HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05082007 - D.1 (2) •
•
•
•
• Table of Contents
•
• Introduction & Overview
• Introduction 1
• Understanding the Self Assessment Process 1
Conducting Contra Costa's Self-Assessment 4
• Probation Involvement 6
Probation Findings 8
•
• Outcomes Data
Objectives of the C-CFSR 12
• General Participation Info 14
• Referrals 14
•. Removals 17
• Reunification 19
• Adoptions 20
Children in Care at a Point in Time 21
• Disproportionality and Disparity 23
• CWS Outcomes
• Safety Outcomes 24
• Permanency and Stability Outcomes 31
• Well-Being Outcomes 42
• Section I. Demographic Profile
Demographic Profile 54
• Economics 56
• Education Systems Profile 58
Section H. Public Agency Characteristics
Size and structure of agencies 61
• County governance structure 62
• Number/composition of employees 62
• Political Jurisdiction 65
Technology level 66
•
Section III: Systemic Factors
• Relevant Management Information Systems 68
• Case Review System 70
• Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention 74
Quality Assurance System 75
• Service Array 80
• Assessment of Needs to Children, Parents and Foster Parents 84
• Staff/Provider Training 91
•
•
•
Agency Collaborations 93
Section IV: County-Wide Prevention Activities and Strategies 96 •
Section V. Summary Assessment
PQCR Final Observations and Recommendations 101
Discussion of System Strengths and Areas Needing Improvement 109
Summary of Current Outcomes 109 •
Systemic Factors 112 •
Section VI. System Improvement Plan
System Improvement Plan 117
Appendix I: Self Assessment Team Members 119 •
Appendix II:Redesign Steering Committee Members 120 •
2
•
•
•
•
• Introduction & Overview
•
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
• E We strive to provide culturally competent services.
• 0 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 has a strong history of innovation and community
involvement. This history of collaboration created an open environment for the
• Self Assessment process.
•
. This second County Self-Assessment has again provided the Bureau and its
• stakeholders with an opportunity to examine current child welfare practices and
• identify areas in need of improvement. It has also afforded the opportunity to
evaluate the ways in which child welfare services have expanded and improved
• over the past several years.
•
•
•
Understanding the County Self-Assessment Process
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 its first PQCR in March 2006. 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. The outcome •
indicator CFS and Probation choose was "Length of Time to Exit Foster
Care to Reunification." The focus was specifically, how does the
frequency and context of social worker and parent contact
influence/enhance timely reunification? .
The self assessment team received the PQCR report and was presented •
with the observations and recommendations of the PQCR to incorporate
into the self assessment process.
• County Self-Assessment (CSA) •
Each county is to conduct an extensive self-assessment 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.
This second CSA process was launched in August 2006 and consisted of •
four half-day and one full-day meetings. The assessment consisted of •
detailed outcome analysis conducted by the Contra Costa's CFS Research
and Evaluation team. The analysis reported outcome indicators that
measure county-level performance in safety, permanency and child and
family well-being. 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 and public health.
In addition to reviewing performance on the specific outcome indicators,
the self-assessment process examines seven systemic factors, identified by •
the federal government. These are: 1) use of a management information •
system, 2) the case review process (which also encompasses parent and
youth participation in case planning, relationship with the court, and
timely notification of hearings), 3) recruitment, licensing and retention of
foster and adoptive parents, 4) quality assurance system, 5) service array •
(which includes service availability, needs assessment and service •
provision, and services to Indian children), 6) staff and provider training, •
and, 7) agency collaborations (including collaboration with private and
public agencies and interaction with local tribes).
2
• 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".
On September 30, 2004, Contra Costa submitted its original SIP. The
updated SIP was submitted on September 30, 2005. The Outcome
Indicators included in the SIP were:
• • Outcome Indicator 2B: Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals With a
• Timely Response
• Outcome Indicator 2C:Timely Social Worker Visits With Child
• Number and Rate of First Entries to Foster Care
• Outcome Indicator 3A: Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to
Reunification
• • Outcome Indicator 3B: Multiple Foster Care Placements
• • Outcome Indicator 8A: Children Transition to Self-Sufficient
Adulthood
• Outcome Indicator 4A: Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care
• The Outcomes Data section of this document identifies the areas selected
. for improvement for the prior SIP and reports on the county's progress in
• meeting the goals established.
Between now and March 2007 Contra Costa County will plan the next
three year SIP. This SIP will be approved by the County Board of
• Supervisors prior to being delivered to CDSS on March 20, 2007.
These SIP documents can be obtained from
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/Res/SIPs/2004SIPContraCosta.pdf
3
0
Conducting Contra Costa's Self-Assessment
Assembling the Team
Contra Costa's successful history of building collaborative relationships with
other agencies, encouraging staff involvement in change initiatives such as the •
local child welfare redesign efforts, and reaching into communities using the
Family to Family model paid off in assembling a committed and involved group
of professionals and community members for the Self-Assessment Team. It was
also noticed that unlike some committees, Bureau staff were eager to participate
in this process, especially if they had participated in the Peer Quality Case •
Review(PQCR).
The Team membership consisted of a representative from probation, a former
foster youth, a parent, a mental health service provider, union representation,
staff from a local Foster Family Agency, members of the legal community, a
representative from public health, and Bureau staff representing each phase of •
the child welfare process. We invited Bureau staff from each district office. All •
Self-Assessment members were invited to attend four half day meetings, August
29th, September 191h, October 3rd and October 171h, and one full day meeting
October 31St 2006. An orientation was given to the group on the process at the S
August 29th meeting. Various subject matter experts were invited to specific •
meetings for input on their areas of expertise scheduled to be discussed at that •
meeting. An example is the foster home child abuse investigator presented on •
"abuse in foster care" and the process to investigate this abuse.
At the conclusion of the October 31St meeting the group made recommendations
regarding people who were missing and should be included in the next self .
assessment. These parties consisted of foster parents, representatives from Faith •
Based organizations and more community based operations. It was also •
recognized that the Education system was not consistently represented and this
is clearly a system that needs to be at the table.
Staff who were not involved in the process, especially supervisors, have •
requested involvement in the assessment and subsequent System Improvement •
Planning process. In response to this request, the new CFS Director and the .
Research&Evaluation team presented Self Assessment data to supervisors in the
Bureau; supervisors discussed strengths, issues and concerns in various
performance areas and proposed topics for inclusion in the SIP. Discussion 0
topics from the Supervisors meeting is included in the Summary Assessment
section and will be considered along with Self Assessment and PQCR .
discussions for inclusion in the SIP.
4
Reviewing the Data and Gathering Input
Contra Costa chose to use a participative model for its Self-Assessment by
involving Self-Assessment Team members directly in the analysis of the data,
identifying areas of concern and high performance, and suggesting possible
explanations or hypotheses for our current performance.
Children and Family Services Supervisors were also presented the data and
• engaged in an interactive process for their input. This input is included in the
tables with the self assessment team input.
The Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) was reviewed as part of the data to
• inform the self assessment process.
• What was striking in this self assessment process was the evolution of the ability
to analyze and present data by the Evaluation Team. Contra Costa County has
two Research and Data Evaluators who assist in all the data collection for the
System of Care and Family to Family grants, as well as overall child welfare
• outcomes. The team was invaluable in presenting the data and providing
additional follow-up data to answer questions that were raised during the
discussion.
The charts and discussion points presented in the Outcomes Data section of this
document were presented to the team at the SA meetings. Areas of discussion,
• issues and concerns, suggestions for improving performance, and requests for
• further follow-up outside the SA process that were discussed during these
meetings are enclosed in boxes in this section with a heading of"Self-Assessment
Discussion".
Involving Probation
. The Children and Family Services Bureau has a close working relationship with
the Probation Department and the Bureau's request for probation involvement
received a quick and positive response. The PQCR process helped solidify this
relationship and a process for collaboration on examining our systems has been
formed.
A probation representative attended all Self-Assessment Team meetings,
probation-related data was analyzed, and one portion of a Team meeting was
dedicated to examining probation department needs in light of the outcome
indicators and the Self-Assessment process. More detailed information about
. those findings can be found in the next section.
S
5
•
•
s
•
•
Probation Involvement
s
A Collaborative Relationship s
As discussed in the prior Self Assessment, the Juvenile Probation Department s
and the Children and 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: .
1. Juvenile Justice Commission. This advisory body meets on a monthly basis and s
includes representation from child welfare, probation,juvenile court and the
community. .
2. Iuvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee ( SI PAC). 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 s
of this commission has expanded to address the new challenges for Juvenile s
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 s
transitioning from high level placements or coming back from outside
of the county. (i.e.returning from a placement outside of the county)
3. Maximizing placement funding opportunities. 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 s
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. •
4. Family to Family System of Care Grant. Probation is a member of the advisory
board for this grant. Probation staff are also active members of the s
Permanency and Youth Transition workgroup that address operational
issues related both to the SOC grant and Cohort 1 Redesign activities related •
to permanency. •
s
6 •
•
• 5. 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."
. 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
i 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 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.
7
0
0
The table, below, provides detailed information about those youth seen by the 0
Dual Jurisdiction Committee •
•
Dual Jurisdiction Committee Activity 0
CPS Lead CPS Lead 602 Ward Probation Pending Others Total#of Dual 0
6 mos.Non- 300 V&D Lead Jurisdiction •
Ward
2002 9 55 27 1 3 5 100 .
2003 8 44 30 it 2 5 100 0
2004 13 57 29 5 4 10 118 •
2005 18 57 17 8 7 9 116 0
Jan-Aug 0
2006 4 16 79 0
•
Probation Placement Resources 0
Probation currently has 93 wards placed in residential treatment settings funded •
with Title IV-E. 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, 0
Probation has these additional placement settings for probation-involved youth: 0
• 95 to 100 beds for males at Byron Boys Ranch •
• 20 beds for females at Chris Adams Center
• 240 beds for females or males at Juvenile Hall t
• Other options include placement with relatives or intense monitoring
to avoid placement out of the home altogether 0
It should be noted that the programs at Chris Adams were developed through 0
interagency efforts and involve blended funding streams. •
0
Probation Findings 0
Three years ago for the first Self Assessment process, interviews were conducted ••
with the Probation representative to the Self-Assessment Team and information •
about Probation and the characteristics of involved youth was presented for
discussion and analysis by the Team. For this review, Probation actively 0
participated in the SA process and reviewed the challenges and 0
recommendations outlined previously. Though there has been continued •
progress, Probation still faces the same challenges and recommendations as 0
listed below.
•
0
8 0
0
• Challenges
1. How should CFS and residential placement settings deal with the needs
of more serious offenders? Some of these offenders are dual jurisdiction
youth, while others are dependents who are then vacated and dismissed
. after they become wards.
2. The child welfare system is designed to protect child victims of
maltreatment but we have dependents who are committing crimes
varying from misdemeanors to serious violent offenses. Civil rights
protections these youth receive as dependents (but not as wards) may
• diminish the effectiveness of the oversight they require and of their
rehabilitation. Such protections include a prohibition on drug testing
(although many of them are involved with drugs) and a prohibition on
searching their person (although many of these youth may possess
weapons).How should we address these issues?
3. There is an apparent increase in the number of 601 status offenders
• within the County. Some of this increase may be due to the increase in the
child and youth population. Many of these youth have a history of child
neglect;many of them are involved with drugs. These youth often appear
as runaways who are picked up after hours. In whatever system they
land, they often stay in care long enough to shower, eat and get some rest
. before they set out for the streets again. This revolving door through our
system needs to be addressed. Is there a need for a policy and protocol for
these youth?
• 4. A service need is aftercare services for sexually molested females.
• Research demonstrates that these young women are likely targets for
• recruitment into prostitution by men who prey upon their low self-
esteem and ego needs resulting from their victimization. These girls are
frequently found hanging around area malls where they are prime targets
S for the men who become their pimps. Aftercare services are needed for
• these young women which would include clinical intervention such as
individual counseling, support groups, group treatment, etc.
5. A number of youth who are moving from Juvenile Hall to group homes
or another residential placement are from the child welfare system.
Probation believes that because these youth have learned the
consequences of their behaviors by spending time in the highly restrictive
Juvenile Hall placement, their chances for success increase when
. "stepping down" to a less restrictive placement.
9
6. Probation is under pressure to use more local resources for placement.
Some group homes are located in the same neighborhoods where the
youth grew up. Probation feels that placing in such group homes is
counterproductive as it puts the youth back into the same environment
that they may need to be away from. i
Recommendations
1. Improve the capability of the Probation Department to track and
analyze data. (Management information system systemic factor).
Probation does not have a computer system that provides the capability
to track a youth through the system or establish, track and analyze
outcomes. This lack of a well-functioning MIS system became very
apparent during this Self-Assessment process. We are uncertain about the
prospect of Probation being included in the CWS/CMS system but if that
capability is possible, it should be funded and implemented quickly.
Otherwise,Probation needs its own information system. ,
2. Probation encourages early identification of youth who may have the •
propensity to become wards, providing them with special attention and
placement services designed to prevent eventual wardship.
3. Increase services for 601 youth. (Service array systemic factor). Develop •
proactive Early Intervention Services for status offending youth •
possibly including gang intervention and prevention services, .
employment, education, substance abuse prevention and treatment,
family planning, recreational opportunities and other services. The SA
Team also addressed the lack of services for parents raising adolescents
and the need for teen-oriented services throughout the County. •
4. Develop services for sexual abuse survivors. (Service array systemic
factor). As mentioned above in the Challenges section, female (and male) S
victims of sexual abuse need aftercare services to address those
psychological and individual risk factors that cause them to fall victim to
recruitment into prostitution. S
5. Develop transitional services for youth stepping down placement levels.
(Service array systemic factor). Whether moving from a residential
placement or stepping down from residential to back home, youth need
increased support and services to be successful. Too often, youth return
to their own neighborhoods and quickly begin running with the same •
10
• group of kids that helped to get them into trouble in the first place. The
County recognizes this as a critical service need and has charged JASPAC
with investigating how it can be addressed.
6. Improve foster home placements through professionalization.
• (Foster/adoptive parent recruitment, licensing, and retention systemic
• factor). Improving the treatment and therapeutic aspects of foster care
would serve to improve service provision to vulnerable youth. Children's
Mental Health is investigating multi-dimensional treatment foster care,
an evidence-based model that supports increased training,
professionalism and treatment involvement by foster parents.
7. Increase joint training opportunities. (Staff/provider training systemic
• factor). Probation made a request for increased cross-training between
Bureau and Probation staff. Probation is currently invited to attend many
Bureau training functions that are open to partner agencies. We will
examine the level of their participation and explore ways to improve
• upon it.
11
CWS Outcomes & C-CFSR Data Indicators
Objectives of the C-CFSR
The state designed the C-CFSR process and designated the following objectives: S
1. Replace the old, "process" oriented expectations that were codified in
Division 31 regulations with a focus on outcomes. .
2. Raise the State's performance on the federal review. California did not pass
its federal CFSR audit. In a county-operated but state guided child welfare
system, counties must improve their outcomes performance in order for the •
state performance to improve. AB 636/C-CFSR provides the impetus for •
counties to take the steps necessary to improve their child welfare outcomes. .
3. Create change in the child welfare system by focusing on evidence-based
practices such as innovative ways of client engagement and service delivery
that are proven to improve child safety, decrease time to reunification or .
permanency and improve well-being for children in the system. These •
practices include parent and youth participation in case planning, improved
relationships between the courts and the child welfare agency, and improved
collaboration among service providers.
4. Increase transparency and involvement of key stakeholders. This is •
evidenced by the involvement of parents, youth and partnering agencies in •
the Self-Assessment process, and the inclusion of partners in the SIP plan
itself. If counties are to share the burden of keeping children safe with the
community and the families involved with our child welfare systems, it is
required that those parties join counties to take an honest look at how the .
child welfare system performs.
5. Focus the county's attentions on outcomes. This objective is already having ,
its intended impact as Contra Costa County realizes the wealth of data
available for review and analysis from UC Berkeley as well as from
CWS/CMS via Safe Measures and Business Objects, two applications used to •
analyze CWS/CMS data. The creation and implementation of the SIP further •
focuses managers, supervisors, line workers, and clerical staff to utilize
strategies to achieve positive outcomes for children and families.
Quarterly Outcome and Accountability County Data Reports published by the
California Department of Social Services (CDSS) provide summary level Federal
and State program measures that will serve as the basis for the county self
assessment reviews and be used to track State and county performance over
12
• time. This self assessment uses the July 2006 report in the creation of graphs and
• trend analysis.
While there are significant demographic differences between the State and
Contra Costa County, county data is compared to state outcome averages in
• order to put the county data in perspective. Other analyses used include point-
in-time, historical analysis, cohort sampling and other methodological
techniques. This assists in assessing the current level of performance in order to
generate discussions to plan for measurable improvement where needed.
