitled "Broken Promises: California's Inadequate and Unequal Treatment of its Abused and Neglected Children." The report casts a negative light on child welfare services in California. While there has been much discussion about the methodologies used, which we are also concerned about, we are pleased to report that Contra Costa County ranked highest of the large counties (described as those with 1,000 or more children in foster care). EHSD is further pleased to report that when this report was released, EHSD received phone calls, including calls from members of the Bench, congratulating us on how well we did in the report. EHSD provides the following information, and the accompanying PowerPoint presentation, in response to the comments in the NCYL report. While we have been avoiding ranking and comparing ourselves with other counties, NCYL apparently did an aggregate ranking of all 58 counties on the six outcomes (federal and state), which are: ■ Recurrence of Maltreatment ■ Rate of Child Abuse Neglect in Foster Care ■ Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Reunification ■ Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Adoption ■ Multiple Foster Care Placements ■ Rate of Foster Care Re-Entry CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:d�/,y ' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ✓APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO ON_�+4-�L� I 11�00(s APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: /� Lez�_ ATTESTED: o- �tx CONTACT: JOHN CULLEN,CLEIRK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY �,_bEPUTY i EHSD Board Order to Accept report from the Employment and Human Services Department on the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) report entitled "Broken Promises" July 11, 2006 Page 2 In summary, the work EHSD has been doing for the last five years on Child Welfare Redesign, including Family to Family, Team Decision Making, Parent Partners, Differential Response, implementing the Comprehensive Assessment Tool, and other initiatives such as the SIT, Welcome Home Baby, and Promoting Safe and Stable Families, has definitely paid off in Contra Costa County. Report • the Board • •' • on • for Youth •• Fabella,Danna • Employment and Human Services -•. July 11, 00• Report to the Board of Supervisors Near Bottum in flelphig Kids -- I 'Contra Costa S— County ranked on the National Center for Youth Law Report "Broken Promises: California's Inadequate and Unfair Treatment of Abused Children" Danna Fabella, Interim Director Employment and Human Services Department July 11,2006 11 � "Broken Promises" Report • Based on 12 performance measures • Performance measures are both federal and state measures • Compares California counties Background • 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act authorizes Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS)to review states' child welfare progress • 1997 Adoption & Safe Family Act requires that Child Welfare reform be based on outcomes • 2000 DHHS establishes new results- oriented review process Children & Family Services Review (CFSR) • States Evaluated According to Seven Outcomes —Safety •Children are,first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect •Children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate —Permanency •Children have permanency and stability in their living situations •The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children —Family & Child Wellbeing • Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs •Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs •Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs 2001 — Background on State Measures California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System (AB636) • A new outcomes-based review system-California Children and Family Services Review(C-CFSR) • State develops county-based performance targets based on set of indicators -Consistent with Federal measures • Quarterly reports-continuous measurement and feedback • Parallels federal CFSR outcomes, but expands on indicators Review of Cases • In addition to review of data, both federal and state review required case review • Federal Review —Review conducted by the DHHS Administration for Children&Family • Partnership state and local child welfare staff —Total of 50 cases in three California counties were reviewed in September 2002 Los Angeles Stanislaus San Mateo • State Review —Peer Quality Case Review Each county decides upon an area for review Peer reviewers made up of different level of staff from peer counties Review of cases conducted by peers as well as interviews with staff Areas for improvement are identified County develops System Improvement Plan Federal State Outcome Measures Safety ✓ Percent recurrence of ✓ Percent recurrence of maltreatment within 12 maltreatment within 12 months months ✓ Percent recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months