Assembly Bill (AB) 636 requires a series of measures that provide indicators of
• key program outcomes, processes, and receipt of critical services. The outcome
• measures are also, at a minimum, consistent with those outcomes of the federal
. Child and Family Services Review in that the federal indicators are a subset of
the State's indicators under this new system. Under the new Outcomes and
Accountability System it is expected that the state will not only improve its
performance on the federal indicators but on an even broader set of state
• enhanced indicators. The data identified below are focused on critical safety,
stability, family, and well-being measures that are currently available, and that
are provided to counties for assessment of their programs performance. In
addition, a few county specific indicators have been examined, such as Racial
Disparity and Disproportionality, and AWOL youth.
• The data source for these reports is the Child Welfare Services/Case Management
System (CWS/CMS) which became fully operational in all 58 counties on
December 31, 1997. Counties are responsible for inputting data on CWS/CMS as
part of their process to manage their caseloads of children and families who
receive child welfare services. The accuracy of the information derived from
CWS/CMS is continuously improving. The previous Self Assessment and
• subsequent SIP have been a factor in improving the accuracy and timeliness of
data entered to CWS/CMS by focusing on outcomes and by defining specific
strategies to improve data entry. As with any large automation system,
however, CWS/CMS continues to provide a broad range of challenges and
benefits as it continues to undergo improvements to keep abreast of the changing
child welfare system.
• In this report data measures have been grouped into two main areas — general
participation information from Contra Costa County, and then the AB636
Outcomes. The Outcomes are further sorted into three categories Safety,
Permanency, and Well-Being.
13
General Participation Information: f
Referrals
In calendar year 2005 there were 7,514 referrals regarding 10,360 children.
• 4,131 referrals(45%)received an in-person response and investigation. •
• 19% (1,952 children) had a substantiated allegation (this is lower than the
estimated State average of 22%)
• Incidence rate is 7.4/1000; this is lower than the estimated State average of
11/1000 i
• 923 new cases were opened
• 539 children were removed from their home for the first time
• Referrals are trending down(see graph below).
Total Referrals by Calendar Year
250-
200-
150-
50200150 �
—Total
100 Linear .
50
012341234121341. 234 1 234 112
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200
14
M Immediate referrals are decreasing more rapidly than 10-day referrals: 37%
decrease versus 16% decrease since 1St quarter 2001; respectively (see graphs
below).
Immediate Referrals by Calendar Year
•
350 -
300
250
• 200 - —i—Immediate
1. 150 —Linear(Immediate,
100-
50-
0
00500
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 112
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
. 10- Day Referrals by Calendar Year Quarter
900
800
• goo
600
500 —A 10 Day
• 400 Linear(10 Day)
300 -
200
100
0
• 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2W4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
•
•
In addition, there are differences by regional office in terms of the percentage of
. immediate referrals, with the West County office receiving more immediate
' referrals.
15
Percentage of Immediate Referrals by Regional Office
35
30 _
28.5
25 •
� 21.2%
20 CEastentral
• t .
18.9%
15 West
10 •
5
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
•
•
There are some differences in referrals when examined by the ethnicity of the
child and these are highlighted below:
• The main decrease in referrals is from White children (White children are
also showing population decreases).
• Black and Latino children are showing some increases in referrals since •
2001 (primarily in the evaluate out referrals).
• Through the 2nd quarter of 2006, Black children have a higher percentage
of immediate referrals than White children although the raw numbers
have declined.
• The percentage of referrals from Asian/Other children has remained f
relatively stable since 2001. •
Self Assessment Discussion
The SA Team discussed that the number of referrals evaluated out were higher
than the state average.
• Compared to other contiguous Bay Area Counties our rate of evaluate out is
similar.
• Screening Social Workers make collateral contacts prior to evaluating out •
rather than referring to district offices for an investigating worker to question
collaterals.
• There has been an increase in the number of referrals from law enforcement;
these referrals are reported and recorded for historical tracking but are
normally assessed out due to law enforcement intervention. The increase .
may be due to work being done in several geographical areas of the county •
around domestic violence.
• Would like further analysis of whether referrals are being over or under
assessed out.
16
General Participation Information:
Removals
There has been a decrease in first time removals from home over the past 5 1/2
• years(see graph below).
First Time Removals by Calendar Year Quarter
200
174
180
• 160 - —
140
• 120
100 - 1
80 -
15
. 60 -
40
20
• 0 -
• 1 2 3 4 6 � 3 � 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
. Year and Quarter
There are some differences in removals by ethnicity of the child, with White
• children showing the steepest slope of decline. In addition, there are differences
• in removals based upon the age of the child removed(see graphs below).
• Percentage of Removals by Age
35
• 30 -
25 -{-_Under 1
. 20 t 1 through 4
•
15
—�5 through 9
�f-10 through 14
• 10 -- _15 through 17
5
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
i
•
17
Percentage of Removals by Age
s
35 •
30
25
20 —Under 1 year old at removal
15 —1-4 years old at removal
—5-9 years old at removal
10 •
5
0 .
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
•
Interestingly, a review of the raw numbers of children removed by age group •
reveals that the number of infants removed under age 1 appears relatively stable •
at around 150/year. This, however makes the percentage of infants removed
increase since overall removals are decreasing (see graph below).
Raw Numbers of Removals by Age Group-with
2006 numbers Extrapolated* .
200
180
160 e
140 - –s–Under 1
120 t 1 through 4 •
100 — �?� –65 through 9 .
80
60 -�E--10 through 1
40 – -15 through 1 •
20 •
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*
Year
•
*Please note that the 2006 numbers were extrapolated from data from the first S
two calendar year quarters. •
18
a
General Participation Information:
M Reunifications
• Overall, reunification are increasing; especially for Latino youth (see graphs
below).
Reunifications by Year
250
. 200
. 150
100
• 50
0 -
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
. Calendar Year
Reunifications by Ethnicity by Year
. 100
• 80 --a—White
• 60 — —Native American
40 - --�—Hispanic
. --)<---Black
20 - w Asian/Other
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
The greatest increase in reunifications is for young children under age five (see
. below).
19
r
Reunifications by Age at Case
100 -
80 -
00
60 _ —�..—00-04 Years _•
40 05-09 Years •
—�-10+Years
20
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Calendar Year •
•
•
General Participation Information:
Adoptions
i
Adoptions are also showing an increase when looking at historical data. When
comparing calendar year 2001 to calendar year 2005, the following differences by •
ethnicity of the child and age of the child adopted were noted: i
• Latino: Increase of 92% (11 more children)
• Black: Increase of 48% (24 more children)
• White: Increase of 18% (13 more children) •
• Increase of 109%for adoptions of children 10 or over(25 more children)
• Increase 32%for adoptions of children 0-4(21 more children)
• Increase of 17%for adoptions of children 5-9 (8 more children)
Adoptions by Calendar Year
250
200
150 _•_---------
—�—Adoptions
,aa i
50
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
--�—Adoptions ,35 160 147 231 189
Year •
•
•
20
•
•
•
Adoptions by Ethnicity by Calendar Year
•
• 120
100
• --�—White
�
. 80 Native-- —
American
60 —6 Hispanic
• 40 —x Black
20 - Asian/Other
0 -1•
• 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
•
•
Adoptions by Age and Case End by Calendar Year
•
140-
120-
100-
40120100
• 80 —♦--00 - 04
60 05 - 09
40
X10 +
• 20
• 0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
•
•
•
•
•
General Participation Information:
Children in Care at a Point in Time
• There is a decreasing trend for the number of children in child welfare
supervised foster care at a point in time, we see that there is a decreasing trend
• (see below).
•
•
•
• 21
•
Number of Children in Case Placement Episode on July 1 of Each Year S
2500 -
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0
50020001500 -
10005000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
2169 2150 2034 1977 1912 1800
Year
In addition, the children that are in care have tended to be in care for a shorter
amount of time, although there are still some differences by ethnicity of the child
(see graphs). •
Average Case Placement Episode Duration (Years) •
7.0
6.0-
5.0 •
4.0
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
0.0-
2001
.0 2.0-1.0 0.02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 �20065.8 5.5 5.0 4.4 •
•
•
22
Average Duration By Ethnicity(Yrs)
-Asian/Other
a
7
-Black
6
5- -Hispanic
• 4-
3 -Native
American
2
1 -White
0-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
•
While youth of all ethnicities are showing a decrease in the amount of time spent
in care,there are still some disparities. Comparing July 1st 2001 to July 1st 2006:
. • Black Youth(2006:n=892, 49.6%)
- Average time in placement decreased 3 years (40%)
• Native American Youth(2006:n=14, 0.8%)
- Average time in placement decreased 2.8 years(46%)
i • Hispanic Youth(2006:n=254, 14.1%)
- Average time in placement decreased 2.3 years (46%)
S • Asian Youth(2006:n=47, 2.6%)
- Average time in placement decreased 2 years(44%)
• • White Youth(2006:n=592, 32.9%)
Average time in placement decreased 1.6 years(34%)
General Participation Information:
Racial Disproportionality and Disparity
i There is still evidence of racial disparity throughout the Contra Costa Child
Welfare system — even though we have made significant progress in this area.
The overall disparity information is presented below.
• When we examine the disparity between Whites and Blacks for 2005, we see that:
i • Referrals: Blacks have a 2.5 times higher incidence rate
• Substantiations:Blacks have a 2.4 times higher incidence rate
• First Entries to Care: Blacks have a 2.9 times higher incidence rate
• In Child Welfare Supervised Foster Care on 1 July 2005: Blacks have a 5.3
i times higher incidence rate
23
•
•
•
•
AB 636 Outcomes i
Safety •
•
Federal Outcome 1A
Percent of children with substantiated allegation in first 6 months, and •
another substantiated allegation in next 6 months
• Doing better than State average •
• Meeting National standard •
•
1A- Percent Recurrence of Maltreatment(Fed)(12 Month Study Period) i
12% •
10% •
•
8%
-�-State •
6% i--e -Contra
4% Costa •
2% •
0% •
ND ND C70 -q- O V44n
O O OO OO Oo i
O M p M O C7 C,\7 T M _O �.pj O M O M O c O m O m •
O O o p O a O O O O� p pO r O O p 0 - 0 OO
•
•
•
•
State Outcome 1B i
Percent of children with substantiated allegation in first 12 months, and
another substantiated allegation in next 12 months .
• Doing better than State average
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
24 i
•
•
•
•
•
• 1 B- Percent Recurrence of Maltreatment(12 Month Study Period)
•
•
16% -
14%
•
12% -
10%--
2%10%- t* State
8%
6% Contra Costa
• 4%
• 2%
0%i°
® N N N c7 co co co 'IT 7 et It
O O
• Mcco co c\ co
Or (h c0 N MOM
NO N & O 0 c`M
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
® O O T O O O O
•
•
•
• State Outcome 1B(2)
• Percent of children with a first substantiated allegation in first 12 months,
and another substantiated allegation in next 12 months
• • Doing better than State average
•
•
• 1 B- Percent Recurrence of Maltreatment After First Substantiated Alegation
(12 Month Study Period)
•
14% -
12% —
10%
6% -♦—State
• 4% Contra Costa
•
2% -
0%
• N N N c7 M co M 7
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O
• CO MZ-25 65
O O O O O N
N N N
• O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O \
O O O O O O O O
o 0 o O O o 0 0 o
•
•
i
•
•
• 25
•
Federal Outcome 1C
Percent of child abuse and neglect in Foster Care
• Meet previous National Standard (.57% or less) are not however meeting •
the newest National Standard for this measure(99.67%not being abused). •
• Worse than State average
• Apparent trend upward
r
1C. Percent Rate of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care(Fed)
0.45% •
0.40%
0.35% - o—State •
0.30%
0.25% —�—Contra
0.20% Costa •
0.15%--
0.10%-
0.05%__
.15%0.10%0.05% - .
0.00%
CO M Lh7 V 7 Ln to LO L
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O
M -M - •
O O N O O O N O O O N
N NC7 CO C7 C0 Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O cO} O O O
O Or O O O O O O O •
•
'Self Assessment.Discussion
• Though it appears that the trend is in the wrong direction, there are questions
regarding whether all abuse allegations in out of home care have been coded
correctly and are now coded correctly in CWS/CMS.
• There was considerable discussion about differences in frequency of out of
home abuse between kin and non-kin and whether there are differences in •
reporting based on kin and non-kin placements.
• Discussion that there is a perception that out of home abuse is higher than
reported but there may be issues in confusing what constitutes abuse and
what constitutes licensing issues. S
• One worker is assigned to investigate out of home abuse, questions were •
asked about cross training and coverage for this one worker. •
• Practice regarding notifying attorneys when there are licensing violations
needs to be reviewed.
26
r
• Discussion regarding personal rights issues of children in foster care and how
reported complaints are handled.
• Need to clarify how abuse is investigated when it occurs in homes outside of
the county?
® • How do we train and support foster homes to decrease abuse in care?
® • Would like to continue programs to improve communication and
understanding between foster parents' and biological parents.
® State Outcome 2A
Percent of recurrence of abuse and neglect in home where children were
® not removed
® • Equal to State Average
• Relatively stable over the past several years
2A-Percent Rate of Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect in Homes Where Children
Were Not Removed (12 mth)
•
10%
® $% —fState
6% - Contra Costa
4%
• 2%
0%
N N N co co CO Co � It V'
O O OO O O O O O O O O
ccoo c7 c7 co M c0•) Q M M m M
• 0 9 r M 0 O) N co c0 O) N
O O N N N O O O
• � O O
O O O p n 6 O O OO O O
• O O_ O O T' O O O O
O
•
•
•
•
•
27
O
•
w
•
•
State Outcome 2B (Immediate Referrals) •
Percent of Immediate Response child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely •
response •
• Maintained over 90%compliance •
• 4th Quarter 2005 compliance is at 96.8% •
•
•
2B - Percent of Immediate Response Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a •
Timely Response •
100°/ •
[:�--State80% Contra Costa
60% •
40% •
20% •
OO O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O •
N N NN NN N N N N N
N co 7 N M N co 7
a a a a a a a a a a a •
•
w
•
•
State Outcome 2B (10-Day Referrals)
Percent of 10-Day Response child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely
response •
•
• Significant improvement noted •
• Have met 2005/2006 SIP goal of maintaining compliance at over 90% •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
28 •
•
•
• 2B - Percent of 10 Day Response Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a
® Timely Response
100% 94.60%
-*—State
80% - —m Contra
60% Costa
®
® 50.70%
� 40%
20% -
0%
MM co 7 -t 7 to Lo Lo to
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N
CI 0 C! 0 a 0 0 5 0 CI C1
State Outcome 2C
Timely Social Worker Visits
• • Significant improvement noted
• Have met 2005/2006 SIP goal of maintaining compliance at over 90%
• 2C- Percent of Timely Social Worker Visits with Child
95%-
90% --
5%90% -- 91.60
85%
80%
® 75% 7790 State
•
70% - Contra Costa,
65%
60%
• 55%
50%
• "t "t "t 0 Ln � to to
O9
9 O O to O O p O p O O O p O p O O
• QCL n Q 0 0 LL Q Q 0 0 Li Q Q 0
l7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
29
•
Self Assessment Discussion
• Question about quality of "contacts" from youths' perspective? What counts
as a "contact" vs. seeing a child? •
• Suggested entry of contacts may need to be improved, a "spot check" may •
help to see if social workers are putting in accurate data.
• Discussed level of staff required for monthly contacts, can "assistant" social
workers (Social Casework Assistants)make contacts?
• If a social worker "sees" a child at court — does that count as a contact? •
Discussion that the quality of "seeing" the child would determine whether •
this should be counted as a contact.
• There were questions regarding the Visitation Exception policy of CDSS.
What is communicated to youth about the policy, are the youth told that a
worker will not be visiting them for six months, are the wants and needs of
the youth considered when visitation exceptions are reviewed?
Recommendation to hold a focus group including youth.
• There appears to be some data issues on referral and case closure reasons.
30
•
AB 636 Outcomes
Permanence
Federal Outcome 3D
Percent of children adopted within 24 months
• Some improvement noted
® • Above State average
3D-Percent Adopted within 24 Months(Fed)(12 Month Study Period)
50%
45%
® 40%
• 35%
30% —o State
® 25% —A—Contra Costa
® 20%-
15%
® 100/0-
5% -
0%5%
0% .
0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 � o o
® O (h O M O M OE O C, O M O M O M O M O M O M
0 0 O 0 TO r O Co ^O Cfl O O) 0 - 0 0 0 0O O O0 0 -
31
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
31
State Outcome 3A
Percent Adopted Within 12 Months-entry cohort method
• Some improvement noted •
• Above State average •
3A- Percent Adopted within 24 Months(Entry Cohort)(12 Month Study Period) •
12%,
10%-
8% -+-State •
6% Contra
Costa •
Costa
4%
2% •
0%-
OOOO0
O \ N TC\l T N M
O 0OOOO OQ0 0 OO
( � M CO M M 0 _ OCl) (M
N \ \ _ ON
0 O �° o0 0 0000 r
32
••••••••••••••••••
•
Federal Outcome 3B
• Percent with 1-2 Placement Moves Within 12 Months
• • Some improvement noted
• • Above State average
• Meeting Federal Standard
• Met previous SIP goal
3B-Percent with 1-2 Placements within 12 Months(Fed)(12 Month Study Period)
90%
• 88% 88.60%
86%
�State
84%
•
82% -E—Contra Costa
80%-
78%-
76%-
74%-
72%-
70%-
co
0%78%76%74%72%70% N OChM coo co M4 'g,4V' Lo V Lo 4 Lo 6L
O O O O 6!R O � O �O O O O O OO O O CD O �
O co O O M O M O c0 O co O M O O M O m O
O 0 O 0 O r O C9 O CO O m N O p 0 — 0
•
•
Self Assessment Discussion
• There was considerable discussion regarding how many adopted children
• come back in to the system due to "failed adoptions". Is there a way to track
• these children? Anecdotally staff feels that this is a high number of children.
• The data team will be doing further assessment.
Continuing Services staff need training on the Adoption program and AAP.
• There is concern that there is a bias in the system that older youth, especially
African American children are "not adoptable".
33
State Outcome 3C
Percent with 1-2 Placement Moves Within 12 Months if still in care at 12
months—entry cohort method
• Essentially no change in outcome •
• Equal to State Average •
3C-Percent with 1-2 Placements-If Still in Care at 12 Months(entry cohort)
(12 Month Study Period)
800/6
700io I
60%
s State
50% •-o—Contra
400/6Costa •
300/6-
20%
0%20%
100/0-
00/0-,
0%0% ' •
�O cOo or rn0 \O 6 -1-
OO O O O O � T
Q O �! co rno
O4 op� a O O O O - O O OO a ••
O r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
34
•
•
•
•
•
Federal Outcome 3E
Percent Reunified Within 12 Months
• • Slight improvement noted
• Equal to State average
•
•
• 3E-Percent Reunified wittvn 12 Nbnft(Fed-12 Mardh Study Period)
• 8T/c
700/
• 6o°/
• 50°/
•
409/ State
• 30°/ ----Cordra
Costa
• 20°/
• N N C7 C7 M Cn
cc 00 O� Op Op Op O, Op OO OO O0-
�� —0 �� ��
TO TO TT TT TQ TO TT TT TO TO TT
• OM Om Om p\O \p0 OO 0� OO OQ 0C\ 0Q
J,(0 00 TN d'm f�(p OQ) TN DC7 r- 00 TN
00 TO OT O O r OT O 00 TO OT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 35
•
State Outcome 3A
Percent Reunified Within 12 Months
• Significant improvement noted •
• Above State average •
• In spite of improvement, did not meet SIP goal of 50%
3A-Percent Reunified within 12 Months(State-Entry Cohort Method) •
609/6- •
50%
38.3046.50°�
400/6- %
-+-State •
30% —n—Contra •
Costa
20% •
100/0- .
0% N •
O O O O O 0 Q Q O\ O\ O\ O2 Q O\ 0 $2 !'Rt •
C\O p C) N M O CO O
O0 O p T O O O O O O O O C) r •
•
•
Federal Outcome 3F
Percent of Admissions Who Are Re-entries
• Percentages have gone down and then back up
• Doing somewhat worse than State average
• May have some data entry errors (i.e., case placement episodes •
closing and reopening on the same day) that would affect results •
36
• 3F-Percent of Admissions Who are Re-Entries(Fed)(12 Month Study Period)
•
• 16%
14%
• 12%
• 10% State
• 8% --a—Contra
Costa
6%-
4%-
2%-
0%_
%4%2%-0%-
N coN M 6 (l) M V Cl) CO V' st 7Lo LO V 'aLo to Lo
• O ORO 5 O OO O O O !O O O �_ O 2, O 60 O D
o coo Q M a M O M O M O M \O C7 �O fh O M O M O
• 00 0o ar om oco orn oa o0 00 � o or
•
State Outcome 3G
Re-entries Within 12 Months of Reunification
• Improvement noted in last several reporting periods
• Doing somewhat better than State average at latest reporting period
• We have further examined this by ethnicity (see graphs below) and
• determined that there are no statistically significant differences in re-
entry percentages by ethnicity
• 3G-Percent who Re-Entered within 12 Months of Reunification
(Entry Cohort;12 Month Study Period
.
16%-
140/6-
12%-
6%14%12% -+-State
• 10% �-Contra
8% Costa
6%-
40/6-
2%-
0%
%4%2%-
0%
rN co co M co
. O O
!OR O
• rSO0 _ O*- O _O O _O_
O
0 r0
M O O �OOrMrO OOrMO- OOrCO
Opr M
OM
0 0 O r 0 0O
Op Mr N
O O0 too O0
•
•
37
Reunifications and Re-Entries
140 •
120 •
100
80 - OReunified
Z 60 ®Re-Entries •
40 F
20
Black W hite Hispanic Asian/P .I.
Ethnicity •
Percent Re-entry After Reunification •
16.0 -
1 4.0
. 1 2 .0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0 -
2.0 - •
0.0
Black W hite Hispanic Asian/P .I.
Ethnicity
New Federal C-FSR Measure Permanency Composite 3
Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care
The new federal CFSR measures that update Federal Outcome 3F were reviewed.
This is Permanency Composite 3, Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster
Care. This composite consists of the following components and measures: •
38
•
•
•
Federal Permanency Composite 3, Component A
Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Extended Periods of
Time
•
• Of all children discharged from FC and were legally free for adoption,
• what percent exited to a .permanent home (adoption, guardianship,
. reunification)prior to their 18th birthday? (national median=96.8%)
• Of all children in FC for 24 months or longer at the start of the FY, what
percent were discharged to permanency in less than 12 months and prior
to their 18th birthday? (national median=24.6%)
•
• Federal Permanency Composite 3, Component B
• Children Emancipated Who Were in Foster Care for Extended Periods of Time
• Of all children who exited FC with a discharge reason of
emancipation or who reached their 18th birthday while in FC, what
• percent were in FC for 3 years or longer? (national median=50.6%)
• Federal Permanency Composite 3, Component Al
Permanency
• Of all children discharged from FC and were legally free for adoption,
• what percent exited to a permanent home (adoption, guardianship,
reunification)prior to their 18th birthday? (national median=96.8%)
• Nearly equivalent to the national median
•
Freed for Adoption-Permanency Prior to 18th Birthday
•
• ❑Adoption Finalized
®Age of Majority
• ❑Emancipation
9fi.4%
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
39
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
Federal Permanency Composite 3, Component A2 •
Permanency •
• Of all children in FC for 24 months or longer at the start of the FY, what •
percent were discharged to permanency in less than 12 months and prior to •
their 18th birthday? (national median=24.6%) •
• Doing worse than the national median •
Permanency Composite 3:Component A2 •
®rw •
❑Yes •
1>8t19'o
•
•
•
•
•
Federal Permanency Composite 3, Component B •
Length of Time in Foster Care •
•
• Of all children who exited FC with a discharge reason of emancipation or
who reached their 18th birthday while in FC, what percent were in FC for 3 •
years or longer?(national median=50.6%) .
• Doing worse than the national median
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
i
•
•
•
40 •
•
If Emancipated or Reached Age of Majority,What Percent Were
in Care for 3 Years or More?
90.0-
80.0-
70.0-
60.0-
50.0-
40.0-
0.0 80.070.060.050.040.0 Median =50.6%
30.0-
20.0-
10.0-
0.0
0.020.010.00.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Self Assessment Discussion
• • There was considerable discussion around the use of trial home visits: There
• has been a significant decrease in the number of recorded trial home visits —
• uncertain why this is?
• There was .an increase in the number of reunifications in the Hispanic
population, this may be due to an increase in the number of
bilingual/bicultural workers.
• • Questions about whether African American children stay in care longer
• because they are possibly unable to receive services that they need.
• • What is the county and court practice on early reviews? Why aren't kids
returned when they are ready rather than return date coinciding with
scheduled court date?
• Date case closed and placement episode ended may not be an accurate
• reflection of what occurred if trial visits are not accurately recorded.
• • Relative long-term foster care is considered negative from a permanency
perspective,but some staff considers it as a permanent placement.
• Questions were raised about the effect of TDM's and DR on reunification and
re-entry to care. Further analysis and evaluation requested.
• Difficult dialogues around discussing permanency with youth — should we
. be discussing all options with them or only the options available to them?
• • Need a search engine at the front end of the system to identify life long
connections as taught in the CPYP model.
• Lots of discussion that the Kinship Centers could be a support in transferring
youth to permanency.
41
•
•
•
•
•
•
AB 636 Outcomes •
Well-Being •
•
State Outcome 4A •
Percentage of Children in Care that are Placed with All Siblings
•
• Below the State average •
• Very slight increase in Contra Costa percentage •
•
4A-Percent of Children in Foster Care that are Placed with ALL Siblings(Point in Time) •
•
50% _ •
45% •
4T%
35% •
300/ State
25% —F-Contra •
209/6 - Costa
15% •
10%
5%
0% .
m m a v v Ln LO L0 L •
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c c c
ca cL cc m •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
42 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• State Outcome 4A
Percentage of Children in Care that are Placed with Some or All Siblings
•
• Below the State average
. • Slight decrease in Contra Costa percentage
• We have not met previous SIP goal
•
•
•
4A Percent of Children in Foster Care that are Placed with SOME or ALL Siblings
•
• 800/6
• 70%
600/0 —
• 50% -f—State
400/6 —�Contra
• 300/6 Costa
• 20%
10%
0%.
C) 0 Q O O 9
O O O O
j C jt5C j C
r 0 � Q T 0 C• �
• r r � r •- r r r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
43
Self Assessment Discussion
• Discussed reasons why siblings may not be placed together: Siblings enter S
placement at different times, siblings placed with different relatives because .
one relative is not able to take all siblings, siblings placed with related foster •
parents to facilitate sibling contact, lack of foster homes that will take sibling
groups?
• Staff and licensing workers are not routinely seeking placement home
exceptions in licensed and relative homes to place sibling groups together.
• Relationship coding in CWS/CMS may need review and clean-up to assure
accurate statistical reporting. •
• Explore ways to increase worker's awareness of other siblings previously
placed prior to placement.
• Suggested that there may be a need for a process to evaluate and record why
siblings are initially placed apart,e.g.parentified behavior.
• Explore barriers of recruiting homes for sibling placements. •
• Explore financial incentives to hold beds for sibling placements.
• Discussion around barriers to visitation of siblings when they are not placed
together.
• Need to review policy, practice and systems issues around vacancy match to
locate homes for sibling groups.
• Make sure there are emergency placements that can accommodate siblings.
• Caregivers need training and support for taking siblings. •
• Kinship Centers could support relatives taking sibling groups. Using the
Kinship Centers for SW visits could serve workers in linking the relatives to
services.
• Explore ways to link foster parents to other foster parents for support. •
• Staff requested the need to explore the advantages and disadvantages of .
using Foster Family Agencies (FFA) to place siblings together.
• Has research been conducted to determine if it is better for a child to be in a
licensed foster home or FFA? FFA has more support and contact, but
licensed homes foster parents may be more willing to move to guardianship •
or adoption. •
• Bureau should explore and be encouraged to become an FFA provider; this
could allow expansion of the Specialized Placement Program.
• Recommendation to expand CPYP across the county and include siblings.
Look for life long connections for the entire sibling group.
44
•
•
•
•
State Outcome 4B
• Initial Placement Information
• Contra Costa has more youth initially placed in foster homes than the
• state average
• Contra Costa has fewer youth initially placed in group homes than the
• state average
• • Contra Costa has stayed steady at approximately 15% of youth initially
placed in relative care
• - State is somewhat higher
• • Contra Costa has fewer youth initially placed in FFA's than the State(12%
• versus 38%)
•
• 4B-Initial Placement- Percent in Foster Homes
•
70% -
60% --
50% -
0%60%50%
�—State
• 40% —�—Contra Costa
• 30%
20%
. 10%
MM co 't It Cn Cn Cn LO
i O O O O O O O O O O O
O O \ OM OM M OM OM
co co M M M M
0) N � N �
O r co CON OO r 7 O co
9 O N COO CnO N7
O
N N CO O O co It It It It Cn
r r
O
O O O O O O O O O
t\ O O 'IT r- O
O O O O O O
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
i
•
•
• 45
•
'o
0
0
O
4B-Initial Placement- Percent in Group Homes o
25% -
20% -
15% -
o
5%20%15% o State o
10% —a—Contra Costa
5% -
0%
%0% co co co "t LO LO LO LOo
O �O O O O
O O r r O O O OM
co co co co co co co M M M o
0 co (0 0) CM c 0) CM
(O O N co CO O N co C4 O - N
O O r6 6 O O O O
NN co O O C7 't It 't 't LOO O O - O O O O O O
O O O r O O OO O O o
O O O O 01,-
State
State Outcome 4B Q
Primary Placement Information o
O
• Primary placement refers to the placement wherein the child has spent at o
least half their time
The primary placement is recorded as "mixed" if the child has not
spent over 50%of their time in a specific placement type o
• Both the State and Contra Costa have slightly less than 40% of their o
children in relative care
• Contra Costa has a lower percentage of youth in FFA's than the State o
(10%versus 34%) o
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46 0
0
• 4B.Primary Placement in Foster Home-Percent
•
45.00%-
40.00%-
35.00%-
30.00%-
25.00%-
5.00%40.00%35.00%30.00%25.00%- -+-State
• 20.00%- Contra Costa
•
15.00%-
10.00%-
5.00%-
0.00%-
5.00%10.00%5.00%-0.00%
M M M 7 7 C u7 (0 U) to
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o O o 0 0
M M M M M MM C\ 22 M M
(0 0) N M CD m N M 0 m N
O O .-• CO CO O � O O O
NCO •-
N O� O M V 7 V V (I7-
O O O O O O O O O
• O O O r O O O O O O
0 O O a r-
0
O O
O O O O O
4B.Primary Placement in Group Home-Percent
12.00%i°
• 10.00%
• 8.00% —
6.00% t State
-s-Contra Costa
• 4.00%
i
2.00% -
• 0.00%
MC'7 CO V 7 V V to LO (A LO
O O O O O O O O O O O
• M MM M COCCO COCM M M M o a � � a o a0 o
o 0 a
CO 0 0 0 0 0
C) o a s
47
O
O
O
County Measurement 0
AWOL Children O
O
There is no state or federally defined outcome measure to assess the county's 0
performance in addressing issues of AWOL children and youth. This was 0
addressed in Contra Costa's Self Assessment because it is seen as a critical well-
being issue. 0
• There are currently 54 youth in AWOL status from child welfare a
supervised foster care
— Ethnicities are similar to that of overall youth in care o
— 80%are female]
e'
0
t1
O
— Median duration of case is nearly 5 years O
— Average age is 16 O
Q
Ethnicity of Youth Currently in AWOL Status From O
Child Welfare Supervised Foster care
K Black
El Hispanic O
Native American Q
White
33.33% O
O
51.85%
Q
12.96%° O
Q
O
0
0
0
e
0
0
48
a
• Youth Currently in AWOL Status by Gender and Ethnicity
• s Fo us Gender Code
®F
M
• 2o
• 15
ci 24
is
01
• 12
y
6 6 ,
1 1
Black Hispanic Native White
American
Ethnicity
Self Assessment Discussion
• There are questions about how AWOL status is recorded and whether it is
recorded consistently. This may impact accurate data evaluation.
• Policy clarification needed to define when to report a child as AWOL and
how long a placement bed can be held anticipating the child/youth's return.
• What are the legal issues of leaving a placement open when a child is AWOL
as compared to the related practice issues?
. • Most female youth run from group homes. There was concern about females
• running away from group homes to engage in prostitution.
• Are there therapy or treatment programs available for youth involved in
prostitution?
• It was suggested that youth to youth, peer counseling could be a support for
potential AWOL's.
• • Are youth who are AWOL receiving ILP services less likely to become
AWOL?
• Policy, support, and funding needed to attempt to normalize youth in foster
care, allowing them to have an allowance, space in the home, access to extra-
curricula activities, and transportation to ILP activities, support them in
• obtaining and continuing jobs,etc.
• Need for prevention versus after the fact programs for youth to avoid
• AWOL.
• Explore using more emancipation or youth TDMs to support placements.
49
r
0
0
0
0
• Explore community resources to support youth in placement, e.g. adopt a
group home. Q
• Further analysis is needed as to whether there are trends regarding AWOLs O
at specific group homes and if so develop a process of quality control of
group homes.
• Further analysis is needed regarding whether the number and change in o
geographical location have an impact on the number of AWOLs and o
number of moves children have.
• Need to move to permanency faster.
• Need to support foster youth in jobs.