after first substantiated allegation ✓ Percent rate of child abuse ✓ Percent rate of recurrence of and/or neglect In foster care abuselneglect in homes where children were not removed Federal State Permanency ✓ Percent returned home within ✓ Percent reunified within 1 year of entering care 12 months ✓ Percent adopted within 24 ✓ Percent adopted within 24 months months Percent with 1-2 placements ✓ Percent with 1-2 placements within 12 months within 12 months—if still in care at 12 months Percent of admission who are re-entries Percent who re-entered within 12 months of reunification Federal Standards Type of Description National Calrtorna stand—I A sial:meets the standa,d a of all ehddren Standard(%.) Goal Racurrance o1who-ne vra�ns of ardstanuated cmm abase Abuse or Neglect dunna the rest six months of the period under review <_6 i% 8 8% 6 I%or less had another substanaaled report.venin arx months Inmd-e of Child in roster care rn the state dunng the period-de, A--.r Negrect r.the percentage of en,ldren vvho were 50 57% 0 53% rn Foster Care substantiated vrcams of—Ibaatmant by a foster parent or ta,ahty stall rs 0 571%or lass Foster Care Re- he entered 1.1e,cart dunng he year nde, ennles w 8 G%of all children who entered roster care dunng the year under review.8 6%or fewer pl those >8 G'Y g 4% children r_nte,od care wnhrn 12 months of a prior ap,sode rn foster care Stabrlrty of Faster who nave Wean in foster c—less than 12 months, Care Placements 86 7%or more cndaren had no more than nvo >_g6 i°h 867% placements Length o'Time to who we,e,—fiod weh thou parents d the A —e year under 762%a ---ted ss eedle >_762, 5725 Reunracaaon than 12 months attar entering to-,care Length cf Time to vino stead foster care tlunng the year andel Acn—e Adoption ry to I:e adopted 3215 b more chear en e.rtod 132% 209% ca—,,less than 24 months Overall Ban"(Stab and Federal 6loesmoek'Cmpo Cwabl bF Nundwi of Children In Cut Smapea to LMMW . a t 5 ,o s s o u » •Yat Fa,,000GNohw. Cmq oYtltl hbbq W�ae.a.V oral Htabvaa hmthtp ISM Mmues the fR Up Comdbe It Nmma of Children to Caw Smapoa to Lagoa r r a t � t e . v ,t lbtba,AAmlf®ha Ca.q,eb/alhb OaS wap Children Abawd or Neglected Again Within 6 Mouft Federal Momma(tAl Wpe Comdln by Nmabm of Children In Can Sm Iloa to larges: 0 It it e f 1 a.tx t rtm Caabdttblmev bviep bt f-ftF egjsw&d o®b eau.b nta.eabauv.aY embrmwnzmY 4 Cldldren Aboad or Neglected Again WSMo t tecr.Sao Morias tl81 Lugo Comedos by Nosbor of Children is Care Smiled to Wpod� 6 Cbpdrm Allosod a Neglected Apalo In Theis On Him Within 1 Year.Qao Muses 9Al IAdna dStdo MoerereOSIk largo Counties 4 M7ado r of Children in Caro Smllort to latpw 1 d I lra. Cmb Ctnbbn pbmpbbrtsb WO neY. [mbbbbb pmooyraufmbtlOeTpl. Clpdrat Abador Neglected In Poste Care fodwal Memo IIQ Largo Cowdos by oesbor d CWftu in Gro S®Ilod a lerpos-+ o �Ojo Obdd •fetal 057% nA 11 '+ i Cdr�Cw,bbwp�lobpbtwfm b RbdlCrmC Cwd�bbl bb wpebobprmb,b bW ebmd 5 s Chudroo Roamed Nome vmlo 1 You M Emmiog Carr.Federal Mainers DE) Lmge Combo by NareMr of Ckildron in Caro Smiles:bLugo� ;t I 1 Sammi! •Femml GUnd Tula Com.ama b b A p.aslur ObrCi m a eaa.!ESGm. Cvms°ObCfa elpeBmrye®bo Oaltlri SLCaC. CblMres IbmPbd WIIMo f Yom of FobrN Foster Carr.Stab Mammo GAI Large Counties by Nembor of CMldron in Cab Sman@ to Lary@ am P 9 m sera. omra ea.b r w eaml�o°ea m b vs�.ea. LLM b b n oeamaep m me b ee..�. Children AdWWWrtdin2Yom olEmmriogFaster Carr.Federal Noun(31)) Largo Counties by Nudot of Cbgdron In Can 6 Smago to Lugo-e S e v $ e 4 u 13 v d :,tom �. .. Aura, swdevam i m fjo a marmeA,a.o...marmw°meAeev.a.�s,ea rams llseeMreoaC�V.owesrbieb/Samm 6 Chill ena adopud Whbin 2 Years of 64erlep Foster Cara.State MMams MW e lmpa Coaotlas by Nauhar of Ctlldm In Can Swills!to Umsd =�In �■ Its Is- m Ci.R�tlY b M n pRebp OIY.bs Y.as rsp. trmm E�bbbYfofbvfapbeb WYYnaa Children whb No Mareptun Tm pfateneeb Whirls t Yaw..rodorai Mmswo USI larpe Counties by Nmber of Children in tare Senhwt to larpast-� n i w ambr c 'UM" m CmYs.p.,'I�bb wp�enpeC.Hwbf.re�aagbl me®set bb�pr®avuoabfaasY6aafaa Udldm wbb Ns Man tiwa Two Rauuoen Within 1 Yaw.Stab Mum UCl large C=Wu by Nmtbw of Children to Care Smhnt to umen� i 7 Odkbso&satorbig Faster Can Within I Your.Mosel filloasure IN) IIS'^ Smallest � 4 Ckiklrsn it"nosring Faster Cafe Within I Year of Rowning Heam:SM Measure 13G) J�L P "ry�Y rials +ryy Smallest r I S Strategies Contra Costa Implemented to Achieve Outcomes • Shared Family Care • Team Decision Making(TDM) • Community Engagement Liaisons • Creating Community Capacity • Safe Measures/Data Collection Tools • Differential Response(DR) • Implement new Risk/Safety Tool • Parent Partners • Better Use of Data for Accountability and decision making • Focus on Family Engagement • Cultural Competency Training Collaborative - Effort Dedicated and well-trained staff Experienced management/supervisors Supportive Board of Supervisors 9