O
O
0
Q
0
State Measure 4E
Native Americans in Care o
0
Contra Costa does not have any registered tribes within the county. We Q
currently have 18 Native American children in Child Welfare Supervised Foster o
Care (1.1% of total children in care) o
O
0
• 3 in guardian care o
• 3 placed with relatives o
• 2 in group homes
• 1 in a small family home (Regional Center Home - for children with Q
developmental disabilities)
• 7 in FFA homes
• 2 in non-related extended family member homes
O
Q
O
0
O
0
0
0
50
0
r
•
•
State Measure 8A
Transition to Adulthood
i
• Data gathered from ILSP reports to the State
• Covers areas:
— Youth who have received a HS diploma/GED
— Youth enrolled in higher education
• — Youth employed or with some means of support
— Youth who completed vocational training
— Youth who have received ILSP services
• Data issues
• — ILSP database and CWS/CMS database are not linked although
this is in progress
• — Youth can receive services until age 21
• — Youth can be from other counties but living in Contra Costa
• County
Youth Who Received a High School Diploma or GED
• • Numbers have increased since 2001-2002
• • Appear to have met SIP goal of increasing number of youth with diploma
or GED
• Limited data in getting at percent of youth who emancipate from Foster
Care and have a High School diploma/GED
Received a High School Diploma or GED
• 140
1
tzo 20
100 h 98
80
6
66
0
• 40
• 20
0
i10/01/01-09/30/02 10/01/02-9/30/03 10/01/03-9/30/04 10/01/04-09/30/05
i
•
• 51
0
O
0
a
0
Youth Enrolled in Higher Education o
• Significant increase in youth pursuing degrees beyond High School a
O
Youth Enrolled in Higher Education a
a
200-
180-
00 180 188
160-
140-
120-
100-
80
60 140120 10080
60 O
40 53 52 0
20 0
o �
10/01/01-09/30/02 1 0/01/02-9/30/03 10/01/03-9/30/04 10/01/0 4-09/30/05
Vocational Training
• The last reporting period listed 40 youth having completed vocational o
training o
• This is the first time we had any youth reported as having finished a
vocational training o
Youth Employed or With Means of Support o
• There has been an increase in the last reporting period
Q
Number of ILSP Youth Who Are Employed or Have Other o
Means of Support
250
226
200 -
163 157
150 O
102
100
50 --
0
0 0
10/01/01-09/30/02 10/01/02-9/30/03 10/01/03-9/30/04 10/01/04-09/30/05
O
0
52 0
Q
Youth Who Have received ILSP Services
• The number of youth receiving services has increased
. Youth Who Have Received ILSP Services
1000
900 19
800
757
loo
600
• 500
400 � .
300
200
100
• 0
• 10/01/01-09/30/02 10/01/02-9/30/03 10/01/03-9/30/04 10/01/0409/30/05
•
•
Self Assessment Discussion
• Expectations of caregivers around emancipation need to be formalized.
• Caregivers to sign case plans section for foster parent's responsibilities.
• Evaluate the referral process to ILP.
• Evaluate data and systems issues related to ILP and service documentation.
• • Would like to see further exploration of housing (FUP) providing more
w assistance for emancipating youth.
53
i
O
O
0
O
Section I O
Demographic Profile and Outcomes Data O
O
Demographic Profile O
O
Contra Costa County, the "opposite coast", was so-named for its location across 0
the Bay from the settlement of San Francisco. The cities of Richmond (the site of 0
one of the Bureau's offices), Pinole and Hercules enjoy Bay access with the 0
communities of El Cerrito, San Pablo and unincorporated areas completing the O
western county.
O
Central Contra Costa County straddles Interstate 680 and State Highway 24. In O
addition to Martinez - the County seat and site of the second Bureau district O
office - Central County includes the City of Pleasant Hill, the diverse City of 0
Concord, and the shopping mecca of Walnut Creek. Continuing southward one O
enters the Tri-Valley region and the Contra Costa cities of Danville and San O
Ramon, both commuter communities. The affluent cities of Orinda, Moraga, and
Lafayette are included in Central Contra Costa County. O
0
Eastern Contra Costa County includes the cities of Bay Point, Antioch, Pittsburg, O
Oakley, and Brentwood. Eastern Contra Costa is one of the fastest growing O
regions of the County. This is the site of the third Children's and Family O
Services district office.
0
Looming over the entire County is the picturesque Mt. Diablo, its 3,849 foot O
summit the highest point in the entire San Francisco Bay. 0
O
Demographics of General Population O
Like the entire Bay area, Contra Costa County has experienced rapid growth in O
population over the last 14 years. 0
• From 1990 to 2000, the County grew by 18%to 948,816 persons in 2000. O0
• From 2000 to 2006, the population grew to over the 1,000,000 mark. 0
• The County is the 9th most populous in the state.
• Overall, the County is growing at slightly over 1%/year, although some O
areas in the east are growing at over 12%/year. O
• Since 1998, the child population, 0-17 years of age, has increased by over 0
20,000. O
• The increase in child population is predominantly from youth of Hispanic
origin(see graph below). O
O
0
54 O
0
• Children Ages 0-17 by Ethnicity for Contra Costa
1998-2006
140,000-
120,000-
100,000-
40,000120,000100,000
Black
80,000-
. 80,000- White
-&-Hispanic
-Asian
60,000- .Nat Amer
*-Other
40,000-
20,000-
0 -
0,00020,0000 1998 1 1999 2000 2001 1 2002 2003 1 2004 2005 2006
--*-Black 30,278 31,078 28,370 29,135 29,106 29,289 29,601 29,910 30,134
-*-White 123,222 123,654 122,352 120,131 118,749 117,469 115,321 113,243 111,009
+Hispanic 56,292 58,970 61,680 65,387 67,356 69,812 1 72,809 75,976 79,155
• -u-Asian 32,059r2,843
3,185 27,183 28,530 28,565 29,026 29,832 30,637 31,380
W Nat Amer 2,659 982 1,344 1,425 1,577 1,816 2,048 2,267
. --0 Other 12,373 13,150 13,855 13,626 13,327 13,039 12,747
Year
•
• We are estimating that the Hispanic youth population will overtake
. that of White youth sometime around 2014(see graph below).
Extrapolation of White and Hispanic Child Populations in Contra Costa County
140,000-
120,000-
100,000-
80,000
40,000120,000100,000 80,000 White
� 60,000 -a-Hispanic
Z
40,000-
20,000-
0-!
0,000-20,0000 .
19981999200020012002200320042005006200720082009201 C2011201220132014201520162017
Year
•
• The County is predominantly white followed by persons of Hispanic
origin.
• Children under 18 years old constitute 26% of the total population.
• • Less than 1%of the population is Native American.
• • The African-American population is concentrated in Western County
- Richmond, North Richmond, Pinole, and Hercules - and in the
eastern portion of the County-Bay Point,Pittsburg, and Antioch.
55
0
0
0
0
• The Hispanic population is spread throughout the County, a
significant proportion is located in the central region of the County, O
called the "Monument Corridor." O
• The 2000 Census counts 344,129 households in the County with 35%
(or 120,500) of those having children under 18 years old.
• Female headed households number 39,683 with 22,363, or 56%, O
reporting children under 18 years old. O
• The average family size is 3.2 people. O
O
O
Economics U
O
Contra Costa is a relatively affluent county with a median household income of
$63,675. Like many counties, income is distributed disproportionately within the Q
county. Median household income ranges from a high of $155,000 in the
Blackhawk community to$37,000 in the City of San Pablo O
O
Lower Income Communities in Contra Costa County O
%of Population for
Whom Poverty
Median Household ! Status is Determined
Geographic area Income in 1999 in 1999 Percent of Families O
Contra Costa County____]L $63,675 � 7 6 5.4 Q
,u ty � 'rr8� $60 359 " :8 5645. 0
Antioch�ci .,�:
Bay Point CDP
i Bay View-Montalvin CDP $50,758 11.7 _ 7.8 I
Bethel Island CDP '�—_$44,569 8.8fl�- 5.3 O
Concord city 8�3 �`$55,597 -
Cast Richmond Heights CDP $57,500�8 5.3 8 1.31
El Cerrito city $57,253 6.7 8_ 3.5
Martinez city $63,010 IF_ 5.2 �� 3.2 ( O
Pacheco CDP -- 8____ $45 851 1 10.2 7.9 O
Pinole city �C--__ $62,256 8�_ 3.5 O
P.ittsburgcity ,� $50,557
�-
Rchrnorid city
Can Pablo city $37,184 18.1 9.4%
Employment Development Department
url:http://www.calmis.ca.g_ov/file/demoinc/inc2000l2lacel.htm O
O
O
56 O
In the figure above, shaded rows are Family to Family and other special project
phase-in areas (specific zip codes within Antioch, Pittsburg, Concord and
Richmond). Children and Family Services offices are found in Antioch (serving
Pittsburg and Bay Point and all of eastern County), Martinez (serving all of
M central County including Concord and Pacheco) and Richmond (serving North
Richmond,Pinole and El Cerrito and all of western Contra Costa).
Employment Development Department
• url: http://www.calmis.ca.,00v/file/demoinc/inc2000placel.htm
Poverty and Unemployment
S According to data provided by Children Now, 23.6% or 58,210 of Contra Costa's
children resided in poor or low income households in 1999. Almost half of these
children, or 25,100, resided in households under the federal poverty level
. (approximately$17,000 for a family of four in 1999).
The unemployment rate for the County overall averaged 4.8% in 2005.
Unemployment rates in the cities and unincorporated parts of the County listed
above are presented in the Figure below. As one can see, Family to Family phase
. in areas have higher unemployment rates. The exception is Concord, but the
. phase-in area in that city is only a few census tracts with higher unemployment
• rates than the city's rate of 5.2%.
Selected Unemployment Rates
Community ..2005 Average Unemployment Rate
Antioch city -- 5:3%
• Bay Point CDP 9.5%1
• Bay View-Montalvin CDP i 8.8%
• Bethel Island CDP � 8.5%
Concord.city 6i �.5.2%
East Richmond Heights CDP 5.6%
El Cerrito city 4.2%,
Martinez city 3.8%
Pacheco CDP 4.6%
Pinole city 3.0%
Pittsburg.city l 7:46o
Richmond city �` r 7 g°jo
San Pablo city I 9.4%11
Employment Development Department
url:httj2://www.calmis.ca.gove/file/lfmonth/`coontrsub.txt
•
57
0
0
O
O
Selected Data: Economics 41
• Of an employed civilian population of 451,300, some 69% are involved in 0
management,professional, sales and office occupations.
• As might be expected with an employment profile such as this, educational •
attainment is high. Of the 626,000 people over 25 years of age, 87% are high
school graduates or higher and 35%have a bachelor's degree or higher. •
• However, in 2001, 18% of new mothers and 16% of new fathers had 12 or
fewer years of education. 0
• Given the relative affluence of the County and the tight Bay area housing 0
market,rental costs eat up a sizeable portion of these families' incomes. •
Children Now estimates that with a monthly average rent within the County
of$1,374,housing costs constitute approximately 54%of those families 0
earning up to 200%of the federal poverty level.In fact, for the overall 0
population that rents within the County, 32% of families pay 35%or more of •
their household income in rent. •
• In 2001, for the same poor and low income families, nearly one-fourth
experienced food insecurity, i.e. food shortages and some inability to
regularly feed their children. 0
•
0
Education System Profile 0
Background •
The Contra Costa County Office of Education provides programs and services to 0
the county's 249 schools, 18 K-12 school districts, the County Office of Education 0
programs and to the Community College District. As of November 2005, there •
were 166,024 students enrolled in grades K-12. See .
http://www.cccoe.kl2.ca.us/about/stats.html for in-depth statistical information
regarding student demographics. •
Demographics 0
The following figure shows the ethnicity of the K-12 students within Contra •
Costa County. •
•
•
0
0
0
0
•
0
58 0
0
•
•
•
• Contra Costa School Enrollment by Ethnicity
•
•
• 1% 13%
• o American Indian
48% ®Asian/ Other
• o Hispanic
• 26% o African American
• 12% ®White
•
•
•
•
•
• Further breakdown by ethnicity shows that there has been a significant rise in
• minority and English language learning (ELL) students since 1987 (see table
below).
•
County's Changing Student Population
•
1987 2005 Increase since
• 1987
Number of Students 118,311 166,024 40.3%
Minority Students 30,643 84,0631['
4,063 174.3%
• LL Students —5,7705E 25,176 (2004) 341%
•
Contra Costa County has approximately the same teacher to student ratio and
• class size as the state average (see table below).
s
Student to Teacher Ratio/Class Size
• Contra Costa Student to Teacher Ratio 20.7:1
• California Student to Teacher Ratio 21.2:1
Contra Costa Average Class Size 26.5
• California Average Class Size 27.3
s
•
•
•
•
• 59
•
Educational Accomplishments
Contra Costa County has a higher percentage of students who complete courses
required for college entry than the statewide average.
College Bound Course Completion
College Bound Course Completion •
° 43 °
�4 �42%2 ts
•
40% 40%
40%
30% .
OCC County
•
20% is CA •
10% —
'c.
0% •
1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 i
Year
•
•
60
•
•
•
•
• Section H
• Public Agency Characteristics
•
• Size and Structure of Agencies
•
• County Operated Shelter(s)
• Contra Costa County does not operate a children' 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. Three non-profit agencies were awarded contracts for the operation of
receiving centers, located in each of the county's geographic districts. Receiving
• centers are safe, child-friendly environments where children 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 425 currently licensed homes in the county.
e When concurrent planning was initiated in this county in the early 1990's, a
. combined homestudy process was developed. Families who are interested in
adoption are simultaneously licensed for foster care. The family receives an
• approved adoptive homestudy and a license. This streamlines the process for
the family and assures adoptive families are legally ready to take a child prior to
• termination of parental rights.
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
• 61
•
County Adoptions
The County is fully licensed by the state of California to provide adoption
services. Our Adoptions Program finalized 167 adoptions in FY 04/05 and 166 in
FY 05/06. •
County governance 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 John Cullen, the
County Administrator, who,in turn, reports to the County Board of Supervisors.
Number/composition of employees
Staffing Characteristics •
Part-time Full-time Extra Hire/ %of Total
TemporarV Staff
Administrative Support 0 68 30 17.9% •
(for example,clerical)
Social Work Assistants 0 18 0 4.7%
(for example,Community services aides, •
parent partners,case aides) •
All CWS(case carrying) Social 6 209 0 55.0%
Workers
Supervisors 0 35 0 9.2% •
Staff Analysts 0 6 2 1.6%
(Non-case carrying social workers) •
Management 0 15 0 3.9% •
(Analysts,Director,Division Managers)
Foster Care Eligibility 0 25 0 6.6%
CWS/CMS Support Assistants 0 4 0 1.1% •
TOTAL Number of Staff 6 380 32
(Not FTEs)
62
•
•
•
•
Turnover Ratio
Type of Position Staff Leaving TOTAL number Turnover Rate
Agency of Positions by
• FY 2005-2006 Category
• FY 2005-2006
. Administrative Support 3 98 3.1%
(for example,clerical) (including
• vacant
• positions)
Social Work Aides 1 18 5.5%
(for example, Community services aides, (including
• parent partners,case aides) positions
cancelled 9/02)
• All CWS (case-carrying) Social 20 211 9.5%
Workers
• Supervisors 2 35 5.7%
•
• Staff Analysts(Non case-carrying) 1 6 16.7%
• TOTAL 27 368 7.3%
•
•
•
•
Private contractors
The county philosophy is to provide services to children and family by county
staff except for very specialized services. For example, Kinship Centers and
• Family Preservation services are provided by contracted non-profit agency
service providers.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
63
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Worker caseload size by service program •
The monthly average number of children in fiscal year 2005-2006 in each of the
following program areas was obtained from CWS/CMS. •
•
Program Area Average number per month of •
children served in FY 2005-2006
ER 863 •
FM* 549 •
FR* 630 •
PP* 1,302 •
Adoptions 175
*The functions of Family Maintenance,Family Reunification,and Permanency Placement
are combined in Contra Costa. •
The average number of children in the Family Maintenance function includes
approximately 29% (160 children) that are in Voluntary Family Maintenance. •
•
•
•
Bargaining Unit Issues
SEIU Local 535 represents both the child welfare social workers and the •
supervisors in the Bureau. Specific collective bargaining issues that impact the •
provision of child welfare services include:
•
• workload
• working non-traditional work hours •
• the potential conflict between the interests of the supervisors and the •
workers particularly when progressive discipline is involved
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
64 •
•
Political jurisdictions
• Cities
There are 19 cities in Contra Costa County. The largest city by population is the
City of Concord (121,780); the smallest is the City of Clayton (10,762). The
unincorporated area of the county, if considered a "city" jurisdiction, would be
the largest both in terms of population and geographic size.
• The Bureau is working more closely with cities as we continue our Family-to-
Family Initiative. City leaders, including mayors, are invited to attend and have
participated in our Partnership meetings in the various districts of the county.
School Districts
• The Contra Costa County Board of Education, an elected body of five trustees,
and the elected Superintendent of Schools work together to provide leadership,
service, and support to all the school districts and all students of Contra Costa
County.
There are 18 school districts in Contra Costa County, each governed by its own
• Board of Trustees. Some of the boundaries of these school districts are similar to
• city boundaries; others cross the boundaries of many cities. The largest school
district in the county is the Mt. Diablo Unified School District. The smallest
district is Canyon School District.
CFS works collaboratively with many of the schools districts in the county as it
• relates to IEPs, SELPAs, and on the Child Welfare Redesign Plan itself. We work
with the Office of Education, which hires the three Educational Liaisons who
work in our district offices (one in each geographic area of the county). There is
an Educational Task Force that works on improving access to education for foster
children and youth.
• Community College Districts
There are three community colleges in Contra Costa County: Contra Costa
Community College in west county, Diablo Valley College in central county, and
Los Medanos College in east county.
• The three community colleges and the Bureau meet quarterly around training for
foster/adoptive parents. Through this process input is provided for the
development of training curriculum for foster parents and coordination of the
65
i
•
•
•
colleges' delivery of training services occurs. Year-round trainings are •
developed throughout the county which are highlighted in a quarterly schedule i
sent out to all foster parents. The Bureau also provides experienced staff to •
deliver some of the training and financial assistance/stipends are provided for •
foster parents to attend training.
•
Law Enforcement Agencies •
There are 21 law enforcement agencies in Contra Costa County. Law •
enforcement services are provided by 19 city police departments, the Sheriff- i
Coroner Department, and the California Highway Patrol. In addition, the i
community college district operates its own police force, and there are two other
cross-jurisdictional law enforcement agencies: the East Bay Regional Park •
District Police Department and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police •
Department. •
The Bureau worked with law enforcement and the District Attorney's Office to •
develop the Children's Interview Center (CIC), and monthly meetings occur to •
provide oversight.
•
The Bureau has developed positive working relationships with law enforcement •
where the high level group homes are located. Due to the number of runaways •
and disruptive behaviors in such a facility, there may be an increased impact on
the police services in that community, and the Bureau has been able to reach i
amicable resolutions to the community's and law enforcement agency's concerns. •
Tribes •
Less than 1% of the population in Contra Costa County identifies itself as an •
American Indian (per 2000 census). There are no federally-recognized Native •
American tribes within the County. •
•
Technology level •
•
Laptops used by field staff •
Laptops are available for check-out by social work staff at each district office. i
Capacity to use SAS, SPSS,Business Objects, Safe Measures, CAD IQ or other
software
Contra Costa County uses both Business Objects and Safe Measures. There are six •
licensed users for Business Objects and the two data evaluators are the dedicated •
experts in this application. The evaluators also have experience with SAS and •
SPSS.
•
•
•
66
i
• As indicated in an Outcome strategy in the last SIP, Supervisors and Managers
• use Safe Measures for monitoring staff's performance in Outcome related areas
• such as timely response and contacts. During this past year, security for Safe
Measures was changed to accommodate access down to a worker level. A
limited number of workers have begun to use Safe Measures to manage their
work. As the benefits of this desk-top caseload management tool is realized,
• more staff are requesting access.
Data Team - The addition of a strong Research and Evaluation team to CWS has
allowed an even greater focus on accuracy of data. The team responds daily to
requests from managers, analysts, and partners for reports and analyses.
• Business Objects is the primary query tool for CWS/CMS data. Other databases
• such as CalWIN and the Recruitment Tracking databases are also queried and
• data evaluated.
Other Applicable Factors
No other factors to be analyzed at this time.
67
•
•
•
•
Section III •
Systemic Factors •
•
Relevant Management Information Systems •
•
As in all counties in California, Contra Costa utilizes the statewide Child Welfare •
Services/Case Management System as the primary system for tracking referrals, •
cases,placements, court activity and clients. •
•
Contra Costa implemented CWS/CMS in 1998. From implementation, the •
administrative team has recognized the importance of accurate, timely data and •
has provided a strong structure to support staff's efforts in this regard. With
these supports data in the system is generally reliable. The Bureau participated •
in a "Tune Up" process with CWS/CMS project staff in September 2002. The •
resulting summary documented by the project staff was highly complementary •
of Contra Costa's efforts and ranked the county high in usage and accuracy. •
Constant attention to improvement continues.
•
The following are factors that support CWS staff in good record keeping: •
•
• ATM's — Application Trainers Mentors in each of the major district offices •
continue to provide technical and support for CWS/CMS Users. The ATM's •
are closely connected to the department's Information Technology
Application Support and Networking staff. ATM's meet together as a group •
regularly and share ideas and target areas for improvement to assure county •
wide consistency. An organizational change was made in 2004 so all ATM's •
report to the CWS Division Manager with Systems Support responsibilities. •
• Trainers—In 2005, the CWS/CMS trainer began reporting directly to the CWS
Division Manager with Systems Support responsibilities. This creates an •
even stronger link to the ATM's and the data team. Training is provided in •
new worker training classes as well as in additional classes for re- •
enforcement. When major systems, such as "code-drops" occur, additional •
training is offered to all workers.
•
• Case Read Protocol — In 2006, the department implemented an innovative •
training segment for new worker training to accentuate the importance of •
good record keeping and to re-enforce use of CWS/CMS. 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 •
•
68 •
•
• easily retrieved from CWS/CMS data fields. 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
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 - Implemented in 2004, the original plan and part of the prior
SIP was a supervisor and manager review of statistics for outcomes and
compliance. Last year the Bureau offered Safe Measures to workers. Social
Workers can now review caseload specific case management information.
• 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.
• Strong link to Systems Support - The CWS/CMS Systems Analyst meets
monthly with CWS Management staff to advise of system related issues and
• upcoming changes.
• Continued management engagements in issues - Data Issues are a standing
agenda item for the Administrative Team Meeting where issues or concerns
are addressed. Since all district managers attend these meetings, one of the
• results is consistency across the county. In addition, the Research and
• Evaluation Team are part of the CWS County Leadership Team and present
• information on various projects as they progress.
• Participation in statewide AB636 workgroup - The Research and Evaluation
Team continues to participate on the state AB636 workgroup to be sure the
• county is aware of changes and to share county expertise in areas related to
• Outcomes.
• Clerical staff to support social workers in entry of data - When CWS/CMS
was implemented, a commitment was made to the Social Workers to provide
clerical support for entry of data if a Social Worker chooses or does not have
a time to record information directly. Data entry forms that mimic CWS/CMS
• screens are provided and can be utilized by Social Workers and handed to
69
•
clerical staff for entry. Social Workers maintain the responsibility to assure •
entries are accurate •
•
The addition of the Research and Evaluation Team under the direction of a CWS •
Division Manager has been one of the most important organizational changes to •
the Bureau. This team is part of the CWS Bureau and as such can be directly •
involved in and responsive to the needs of the Bureau in research and evaluation •
and can assist the Bureau in moving toward evidence based practice. •
Case Review System •
•
Court structure/relationship •
The Bureau was delighted that the legal community was represented in the self •
assessment process and provided valuable perspectives and information. •
The Superior Court of Contra Costa County includes a Juvenile Court section
consisting of two judges and four 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. •
The Children and Family Services Bureau has specialized court social workers •
within each district office. These social workers work with families in the initial •
court proceedings: petition filing, detention, jurisdiction and disposition. The
court social workers carry a smaller caseload than the continuing services
workers to allow for the greater number of continued hearings, contested •
hearings and court reports required during the first 60 days following petition •
filing. Furthermore, these specialized social workers can provide more intensive •
contact with families during the initial establishment of services. Through their •
more frequent contact with members of the bar, the court workers often develop
more workable relationships with attorneys and are sometimes able to engage in •
negotiation and case planning with the attorneys on behalf of the families. •
•
70 •
•
• A second group of specialized court social workers exist within the court units in
. each district. These are the .26 workers. These social workers carry cases
following the setting of the hearing pursuant to WIC 366.26 for the termination of
parental rights.
• In addition to these court workers and their supervisor, 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 Peer Quality Case Review
(PQCR) process indicated that the Court Officer has become more of an
• organizational role and less supportive and this perception was validated by the
self assessment membership.
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. The PQCR listed
• these continuances as a barrier to reunification, as frequently parents do not
• understand why the case was continued and what actually happened in court.
The PQCR and self assessment process commented that Social Workers are not
considered experts in the Juvenile Court and this impacts their credibility and
ability to engage with families.
• 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, on occasion, division managers,
meet monthly with the judges and commissioners, CASA, public and private
attorneys representing the Juvenile Bar and court administrative staff.
71
• In addition, there is an All Agency Court meeting where administrators from
Probation, Mental Health and Children and Family Services meet with the
Juvenile Bench on a bi-monthly basis. •
• In 2004 a Legal Ad Hoc committee was formed from representatives of the
Bureau, Legal community, Youth and Parent Partners. This committee
designed and provided trainings in both 2005 and 2006 which were well
attended by SW's and the legal community (over 80 participants each year). •
These training sessions focused on family engagement, case planning, Team •
Decision Making, and permanency. This committee has also produced a •
parent binder and recommendations for an orientation video. The parent
binder is given by the Parent Partners to parents entering the Child Welfare
system, explaining the system, and providing tips on organization and
motivation. The court orientation video is designed to give parents needed •
information on the court system. The Court Orientation video is expected to
be produced within the next year.
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
(Investigation Narrative). 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.
S
72
•
Parent-Child/Youth Participation in Case Planning
. The litigious nature of the juvenile court system in Contra Costa County has
. interfered historically with the social workers ability to work closely with
families on case planning. In some cases, attorneys have advised families not to
engage in services in order to avoid self-incrimination. However, for the most
® part, social workers and attorneys are able to work together to assist families to
engage in case planning and services.
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 is a new
program provided at the initial detention hearing to families with children in
placement. Parent Partners are available to meet with families and assist them
• through the process of self advocacy and service involvement. The PQCR and
• Self Assessment process resoundingly commented on the usefulness of these
programs and requests to expand the programs.
Over the past 5 years the county has steadily increased the use of Team Decision
Making Meetings to engage youth and adults in the case planning process. For
those children in the TDM areas who have been removed or are at risk of
• removal, the TDM process is a jump start to case planning. At the TDM the
family can connect with service providers and begin to discuss what they must
do to make their home a safe place for their child. The PQCR determined that
TDMS have a positive impact on engagement and subsequent reunification.
The Bureau has conducted over 1000 TDMs at the front end. Participants in the
meetings include parents, relatives who may be possible placement resources,
youth, service providers, community members and support people. The TDM
process has been expanded to include meeting with youth experiencing difficulty
in placement and youth planning emancipation. The TDM provides an excellent
vehicle for youth to become involved in their case plans. The practice of
including youth in the TDM has shown to increase placement stability and
• decrease AWOLs from placement, a clear indication that empowered youth are
able to work within the system to solve problems.
73
Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention
Contra Costa has a homefinding staff of 7.5 FTEs. These staff perform licensing •
and adoptive home studies. The Bureau combined the home study process so •
that foster home and adoptive home licensing are performed simultaneously.
There are 10 adoption workers in two units.
Services in support of foster and adoptive parents include: •
• Contracted community liaisons to assist with recruitment within their •
communities
• Three post-adoption resource centers
• A foster parent liaison who works for 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
• An annual foster parent recognition event •
• A quarterly foster 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 three 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 letter and 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 are two community liaisons stationed in the district offices that 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.
74 �.
• 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.
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.
•
• Quality Assurance System
i As a result of gathering data for implementing Family to Family, the subsequent
• quarterly reports provided by the Center for Social Services Research, and
research and evaluation for the Federal System of Care grant, Contra Costa
County has seen the tremendous benefit of using data and quality assurance
management to drive decisions, to inform policy, and to allocate resources in the
• county.
• In 2004, Contra Costa County formed the County Leadership Team (CLT); this
team meets for two half days per month and consists of: the Director, all Division
Managers, Parent Partners, Program Analysts, Staff Development, the research
and evaluation team, and the Supervisor from the new initiative programs. It
• was intended that a Youth also attend this meeting, but this has been difficult to
• implement because of the youth's activities such as school or work as they
. transition to adulthood. This facilitated meeting evaluates outcomes including
the performance indicators identified in the County Data Profile. CLT reviews
the System Improvement Plan, System of Care Plan and holds the Bureau
accountable for following the plans and brain storming solutions to
• implementation. Each Division Manager has tasks to complete as part of the SIP
75
and provides reports to the rest of CLT, gaining feedback and strategizing
solutions. •
CCC has a Director's Advisory Team which meets monthly. This team, •
comprised of Supervisors, Program Analysts, Staff Development and Managers,
discusses implementation of programs at the practice level and works towards
quality assurance of services provided to children and families.
The Director of CFS regularly schedules district staff meetings to communicate •
with staff regarding the updated outcomes, program implementation and
evaluation.
Contra Costa has implemented a two to three day "case read" protocol as part of
the New Worker training. 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.
Since 2002, Contra Costa has 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. This strategy has included several quality assurance measures: •
• The Child Welfare League of America survey has been administered to
staff by Staff Development for four years. This survey measures staffs
perception of the Bureau's ability to meet the cultural needs of staff and •
families. •
• The System Improvement Plan included strategies to reduce
disproportionality. Performance in this area is monitored at Leadership
meetings. S
• A senior manager and subject matter expert on Fairness and Equity
attended "team meetings" to address whether culture is being adequately
addressed. This information was taken to the quarterly Cultural .
76
•
•
•
•
• Competency Oversight Committee and Leadership Team meeting for
• further review and strategizing on how to improve these team meetings.
• Contra Costa has provided all staff with training and has just completed
• the second annual off-site training (one per each of the four divisions) to
continue the "Difficult Dialogues" around this subject.
•
This Fairness and Equity plan is drilling down to the practice level and analyzing
how decisions are being made.
• The County recently 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.
•
Compliance with Regulatory Policies and Timelines
• As part of the 2004 and 2005 System 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.
•
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. Safe Measures can be
accessed by all workers, supervisors, managers and the Director. The Division
Managers take their Division's data to Children's Services Administrative Team
• monthly to review compliance. CCC has seen improvement in percent of child
abuse/neglect referrals with a timely response from 50.70% to over 90% in
• 2005/06, and timely social worker visits improved from 77.90%to over 90%in the
• same time period.
• Although the Bureau is delighted with these outcomes, we are now reminded in
this self assessment process to drill even deeper, such as exactly what constitutes
. a contact, if the youth knows there is a six month exception policy and who
actually monitors what happens at the contact. It is anticipated that this is an
• area of further policy development for quality assurance.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
77
•
Quality Assurance Systems for Practice Review of Social Work Case Decisions
Supervisor Conferences
The Bureau has a policy that supervisors meet with their workers and review
cases at least monthly. This is in addition to frequent "informal" case staffing
between workers and supervisors.
Disposition Review Teams
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:
• 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 is another support for staff decision-makin •
pP g•
The 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 •
78
s 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. For children in
relative or non-related extended family placements with a plan of adoption, a
home study social worker may also be assigned to complete the home study
of the relative or non relative home.
w
• Administrative Reviews
Addressing permanency issues is not a one time event done at the time FR
• services are terminated. CCC recognizes that ongoing attention must be paid
to cases long after FR is no longer the focus. In addition to PRT, where
permanency issues are raised and discussed, the Bureau sees Administrative
Reviews of cases determined to be in long term foster care as another point
at which permanency may be addressed. Unlike the experiences of other
counties with an Administrative Review process, Contra Costa has found
. that by strongly encouraging participation by birth parents, current
caregivers and youth, there is good attendance at ARs and useful planning is
accomplished.
Issues related to level of care, permanency options with current caregivers
. and likelihood of reunification are all reviewed again during ARs. The
• philosophy is that the County's responsibility for children in care never ends
and the Bureau does not, as a system, "give up" on successful permanency
for children, whether that be reunification, adoption, guardianship or
successful emancipation.
Permanency Planning Reviews
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
79
0
s
Service Array
Availability of Services
Parents and families involved in the Contra Costa County child welfare system •
have a full range of services available to them. These services include health
(including family planning), mental health, substance abuse treatment and •
aftercare, individual, family, and couples' counseling, parenting and anger
management classes, sexual abuse treatment, recreational services for children
and youth, the full range of social services required to be provided by all
California counties (CalWORKs, employment services, etc.), and secondary and
vocational education. .
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 and families and existing resources in the •
community. The County employs liaisons in the following areas:
• Domestic Violence - 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 - One full time 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. r
• Education - 2.5 FTE education specialists 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.
• Early Intervention Outreach Specialists - Three full time EIOS staff •
have the goal of helping parents with substance abuse problems access i
services, and successfully reunify with their children.
• Mental Health - Two full time mental health liaisons are available to
assist social workers in negotiating referrals to mental health services and •
accessing mental health resources. •
80
r
• • Public Health-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) — Three 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 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.
A variety of other services are available to children, youth, parents, relative
M caregivers and adoptive families, including:
• • 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. 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, and Shared Family
• Care mentoring. Services are provided in a community based setting and
are used to prevent placement and expedite reunification:
• 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.
81
• 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. e
• Shared Family Care Program — This program is a "whole family' i
placement program that offers an alternative to conventional child
welfare services. The parent and her young child(ren) are placed together
for a six-month period in the home of a mentor family. The mentor, along
with a team of professionals, work with the family to help the parent
develop life skills, parenting skills and resources necessary to transition
to healthy, safe and independent living. The families receive a
comprehensive array of services including case management, budget
management training,housing-related assistance, life skills training, crisis
intervention, parenting and child development classes, and job skills
coaching. Each year, an average of 15-17 families are placed in mentor •
homes and provided comprehensive services through this program. .
• 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.
• Parent Aides -- Parent Aides help families by transporting children to
mandated visits and miscellaneous appointments, as well as providing
supervision during visits with parents. Two local nonprofit agencies have
been contracted to provide these services to families and children in the
child welfare system.
• Independent Living Skills Program -- Contra Costa County's ILSP
program is recognized as one of the finest in the State. With the new i
10,000 square foot Independent Living Skills Youth Center the program i
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.
82
• • 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
r 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 phase in areas are those areas with the highest rates of
i 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
children under five years of age.
Agency partners participate in TDM's to participate in assessing safety
• and setting a plan for the family.
• 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 three 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.
83
Assessment of Needs to Children, Parents and Foster Parents
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. i
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. •
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.
Characteristics of Families Surveyed
The majority of the survey respondents were female, ranging from 77% in the
Pittsburg area to 90% in the Central area. Three of the four areas of the county •
showed English spoken in the home more than Spanish. The Central area,
however, showed Spanish spoken in 78% of homes and English spoken in 31% of
homes. The Central region had the highest percentage of Hispanics surveyed —
79%. In addition, the Central region identified English as a Second Language as
the service most used by their family. In response to related questions, the more
heavily concentrated Spanish speakers in the Central area indicate •
Language/Cultural barriers as a barrier to using services and, Language/Cultural
barriers as "a barrier that most affects my family. "
African American was the largest ethnic group surveyed in the West (68%),
Antioch (33%) and Pittsburg (53%) areas. Hispanics averaged 22% percent of
respondents in the West, Antioch and Pittsburg areas. Sixteen percent of •
respondents in the Antioch area were Native American.
84
r
•
•
• Mini-Grants
The County allocates some state redesign funding for mini grants, which is
spread out across the Redesign target communities. Mini grants can range from
• $1,500 to $8,000. The mini grants program has funded several community
• projects serving at-risk families and children. Examples of projects funded in FY
. 2005-2006 include: winter holiday camp, anger management classes, mural
project participated by at-risk teens, teen mentoring program, legal workshops in
Spanish, community resource fairs, and support group for Spanish speaking
mothers affected by domestic violence.
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
85
•
io •
Cf) ° m m ° ° h m 00 0 0 0 0 �p 00 h ,� O
h N 00 �--� C M N �--� N N h N h d1 h �--� �--� N N �--�
U
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N 00 lCi oo cq m ° ° N �M ° GD N o 0 0 00 C4 N 01 M
�"� 00 e-i � N M '�M '� � N �--i .--� a1 � h ,...i h m d� ti N N
•
•
O �
0 0 o o \ o \ 0 0 0 0
N � \ M N -.0 o C o ° o ° o 0 0 0 -.0
LrIO O aN Cf) 00 u� m N 00 N N �--� ~ a1 � 'cM N O h DD O d, r
O •w
O
m
cz
bA
00 N �? 01 O h �--i Ln 01 m
00 00 �--� �--i u7 N O e--i a1 h 00 �"'� m � �--+ N
u
cc
cu
O
�i
V v y
8 w
v v Vi n• i.r O
uC yv. �Q„ yam, •�,, p
W It 00
cz
GJ •� CA Oq � w u a � .� m O ry c0 � ~.+ v O O OW 0. O O
«� W to W U) �,d d P, U � Z O � ? Z .� P. U Pr Urd
CU cu 0
cn ;,4U C7 ,� w U d
IE
u O O
G ° V V y +� op0 +v' p v v OVA p v 9 O ch � .�
+� Q) OA.
cu ¢moi cc m O N m co O N v N cC v '++ �-�, O cV, u p O O
• . � d u0. Z4G4 u >, u u � d � d uCa ad �c ? u �7 �aU �
-, c\i m. 4 Ln. m. 4 Un N. m.
u c
� bA p
Z ,.0 u .sC�+ w v O
O O O bA O
z U u U p G -� ¢ O m p
Q >, Q) ca �„ O sV., O �CC ¢, u pp
• `��' �" m as v cu
cs M O p p w r a5 •� ,,,*� 00 p N 7 u O •G cC G
• w d C, w u ? v Q a.d w d u u u � w U
• �--� N m 4 U.� N m 4 L6 c-i N m N m
• p
O5 41 _
� V •� V ° p V y � V �
wto
* O uT3 V .� .� U OVA 9 s.
R + V p m co O °
(� u �. i b0 s, V V G .CC ucz
u] ° V V V a +� o v a M a V ° u] m m a O sto
~
wZ .� a. wad u u u 6 � 4u C) a. wuQ m op
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
r, N CO Y) cv m Ln cv m It Ln N m
• 0 to
°
u w •v O u G p v G <C p
++ p v O v v O p bA & �"' ani .�. O i•<C
u uCa
V G >~
co v N 0�1 p � C! ° sO- C R ;C 00 v O x�•' v O
d u � a � (� s~ W. d E u � Ew d u u ? u U 0 s~ Hcn ux
• c-i CV cri •cM std r-i cV C6 cll cl� 4 sn N C6
•
v
CA
yCA
cu
wO y w
O
N1-4
•
•
0
� O � O O x � •� � N � •
cul
00
v O O O O O p O G v 1-4
'a O � w v •
7s Z
C�4 � S w �
.--i cV cYi •� —A C.j C6 4 CV C6 4 N C i 4 •
O
::s +�. 0' U
Q) w w 30 v v
cc E
cn
o o o > E cu
o o .� to a ani U
a ° si H QF° C �
�--� N Cn 14 N C7 d* ri N cM 4 Ln 1 N C7 It •
v �° .� •
u ocz
° v v
ovo >cc o o v o o Q, c c
w �C�C"" CC
y N M 00 to N
O �n •°��° G G ¢ QJ U v
U ado'� � 3 v a, v Q M ,n v •
w � Hx xwZ0
Cn cV Cn 4 r-i N C7 4 L6 r-i C i m
c O •p >
4 Rf N
+ .O m •� O pq CJuI
0. v m o.r O G p � v U CA
aJ
N o o 0 0 '+[.. 30 O G y O r �O v ap
H U) u x W Z O �l 3 .� H P +� x E- N W Q Q •
N CC) -1:T '-+ cV Cf) Ln r-i N M eM •
r.+
0 cu
1+4
tv C4
w.+ w M cn 6! i .+ w V .� v
0 •
O � �'' Z 'A w •3 O � f. O
� •^"..� � � ^.•� OBJ .^".r � ~GJ � � O '�
i
cam, N
co v .t] u vv v a u O O = v 'O ci oO r. o —Uv
• o v v m ca v > t3 x m � +. u p` ° �' V x v cn
w G F+ <a o ,v, iCU
co
(n m � c
Q) >, � � 'L3 LL O O O rn Z v �, 'x O v u i
t° u p.c c u ° u � ° w o p, w a a° cn w �° O u F: 0 ca
° x O
x ay
�--i [V m 'cM LO 110 '--i N cn 't r-i N c'7 .4 lfi
• v �' > v a
a
V ^
i > s, u m N "O .v v c,
> .�a
co
u x c <aO O G �5 C!ad n i * Q ^ W v i Co ad M u
ca co 03
x 6. � U aU o u o pU u w4 awS03cnw2 � E � x .� 80
.--i N c'n 4 Lri 1�6 N M N c'n 4 L6
• y
ca
+ i s v v bA 3 U CJ x w ° O O O pup
U4 CO
O
U C G cz O Cn v
u Ca v, U 3u cn
00
v u
> +� p ° u `a
Ns>,
�, ca u rn 4, V 4J p ca N u
N > ca •� x v O U .T, O + cn v
M fn
•0 G1 +� N V3 'n co
bA m R" +� m �zl +�"'. A w v x �+ N
x Q. � u a,� � (nu uu ca
uw o "a, 3cnw P. uawF° O .1 -j ° O
O �
O � �
O vaa)) E v
41 y 4J n.•i .r
y w 4! w Oa V914
w
� �+
Survey Findings
There was some shift in the reported usage of services between 2003 and 2005. In
2003, the primary services used were nutrition/child health services or ESL
classes, while in 2005 it was reported that after school child care, Family •
counseling, infant health, as well as ESL classes were utilized. Thus, a broader
range of services were listed as the primary service used - suggesting a greater
saturation of services available.
Gang intervention, anger management and youth drop-in centers were reported .
as the most common services not available in the community. This is somewhat
of a shift as previous survey results included mentoring and support for relative
caregivers as other top missing services. After school child care, mentoring and
ESL classes (Central region) were listed as the top services needed in the
communities. This is a shift from 2003 when alcohol and drug services were
listed as the top need for all regions except the central area - where ESL classes
were listed as primary. Language and cultural barriers were listed by the central
and east county respondents as the main reason they did not get services -
although this was not reported as one of the top three reasons for west county.
This has remained the main reported barrier for the central and both east county •
regions.
Employment was previously the primary worry reported by community
members, and while this has remained as one of the top concerns, health services
(Central) and food (Pittsburg) have moved into the top position for two of the
regions. Low-income working families are seen as those most important to help
with childcare costs - in general, for children of all ages. Three out of the four
regions reported that childcare support should be given for the type of childcare
parents think is best. Not surprisingly each region thought that their own
community most needed more childcare resources. The two main problems
facing families who need childcare were reported to be transportation and
location of services (obviously these are closely related). Childcare affordability •
information was not obtained in 2003.
Services to Indian Children
Given the small number of persons of Native American descent within the .
County(less than 1% of the population)there are no specialized services targeted
for Indian children. There are no federally-recognized Indian tribes within the
County.
90
•
•
•
•
Staff/Provider Training
•
The Employment and Human Services Department, the parent agency to
Children and Family Services Bureau, has a Staff Development division. Staff
• Development's role is to support the Bureau in providing core services and to
assist in the planning and implementation process of each new initiative by
• providing staff with the necessary skills to implement the changes.
Staff Development has two Staff Development Training Specialists dedicated to
Children and Family Services training. In addition, 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 core training included in the annual training plan, Staff
Development has focused on two major themes for the past three years:
•
• A culturally competent workforce that is able to successfully engage
• families and build and maintain community partnerships and
relationships.
• Cross training between all parts of the system including community
• partners.
•
Extensive work has been done in both of these areas. There continues to be a
need to develop cultural competency skills in the workforce and to build
additional relationships with community partners through integrated training.
• Within these two themes, the following training concentrations have been
identified:
•
• • Fairness and Equity
• Family Engagement
• Permanency and Transition
• • Documentation and Accountability including use of CWS/CMS and
Comprehensive Assessment Tool, and language used in documentation
• These themes are strongly represented in the current System Improvement Plan
(SIP). Child welfare must continue to transition into a more fair and equitable
system with a staff well- equipped in cross cultural communication who are able
to engage families in developing good case plans, actively seek to build support
• systems for children and families in the community, and accurately and timely
enter CWS/CMS documentation. Staff must also be well versed in the ongoing
needs of emancipating youth,programs and resources available to assist families
•
91
•
in timely reunification through visitation and stronger partnerships with birth
parents, and using strength-based language in working with families. These are
all elements in the current SIP, SOC grant, Family to Family, Child Welfare
Redesign, and the Bureau's vision for providing competent services to the •
children and families of Contra Costa County.
Highlights of Staff Development operations include:
Staff Development coordinates with the Regional Bay Area 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 Ca1SWEC 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 monthly 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.
California Law Enforcement Telecommunication Services on-going training
and re-certification training is offered to all staff.
■ CFS Clerical Training three-day series is provided on a quarterly basis.
In addition to the ongoing needs of staff, providers, and the Bureau regarding .
core practices and issues, advanced training is also provided. Staff
Development, BAA 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.
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 has established a collaboration of county
92 S
• 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.
Since the implementation of Family to Family, it has been widely acknowledged
that child welfare had two important shifts to make: to improve skills in cross
cultural communication and include the community as part of the "team' that
assists children and families in the communities where they live. This "team
consists of all public agencies, CBOs, foster parents, faith based communities,
education systems and the community at large. Training has been offered to the
above participants regarding the concepts of Redesign, Family to Family and
TDMs. During the 2005-06 Fiscal year, over 450 participants from other public
• agencies, CBOs, foster parents, the faith community and the community at large
have been trained to better understand their role in supporting children and
families. Many of them were trained alongside child welfare staff.
r
• 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 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.
Agency Collaborations
S Collaboration with public and private agencies
• Child welfare staff in Contra Costa County have taken many steps towards
engaging community partners and working with them to define and implement
programs that support child welfare and community goals. In the past years,
these efforts have strengthened community engagement and established a solid
foundation for ongoing collaboration. Below is a list and description of these
efforts:
• Placement Resource Expansion Team
• The Placement Resource Team is an internal staffing 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
93
s
•
s
expertise and resources. The team also plays a role in determining the level
of placement and approving concurrent plans. •
• 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
Each district office hosts a Redesign Partnership monthly meeting that brings
together 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.
These meetings have substantial representation by a diverse group of
community, other agency, and faith-based partners who have engaged in this
collaboration and there has been a steady increase in the number of
community partners taking leadership roles in various sub-committees. O
• 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 O
partnership with Contra Costa First Five to build and operate the Contra O
Costa Home Visiting System for children and their families. The Home O
Visiting System is a continuum of strategies and services that support Q
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 O
Q
94
Q
. Guidance, Medically Vulnerable Infant program, Community Services
• Program and Differential Response.
The Home Visiting System and programs are supported by a
multidisciplinary Consultation and Response Team that provides
• professional consultation to home visitors.
• 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.
• • juvenile Court
Child welfare leaders meet regularly with judges and commissioners on the
juvenile court to better collaborate.
• • Community Information Report, Newsletter&web site
• The county regularly updates and distributes these communication strategies
• reports to keep community members, foster parents, and other interested
parties apprised of child welfare changes, successes, and challenges.
• All of the efforts described above 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.
Interaction with Local Tribes
i
This section is not applicable. There are no federally-recognized Indian tribes
within the County.
r
• 95
•
•
•
•
Section IV •
Prevention Activities and Strategies •
•
County-Wide Prevention Efforts •
•
CFS funds a variety of prevention programs throughout the county. In addition •
to those listed below, the County also offers a full range of employment and •
vocational education programs to CalWORKS eligible individuals. •
Differential Response ••
Differential Response is a new approach to child welfare that emphasizes •
prevention and allows Children and Family Services (CFS) to extend help to
families early on,before problems reach crisis levels. Under this system,CFS can •
link families to case management services in the community where the family •
can get help without having to be involved with CFS. Families can use these •
new services to help resolve their problems before they become unmanageable. •
When fully implemented, differential response will provide a gateway to •
services for many families that might otherwise have fallen through the cracks.
Differential Response provides three levels of service, called "Paths," to respond •
to those families reported to CFS. •
• Path 1: these are reports that do not require CFS intervention, where the •
family's needs can be addressed by community-based services. Generally, •
these reports would be closed at intake without anyone visiting the family to •
offer help. Under the new system, a liaison, called the Community •
Engagement Specialist (CES), goes to see the family and links them to
community-based case management services. •
• Path 2: these are reports that require an initial face-to-face assessment by a •
CFS Social Worker but do not require continued CFS involvement. •
Generally, these reports would be closed after investigation by the Social •
Worker with referrals provided to the family. Under the new system, the •
Social Worker may link the family to community case management services •
to help address their needs. •
• Path 3: these are high-risk reports that generally require immediate •
involvement of CFS. •
Differential response phase-in areas were selected to provide preventive services •
to families living in the communities with the highest rate of child abuse/neglect •
referrals. Through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process and redirecting •
existing contracts, 14 community case management positions were created with a •
capacity to serve up to 210 families. Under the traditional system, these families •
•
96 •
0
•
• would not have received these critical prevention and early intervention services.
• Differential Response works to strengthen our service infrastructure by allowing
us to link families with case-managed services to help them secure needed
services, enhance family functioning and avoid further need for CWS
involvement.
First 5 Centers
Over the last five years parents, community residents, and service providers met
• to develop plans for five new Family Resource & Learning Centers (FRLCs)
sponsored by First 5 Contra Costa. FRLCs are neighborhood-based centers that
provide young children and their families with a variety of supportive services
under one roof. The Commission approved all five plans for funding. The
Centers are in various stages of development, most have become operational
• over the last year. In the last two years the names of the centers have been
changed from Family Resource Learning Centers to First 5 Centers. This change
in name was to more clearly define the purpose of the centers to assist in helping
enhance the lives of children ages 0-5 and their families.
All of the First 5 Centers have been located in geographic areas with specific risk
factors (e.g., low-birth weights, late entry to prenatal care, etc.) and offer family
literacy, tobacco education, parent education and early learning opportunities,
among other services. Community residents play an integral role in the
development and governance of the centers, participating on boards made up of
60%residents and 40% community agencies.
• Contra Costa County Home Visiting Collaborative-Welcome Home Baby
• This strategy provides strengths-based home visiting services for expectant
parents and families with children birth to age three. Services are for prenatal,
first-time and multiple risk families. Home visiting services funded by First 5
target families living in neighborhoods in Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch,
• Concord, Richmond and San Pablo - areas where teen birth rates are high, and
. babies are born with low birth weights.
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation&Therapeutic Services
This strategy aims to:
■ Provide early identification and referral of children with mental health,
social, emotional and developmental problems
■ Create continuity of care by providing training and support for child care
providers who observe children exhibiting behavioral or developmental
• problems
97
■ Create an integrated system of care for early childhood mental health
therapeutic services, including providing "wraparound" services for
children with multiple needs
Parent Education and Support S
This strategy provides parents and caregivers with current information about
child development and health, builds parenting skills, encourages peer-to-peer
support and reaches specific parent populations
Substance Abuse Services
The substance abuse prevention strategy: S
■ Provide a range of substance abuse services including out patient,
residential and perinatal treatment to families .
• Screens and refers perinatal women who may be at risk of losing their •
children to the appropriate treatment modality including residential
treatment that will enable mothers and their children to reside together in •
a safe environment
■ Provide residential perinatal substance abuse services to CFS mothers (12 •
beds) that offers enhanced programming for children including the .
provision of specialized mental health services
■ Provide follow-up services for families after leaving treatment to ensure •
lasting sobriety
Safe and Bright Futures •
The Safe and Bright Futures is a project of the Zero Tolerance for Domestic •
Violence Initiative of Contra Costa County. Established in 2004, Safe and Bright
Futures has been working to develop a system-wide approach to better serve the
needs of children impacted by domestic violence.
Kinship Support programs S
Serving grandparents and other kin caring for children, this collaborative
community based prevention program is a offering a variety of local supportive
services including recreational activities, after school programs for teens,
domestic violence services, etc.
98
•
•
•
•
• Prevention Partnerships
•
Contra Costa County Child Abuse Prevention Council
Contra Costa has had an active Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC) for
• many years. Begun originally as a Council reporting directly to our County
Administrator in the late 1970's, it became an independent non-profit several
• years later. Over the years, CAPC has taken the leadership in advocating for
• numerous prevention programs and activities. They have also taken a
leadership role within the California Consortium of Child Abuse Councils and
are involved in other statewide activities. CAPC's Systems Review Committee,
established in the mid 1980's, was the forebear of interagency work in this
county, bringing together professionals from a variety of disciplines to work on
• such issues as how to manage juvenile sex offenders, protocols on exams of sex
• abuse victims, etc.
• Specifically, the Council provides:
•
• Coordination of services including the Child Abuse Systems Review Committee,
• the Child Death Review Committee, the Multidisciplinary Training and
Education Committee and the Children's Interview Center Advisory Committee.
• Information sharing and parenting education through the provision of
"baby bags" to over 2500 new mothers and babies in all the hospitals of the
• county; the development of a comprehensive parent resource directory,
"Surviving Parenthood, " in both Spanish and English that is updated
• annually; maintenance of the county's child abuse and neglect lending
library; and the distribution of thousands of informational handouts and
brochures to all areas of the county.
•
• Public education activities, provides workshops, trainings, informational
tables, parenting classes, and numerous Mandated Reporter training sessions
provided through CAPC's Speakers' Bureau.
•
• • Advocacy through the Legislative Committee, which tracks legislation in
• Sacramento and at the federal level that impacts child abuse prevention
and/or services, participation in the Family and Children's Trust Committee
• to help plan for the disbursement of the CAPIT and CBFRS funds, and
• working with the United Way Assessment Cabinet on a comprehensive,
county-wide needs assessment.
•
•
•
•
99
•
The Family and Children's Trust Committee
The Family and Children's Trust Committee was established by the Board of
Supervisors in 1982 to provide a forum for discussions of child abuse and neglect
issues in the county and to oversee the distribution of the CAPIT funds. During
the ensuing years, the Committee has also accepted responsibility for the
disbursement of the Children's Trust fund monies and the Community- Based
Family Resource funds (CBFR).
These funding streams are coordinated to provide prevention and early
intervention services to abused and neglected children, or those at risk of abuse,
and to encourage the development of neighborhood family resources. Through
contracts with local community-based agencies, services are provided to protect
children, stabilize families, break the generational cycle of violence and promote •
and maintain more healthy and productive family and community
environments.
During FY 2005-20046, ten projects were supported, including:
i
• Family support services including parenting education, resource and referral •
services, case management, respite care, counseling and support, and family
bonding and strengthening activities.
• Multilingual, multicultural counseling, support and resource and referral
services. •
• Individual and group education and mentoring services for families with a
special-needs child.
• Home visiting services for minority families with newborns who are at risk of •
entering the child welfare system.
• School-based family support and counseling services, and,
• Substance abuse prevention services for young children living in substance
abusing home situations. •
Strategies for the Future
The County will continue to look for opportunities to collaborate with our
current and growing list of partners. The Bureau looks forward. to many
upcoming years of developing new, innovative, community-oriented prevention
partnerships.
100
•
w
•
•
Section V
Summary Assessment
•
•
® PQCR Final Observations and Recommendations
•
® The following report was submitted to the state as part of the county's Peer
Quality Case Review process. These findings were discussed at the Self
Assessment meetings and are reflected in the county's determination of areas to
• be included in the Systems Improvement Plan.
• Contra Costa County has a strong commitment to listen to the staff are directly
work with families, and the families that have or are currently receiving child
w welfare services. The information obtained from the PQCR is crucial in
• beginning the three-year planning process for Contra Costa County's System
Improvement Plan. Contra Costa County is in the process of conducting the Self-
Assessment process by November 2006 and will then prepare the three-year
• System Improvement Plan submitted to CDSS by February 2007. Below are the
• observations and recommendations as they were suggested by the probation
• officers, social workers, parents and supervisors. The PQCR recommendations
• will be further assessed and prioritized by the County to inform the Self-
Assessment process.
•
• Under the guidance of the California Department of Social Services, the
® observations of the PQCR may relate to practice, training, systemic and/or
® needed State technical assistance.
• The observations regarding systems issues, practice issues, training and state
issues for CWS and Juvenile Probation are set forth below. All of the
observations are based on reported themes and trends by the interviewers.
® These observations are incorporated in to numerous recommendations for the
• county to prioritize to address in the self assessment process. All
recommendations are suggestions from peer counties, interviewees,
® interviewers, and CDSS. A consensus-based decision-making process was not
• used in arriving at the recommendations.
•
® Recommendations.for CFS
® The recommendations made by the parents, social workers and supervisors were
® prioritized to parallel the key social work practices, factors and
• challengesibarriers that impact timely reunification as identified in the Summary
® of Practice(see Section III).
•
• 101
•
Practice Observations •
■ Review the outline promising practices and develop a plan for •
implementation and training across county so that they are regularly
practiced by all staff
■ Be creative and inclusive of a parent's skills, motivators, limitations, needs
and suggestions for developing effective individualized case plans •
■ Regularly practice engaging and building bridges between foster families •
and biological families to better support natural and frequent visitation and
better support of the family
■ Be as creative and sensitive as possible in developing visitation plans so that
families can have visitation in the most natural setting possible where they
can use the most natural parenting behaviors while still maintaining child i
safety •
■ Build positive relationships with the community and community service
programs so that you can fit individualized family needs with appropriate
services
■ Always make an effort to place children in their own community
• Practice continuous risk assessment using risk assessment tools so that •
families can be effectively evaluated when their needs changed either for the •
better or to further risk so that the family is always supported at the
appropriate level
• Practice being prepared for court and discuss court reports and
recommendations with supervisors and County Counsel ahead of time to •
help promote support and respect in the court room
• Court officers should discuss cases with social workers ahead of time and be
a resource to social workers to help write court reports that effectively show
evidence to support recommendations
• Take the time to discuss the Court and CPS process and procedures with the ,
family and check for understanding. Provide written material that the family
can refer back to as well as a phone number to call should the family later •
have questions
• Develop good reciprocal relationships with probation officers so that you can
be a resource to each other and work cases more collaboratively to achieve
better results
• Take the time to get to know the family and the child at the on-set so that you •
know what matters to them and what they feel that they need. Evaluate the .
skills, resources and support that they already have that can be used to
achieve the family's goals sooner. Work to keep the child in their school of
origin if that is important to them
• Treat foster parents as valid members of the family's team. Develop a good •
relationship and solicit their input on what they think would help the family •
102
and the child. Talk to the foster parent about the biological parent's strengths
and what they want to achieve so that the foster parent can develop empathy
for the child's mom and/or dad. Let the foster parent be part of the case plan
and let them help with stabilizing the child and reunifying the family
• Actively use the dispo case conferences to get a team approach to case
® planning and management
® • Develop case plans that include the family and their individual needs, skills,
motivators and their own supports. Write plans that are behaviorally specific
to the behaviors that the parent needs to build to make it safe for the child to
® be in their care without CFS intervention. Use language that is
understandable and achievable for the parents and children
• Write out a schedule and list of the things that the parent needs to do
(achieve) before they see you again. Make it very concrete. Have them get
signatures from the program appointments that they attend that they can
share with you next time that they see you. This will help them stay on track
and moving towards their goal between visits
Systemic Issues
® Reorganization of the social worker and supervisors workload so they can spend
more time engaging with families and for supervisors to provide support
® • Make recommendations to reduce duplication of paper work and
® redundancy of paper forms and find automated solutions
• Delineate the role of clerical staff. Analyze the work of clerical across the
county and identify any responsibilities that could be performed by clerical
to free up social worker time
® • Analyze the challenges of transferring cases and resolve any issues, ensuring
® that cases are transferred in a timely and accurate way that is supportive of
® social work practice
• Explore the possibility of distributing volatile cases to people who work well
with emergencies and have lower caseloads and assign lower needs
® caseloads to people with higher case loads
• Explore the possibility of an administrative assistant for each unit
® • Explore and develop a strategy to hold PPRs more often than monthly and to
provide advanced PP reviews to assist workers
® Develop a strategy to allow staff more time to attend training
• Explore ways to allow time for supervisors to provide weekly supervision
• Explore how to support supervisors in holding workers accountable ensuring
that the Human Resources Department assists supervisors
® Easy access to effective services so families can receive the services they need to
® reunify quicker
® 103
•
•
•
•
• Develop strategies and funding resources to expand the Parent Partner •
Program and continue the Early Intervention Outreach Specialist program •
• Explore how to create a "Life Skills Training' for parents.
• Explore how to increase support groups for men.
• Create and utilize a "one stop shop" for resources and identified services for
families •
• Explore interagency and community based organization collaboration
strategies that would facilitate development of needed services and resources •
to support families in successful family reunification such as: i
- Counseling
- Psychological assessments
- Transportation options •
- Domestic Violence programs •
- Housing assistance •
- Drug programs that allow older children
- Access line
- Transitional housing that both mothers and fathers can participate in •
together
- Support groups for children that have been molested •
• Develop and implement a policy that is consistent across the county with •
regards to what each social worker communicates to parents regarding their •
children. Implement the attachment of a resource list with each case plan.
Make it consistent across the county what needs to be communicated to •
parents regarding their children •
• Explore concerns about the frequency of the use of intern counselors and •
establish a policy regarding which cases are appropriate for interns •
Support Staff and improve communication flow within the agency to improve
worker morale and the implementation of new initiatives to better serve families
• Explore ways to allow Division Manager's more time to support supervisors
and less time in new initiative meetings •
• Create an operations calendar which is shared with line staff •
• Develop a communication strategy to clarify and advertise upcoming policy
and practice changes to allow staff time to digest information before having •
to implement
•
Assess how to improve the relationship between CFS and the Court `
• Explore how to decrease continuances in family reunification cases
• Explore ways to improve the Bench's perception of social workers, including
being experts and knowledgeable in social work •
• Develop a strategy to provide parents with clear explanations regarding •
court language and hearing proceedings •
• Implement policy that all parents are to be involved in the case plan process
•
•
104 •
•
• Explore ways to promote easier access to County Counsel
• Re-examine the role of the Court Officer to be more pro-active
® Language/Culture issues addressed to ensure engagement and appropriate
services identified
• Request the Cultural Competency Oversight Committee to assess how the
• Bureau can increase its understanding of the special needs of monolingual
® and bilingual parents
• Request the Cultural Competency Oversight Committee to develop a plan to
® assess bias in the system regarding fathers and their perceived lack of
® involvement with children and non-inclusion in services and case plans.
® Develop a committee to assess bias in caregivers who are punitive or biased
® against parents. Develop a plan to address these biases
• Request the Cultural Competency Oversight Committee to explore ways to
® decrease the stigma that foster children receive, especially by Doctor's and
® the Education community. Develop a plan to reduce these stigmas
® Develop visitation methods that support family assessment, engagement and a
® place for families to try out new positive parenting behaviors with support
• Explore ways for families to have weekly visits and more frequent phone
® contact with the child/youth,including foster parents to assist with visitation
® • Explore ways to support parents and children to be more comfortable during
® supervised visits, especially short visits
® • Develop a strategy to provide therapeutic supervised visitation, to model
® effective parenting
• Develop alternative visitation opportunity for parents who have challenging
® schedules
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 service delivery by
placement homes
• Explore and develop strategies to recruit foster homes in the child's
® community of origin
® • Explore and develop strategies to conduct more comprehensive search for
relatives
• Explore and develop strategies to ensure that foster homes, Foster Home
4 Agencies and Group Homes are providing appropriate placements for
0 children and youth. Develop expectations for the placements and written
® policy to staff regarding these expectations
• Explore how to open more group homes within the county
105
Training •
• After analyzing work flow and replacing duplicated forms with automation •
solutions, it is recommended that child welfare staff be provided with
"updated CWS/CMS" training to ensure that CWS/CMS is being fully
implemented and can replace forms
• Train clerical staff in any identified practices and expectations in their •
support role •
• Train staff, community partners and agencies on effectively working together •
to access individualized resources and support form families.
• Train staff about the benefits and function of the parent partners and Early
Intervention Outreach Specialists
• Train staff on clinical skills around when it is appropriate to reunify families
and how to assist the family in effectively utilizing all the services available •
to them
• Provide staff development assistance in developing training associated with
implemented observations.
• Provide social workers with training on the agency's expectations regarding •
placements and strategies to improve the placement for children and youth •
• Provide training on the importance of placement with relatives and how to •
find relatives
• Train workers to understand developmental needs and emotional issues of
children to maintain placement
• Train staff and foster parents on best practices around visitation, how to help •
the child and family utilize the visit and use is as a place to try out new •
behaviors with support. •
• Train staff on interviewing children and supporting them around grief issues
related to visitation and placement
• Train staff and foster parents regarding recognizing that the parents are the
family experts regarding the children's needs and the agency should gather •
that information from the parent •
• Train social workers on the advantages of doing the visits themselves, so they
know the issues, have accurate documentation and can recommend
reunification quicker
• Cross training with Attorney's, Bench Officers,Medical Providers and staff to
focus on social worker roles,expertise and perspective •
• Conduct a literature review regarding any research on the relationship •
between social worker burn out and ability to provide services
• Develop a training plan to provide social workers with information
regarding burn out and stress management. Include in this training `
information from parents regarding how they could recognize social worker •
burnout and how it affected them •
106
• State Technical Assistance
• State to re-examine the time frames for reunification especially for substance
addicted parents and providing only twelve months of FM services
• Re-do 2030 study or conduct a similar study to analyze new tasks versus old
• workload standards to determine new case load standards and then fund
. those new standards
• Ask the State to assist Contra Costa County with "book marking" necessary
fields to assist with CWS/CMS replacing any duplicate forms to be
incorporated in a future code drop
• • Ask the State to translate forms and documents in to Spanish. Provide
transcription services to translate court reports and case plans etc.
• Request state to assist county to access medical resources for undocumented
aliens
• Change terminology in CWS/CMS to be more strength based
• State to increase Community Care Licensing involvement in regulating the
. quality of group homes
Recommendations for Juvenile Probation
The recommendations made by the Probation Officers and Probation Officer
Supervisor are listed below. These recommendations will be reviewed and
• prioritized for integration in the County's System Improvement Plan.
• Involving the Parent's in the child/youth's treatment and program
improves successful reunification
•
® ❖ Explore and develop a strategy to establish more, quality, local group
homes.
• ❖ Explore a way to provide earlier placement intervention for chronic
offenders
❖ Improve fiscal resources to assist with transportation for parent's whose
children are placed out of county, pursue creative funding options.
• ❖ Develop a committee to strategize how to provide necessary services
• • Sex offender program
• Emancipation programs that will accept minor's who are still on
probation.
• Mental health services especially to assist when children are
placed out of county and it is hard to assess their mental health needs
• and access the appropriate resources.
• • Access to Psychotropic Medications.
107
• Training
❖ Training needs to be reinstated to cover needs of the Probation Officers •
❖ Need for administrative level to be trained on the current in and out's of •
what a Probation Officer's work currently looks like to assist in realistic
expectations and reorganization of the work load
• State Technical Assistance •
❖ State to provide financial assistance to parents to aide in visitation for
children in out-of-county placements.
❖ Fix difficulties with inter county ILP services
❖ Fix inter county medical eligibility difficulties
❖ Reinstate training funding to ensure Probation Officers are provided job •
specific training
❖ Provide funding for clerical support
❖ Ask State to translate forms and documents in to Spanish. Provide
transcription services to translate court reports and case plans etc.
❖ Reinstate education liaison, publish health nurse, probation aid, clerical •
support and eligibility technician for medical card. •
❖ Reinstate funding for after care services and intensive support unit.
• Reorganization of the Probation Officer and Supervisors workload so
they can spend more time engaging with Youth and families to provide
appropriate services. •
❖ Develop a workgroup to analyze work flow and identify duplication of
paperwork.
❖ Explore ways to streamline supervisors need to attend numerous
meetings.
❖ Explore how to enhance relationship between agencies, to share •
information and resources. •
❖ Establish a purposeful system of transferring/redistributing cases and
responsibilities for group homes.
❖ Explore how to emphasize matching the child with the most appropriate
placement, instead of the first available, necessitating further work when •
placement disrupts. •
❖ Develop and incorporate a system where research is done on programs
used to provide data on the effectiveness of programs to ensure services
being offered help the child.
❖ Explore how to provide necessary translation services in a time
convenient manner. •
108
Discussion . of 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
provision. 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.
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.
Summary of current outcomes
Safety Outcome Indicators
• Recurrence of maltreatment: For both state-enriched measures of recurrence of
maltreatment as well as the federal measure, Contra Costa performs better than
the statewide average. In addition, there has been some improvement noted in
Contra Costa's percentages of recurrence of maltreatment. The percent of
• children who have a recurrence of abuse/neglect where they were not removed
from home has dropped slightly since initial reporting, and is approximately
equal to the current State average. Overall, this suggests that Contra Costa is
doing fairly well in this area. This does not mean, however, that further
• improvement could not be made.
Recurrence of maltreatment is a perfect example of a "counterbalanced
• outcome"; when a change in one outcome may affect other outcomes. For
instance, higher rates of reunification could conceivably negatively affect the
recurrence of maltreatment. In Contra Costa, however, our timely reunifications
have not resulted in increased rates of re-entry(see State Outcome 3G).
• Maltreatment in foster care: The rate of maltreatment in foster care is at 0.43% as
. compared to a statewide average of 0.19% and a former federal benchmark of <
0.57%. The new CFSR measure examines the percentage of youth not abused,
and has a National Standard of 99.67% or higher. Based upon our most recent
data, we are not meeting the new National Standard and our percentages appear
to be rising somewhat.
109
Investigations with a timely response: The process 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). We have •
met our previous SIP goal in this area and have stayed well above 90%
compliance for over a year and a half.
Timely social worker visits: Timely social worker visits was also a previous SIP .
item and the County has met their SIP goal and maintained compliance at over •
90%for over a year.
Self Assessment Discussion
The SA Team discussed that the number of referrals evaluated out were higher
than the state average. •
• Compared to other contiguous Bay Area Counties our rate of evaluate out is .
similar.
• Screening Social Workers make collateral contacts prior to evaluating out
rather than referring to district offices for an investigating worker to question
collaterals. •
• There has been an increase in the number of referrals from law enforcement; .
these referrals are reported and recorded for historical tracking but are •
normally assessed out due to law enforcement intervention. The increase
may be due to work being done in several geographical areas of the county
around domestic violence.
• Would like further analysis of whether referrals are being over or under •
assessed out. •
Self Assessment Discussion
• Though it appears that the trend is in the wrong direction, there are questions •
regarding whether all abuse allegations in out of home care have been coded
correctly and are now coded correctly in CWS/CMS.
• There was considerable discussion about differences in frequency of out of
home abuse between kin and non-kin and whether there are differences in
reporting based on kin and non-kin placements. •
• Discussion that there is a perception that out of home abuse is higher than •
reported but there may be issues in confusing what constitutes abuse and
what constitutes licensing issues.
• One worker is assigned to investigate out of home abuse, questions were
asked about cross training and coverage for this one worker. •
110
• Practice regarding notifying attorneys when there are licensing violations
needs to be reviewed.
• Discussion regarding personal rights issues of children in foster care and how
reported complaints are handled.
• Need to clarify how abuse is investigated when it occurs in homes outside of
• the county?
• How do we train and support foster homes to decrease abuse in care?
• Would like to continue programs to improve communication and
understanding between foster parents' and biological parents.
•
Self Assessment Discussion
i
• Question about quality of "contacts" from youths' perspective? What counts
as a "contact" vs. seeing a child?
• • Suggested entry of contacts may need to be improved, a "spot check" may
help to see if social workers are putting in accurate data.
• Discussed level of staff required for monthly contacts, can "assistant" social
workers(Social Casework Assistants) make contacts?
• If a social worker "sees" a child at court — does that count as a contact?
• Discussion that the quality of "seeing" the child would determine whether
• this should be counted as a contact.
• There were questions regarding the Visitation Exception policy of CDSS.
What is communicated to youth about the policy, are the youth told that a
worker will not be visiting them for six months, are the wants and needs of
• the youth considered when visitation exceptions are reviewed?
• Recommendation to hold a focus group including youth.
• There appears to be some data issues on referral and case closure reasons.
Permanency and Stability Outcomes
•
Length of time to exit to reunification: The County's performance on
reunifications within 12 months (State measure) has improved from 38% to 47%.
In spite of this improvement, we did not meet our SIP goal of improving timely
• reunifications to 50%.
Our County rates of reunification within 12 months are higher than the State
average when looking at the State measure, and equivalent to the State average
when examining the Federal measure.
111
Length of time to exit to adoption: The County's performance on the percent of
children adopted within 24 months is better than the State average on both the •
State and Federal measure. In addition, improvement is noted on both of these •
measures when historical trend analysis is examined. •
Multiple placements: The County is doing relatively well on limiting the
number of foster placements for children in care. We have:met our previous SIP
goal and are above the Federal standard in this area. We are equal to the State
average on the State(entry cohort) version of this measure. •
Foster care reentry: The rate of foster care reentry is an area to continue to
monitor. Contra Costa's performance on the state-enriched indicator, 3G (percent
of children who reentered care within 12 months of reunification),has improved •
recently and the County is doing better (lower) than the State average. •
Interestingly, on the Federal measure we are doing worse than the State average •
and our rates are on an apparent upward trend. This is seemingly inconsistent
with the State measure and we are in the process of uncovering why this might
be so.
Since the new CFSR measures have been released, we decided to examine how
we are doing on the new version of the Permanency measure. We are doing •
worse (only slightly on one measure) than the National median for all of the
measures that make up Permanency Composite 3, Achieving Permanency for
Children in Foster Care. We are only slightly below the national median for the
percentage of youth who are freed for adoption and exit to a permanent home •
prior to their 18th birthday (Contra Costa County = 96.4%; National median = •
96.8%). We are significantly below the National median on the measure of what
percent of children in foster care for 24 months at the start of the federal fiscal
year were discharged to permanency in less than 12 months and prior to their
18th birthday (Contra Costa County = 24.6%; National median = 12.6%). We are
also doing worse than the National median on the new measure of what percent •
of youth who emancipated or reached the age of majority were in care for 3 years •
or more (Contra Costa County=74.3%;National median=50.6%).
Self Assessment Discussion
• There was considerable discussion regarding how many adopted children
come back in to the system due to "failed adoptions". Is there a way to track
these children? Anecdotally staff feels that this is a high number of children. •
The data team will be doing further assessment. •
• Continuing Services staff need training on the Adoption program and AAP.
• There is concern that there is a bias in the system that older youth, especially
African American children are "not adoptable".
112
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Self Assessment Discussion
• There was considerable discussion around the use of trial home visits: There
• has been a significant decrease in the number of recorded trial home visits -
• uncertain why this is?
• There was an increase in the number of reunifications in the Hispanic
• population, this may be due to an increase in the number of
bilingual/bicultural workers.
• • Questions about whether African American children stay in care longer
i because they are possibly unable to receive services that they need.
• • What is the county and court practice on early reviews? Why aren't kids
returned when they are ready rather than return date coinciding with
• scheduled court date?
• Date case closed and placement episode ended may not be an accurate
• reflection of what occurred if trial visits are not accurately recorded.
• • Relative long-term foster care is considered negative from a permanency
perspective,but some staff considers it as a permanent placement.
• Questions were raised about the effect of TDM's and DR on reunification and
re-entry to care. Further analysis and evaluation requested.
• • Difficult dialogues around discussing permanency with youth - should we
• be discussing all options with them or only the options available to them?
• • Need a search engine at the front end of the system to identify life long
connections as taught in the CPYP model.
• • Lots of discussion that the Kinship Centers could be a support in transferring
youth to permanency.
•
Well-Being Outcomes
•
• Siblings placed together: Placing siblings together whenever possible is a
• Bureau goal. The overall rate of placement with all or some siblings has stayed
relatively stable at slightly less than 60%. The placement of all siblings together is
just below 40%. We are below the State average for both of these measures. We
did not meet our previous SIP goal in this outcome area - our percentages of
• siblings placed together has remained relatively stable over the past several
• years. 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.
•
•
•
113
•
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.
Self Assessment Discussion
• Discussed reasons why siblings may not be placed together: Siblings enter
placement at different times, siblings placed with different relatives because
one relative is not able to take all siblings, siblings placed with related foster •
parents to facilitate sibling contact, lack of foster homes that will take sibling •
groups?
• Staff and licensing workers are not routinely seeking placement home
exceptions in licensed and relative homes to place sibling groups together.
• Relationship coding in CWS/CMS may need review and clean-up to assure •
accurate statistical reporting. •
• Explore ways to increase worker's awareness of other siblings previously •
placed prior to placement.
• Suggested that there may be a need for a process to evaluate and record why
siblings are initially placed apart, e.g. parentified behavior.
• Explore barriers of recruiting homes for sibling placements. •
• Explore financial incentives to hold beds for sibling placements. •
• Discussion around barriers to visitation of siblings when they are not placed •
together.
• Need to review policy, practice and systems issues around vacancy match to
locate homes for sibling groups.
• Make sure there are emergency placements that can accommodate siblings. •
• Caregivers need training and support for taking siblings. .
• Kinship Centers could support relatives taking sibling groups. Using the
Kinship Centers for SW visits could serve workers in linking the relatives to
services.
114
•
• Explore ways to link foster parents to other foster parents for support.
• • Staff requested the need to explore the advantages and disadvantages of
using Foster Family Agencies (FFA) to place siblings together.
• Has research been conducted to determine if it is better for a child to be in a
licensed foster home or FFA? FFA has more support and contact, but
licensed homes foster parents may be more willing to move to guardianship
• or adoption.
• • Bureau should explore and be encouraged to become an FFA provider; this
could allow expansion of the Specialized Placement Program.
• Recommendation to expand CPYP across the county and include siblings.
Look for life long connections for the entire sibling group.
• Self Assessment Discussion
• • There are questions about how AWOL status is recorded and whether it is
• recorded consistently. This may impact accurate data evaluation.
• Policy clarification needed to define when to report a child as AWOL and
how long a placement bed can be held anticipating the child/youth's return.
• What are the legal issues of leaving a placement open when a child is AWOL
as compared to the related practice issues?
• • Most female youth run from group homes. There was concern about females
. running away from group homes to engage in prostitution.
• Are there therapy or treatment programs available for youth involved in
prostitution?
• It was suggested that youth to youth, peer counseling could be a support for
• potential AWOL's.
• Are youth who are AWOL receiving ILP services less likely to become
• AWOL?
• Policy, support, and funding needed to attempt to normalize youth in foster
care, allowing them to have an allowance, space in the home, access to extra-
curricula activities, and transportation to ILP activities, support them in
• obtaining and continuing jobs, etc.
• • Need for prevention versus after the fact programs for youth to avoid
AWOL.
• Explore using more emancipation or youth TDMs to support placements.
• Explore community resources to support youth in placement, e.g. adopt a
group home.
• • Further analysis is needed as to whether there are trends regarding AWOLs
i at specific group homes and if so develop a process of quality control of
group homes.
115
•
•
•
•
• Further analysis is needed regarding whether the number and change in
geographical location have an impact on the number of AWOLs and
number of moves children have. .
• Need to move to permanency faster. •
• Need to support foster youth in jobs.
•
•
Self Assessment Discussion •
•
• Expectations of caregivers around emancipation need to be formalized.
• Caregivers to sign case plans section for foster parent's responsibilities. .
• Evaluate the referral process to ILP. •
• Evaluate data and systems issues related to ILP and service documentation. •
• Would like to see further exploration of housing (FUP) providing more
assistance for emancipating youth. •
•
•
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.
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.
•
•
116 •
•
• • 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.
Section Vh System Improvement Plan
• Contra Costa County is committed to a collaborative and inclusive approach in
determining the specific areas to include in the System Improvement Plan. After
discussion with the Self Assessment Team which includes the Bureaus
Supervisors, the Management Team and various Subject Matter Experts, the
• following outcomes have been chosen to be included in the three year System
• Improvement Plan which will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors and then
• CDSS by March 20th, 2007.
• Recurrence of Maltreatment 1A: Of all children with a substantiated
allegation within the first six months of the 12-month study period, which
• percent had another substantiated allegation within six months?
• Recurrence of Maltreatment 113: Of all children with a substantiated
referral during the 12-month study period, what percent had a
subsequent substantiated referral within 12 months?
• • Rate of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in Foster Care 1C: For all children
in child welfare supervised foster care during the twelve month review
period, what percent had a substantiated allegation by a foster parent
during that time?
Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response 2B: Percent of
. investigated 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.
• Timely Social Worker Visits With Child 2C: Of all children who
• required a monthly social worker visit,how many received a monthly
visit?
• Multiple Foster Care Placements 3B: 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?
117
• Multiple Foster Care Placements 30 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? •
• Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Reunification 3E: 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? •
• Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Reunification 3A: For all the
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? .
• Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care 4A: 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?
• Children Transitioning to Self-Sufficient Adulthood 8A:This measure •
reflects the number of foster children eligible for Independent Living
Services who receive appropriate educational and training, and/or
achieve employment or economic self-sufficiency.
• Federal Permanency Composite 3,Component A2: Of all children in
Foster Care for 24 months or longer at the start of the FY, what percent •
were discharged to permanency in less than 12 months and prior to their
18th birthday?
• Systemic Factor: Staffing levels: Explore ways to recruit and retain staff.
• Overarching Outcomes: Reduce the rate of disproportionality in the •
child welfare system.
118
•
•
•
•
• Appendix I Self-Assessment Team Members
•
•
• Probation Nancy Valencia
• Juvenile Probation Manager
•
Parent Jennifer Tuipulotu
• Youth Antinette Kelly,Former Foster Youth
•
• Mental Health Zelma Gandy-Don Sing,PHD
Lead Evaluator
•
• Education Larry Jaurequi/Sue Chambers
• Mt. Diablo School District
• Public Health Michelle Williams, PHN
•
• Labor Kate Acosta, Social Casework Specialist II
. Allan Cohen, Social Casework Specialist II
Cindy Vogl,Social Work Supervisor II
•
• Community Organization Antoinette Harris
• Families First
• Alternate Defender Denise Nolan
S Rob Gendreau, Alternate
• Barbara Hinton, Alternate
• Peggy Stone, Alternate
•
• Public Defender Adam Ely
• Staff for the Self-Assessment Team Ray Merritt, CFS Division Manager
• Gloria Halverson, CFS Division Manager
• Lisa Mohnar, California Consulting
• Valerie Earley, Director CFS
• Patrick Harrington, Lead Research&Evaluation
Carl Herron,Research&Evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
119
•
Self-Assessment Team Members and Guests
from the Children and Family Services Bureau •
Ken Adams, Social Work Supervisor II •
Dennis Bozanich, Staff Development Supervisor
Stacie Buchanan, Division Manager
Kim Edelson,Social Casework Specialist II
Patrick Harrington,Lead Evaluator
Carl Herron,Data Team •
Holliedayle Hertweck, Social Work Supervisor II
Kathy Hughes,ATM
Neely McElroy,Division Manager •
Debi Moss,Division Manager
Toni Nestore,Social Work Supervisor II •
Patricia Perkins, Social Work Supervisor II •
Steve Peavler,Division Manager i
Lois Rutten,Division Manager •
Talecia SaAadat, Social Casework Specialist II •
Rhonda Smith, Social Casework Specialist II
Nicole Thigpen, Social Work Supervisor II •
Stefanie Thomas, Social Work Supervisor II
Lisa Slater, Social Casework Specialist II
120
•
•
•
• Appendix II Redesign Steering Committee Members
•
• Kate Acosta Loca1535
• Lionel Chatman Contra Costa County Probation Department
• Brenda Blasingame First 5 Contra Costa
• Bianca Bloom Contra Costa County Office of Education
Kevin Bristow ILSP
• Barbara Bysiek Family Stress Center-CBO
• Carol Carrillo Child Abuse Prevention Council
• Sister Roberta Carson St.Bonaventure's Church
• Valerie Earley Children and Family Services Director
• Rev.Yaahn Hunter New Faith Cathedral Church of God
David Lee STAND Against Community Violence
Cheryl Maier Opportunities West
• Rev.Henry Perkins First Baptist Church
• Lois Rutten Children and Family Services Division Manager
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 Bank of America
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
121
•