The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) assesses State performance during a specified time period on seven child welfare outcomes pertaining to safety, permanency, and well-being and on seven systemic factors. The California CFSR was conducted the week of September 23, 2002. The assessment is based on information from the following sources:
Information from the case review process and stakeholder interviews resulted in the finding that the State is effective in the following outcome-related areas:
Despite these many strengths, the data for Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2000 reported in the State Data Profile indicate that California did not meet the national standards for the following outcome measures:
In addition, a particular area of concern is achieving timely permanency for children and the reluctance of some agencies and courts to terminate parental rights (TPR).
Based on information from the case reviews and the State Data Profile, the State did not achieve substantial conformity with any of the seven safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. California did not achieve substantial conformity with safety outcome 1 (Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect) primarily because (1) the incidence of maltreatment of children in foster care for FFY 2000, as reported in the State data profile (1.06%), did not meet the national standard of .57 percent or less; and (2) the rate of recurrence of substantiated child maltreatment within 6 months for FFY 2000 (10.7%) did not meet the national standard of 6.1 percent or less.
Additionally, California did not achieve substantial conformity for safety outcome 2 (Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate) because case reviewers determined that the agency's risk assessment process did not always identify the underlying issues contributing to the risk of harm to children. Consequently, the services provided often were not sufficient to reduce risk of harm. In addition, stakeholders expressed concern about the ability of the child welfare agency to protect children effectively in their homes in the context of a State-imposed 12-month time limitation placed on in-home family services. It was noted that because of this time limitation, services often were terminated without regard to an assessment of change in the level of risk.
The State did not achieve substantial conformity with permanency outcome 1 (Children have permanency and stability in their living situations) because case reviews revealed that (1) many children lacked stability in their foster care placements and (2) many children experienced unnecessary delays in achieving the permanency goals of reunification and adoption. In addition, information from stakeholders and case reviews indicated that both the courts and the agency are reluctant to approve TPR petitions unless an adoptive home has been identified for the child and the prospective adoptive parents are ready to adopt. Concerns also were expressed regarding the agency practice of establishing non-relative guardianship rather than adoption as a permanency option because of the belief that families will lose access to some services (e.g., child care subsidies) or will not receive adequate financial assistance if they adopt.
Although California did not achieve substantial conformity with permanency outcome 2 (The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children), five of the six items assessed for the outcome (items 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16) were rated as a Strength. The primary concern identified pertained to agency efforts to ensure that children in foster care maintained connections to extended family, friends, schools, and their heritage.
Substantial conformity with child well-being outcome 1 (Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs) was not achieved based on CFSR findings that CDSS is not consistent in assessing and meeting the service needs of children and families (item 17) or in involving parents and children in the case-planning process (item 18). In addition, although the CFSR found that caseworkers were diligent in their efforts to visit children (item 19), particularly children in foster care, caseworker visits with parents (item 20) often were not sufficiently frequent or of sufficient quality to ensure children's safety and/or promote attainment of case goals.
Although California did not achieve substantial conformity with child well-being outcome 2 (Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs), the general CFSR finding was that in a large percentage of cases, the agency was consistent in assessing children's educational needs and providing appropriate services to meet those needs. However, in 19 percent of the applicable cases, although educational needs were assessed, case reviewers determined that services were not provided to meet identified needs.
California also did not achieve substantial conformity with child well-being outcome 3 (Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs). Although the CFSR found that CDSS was highly effective in meeting children's physical health needs, reviewers and stakeholders determined that the agency was not consistent in its efforts to address children's mental health needs, particularly for children in the in-home services cases. A key concern identified by stakeholders was that mental health services are not always of sufficient quality to adequately address children's mental health problems.
CFSR findings with respect to the State's performance on the systemic factors suggest that the State does not have in place many of the necessary systems to support the attainment of children's safety, permanency, and well-being. Although the State was found to be in substantial conformity with the factor of statewide information system and agency responsiveness to the community, the State was not in substantial conformity with the systemic factors related to the case review system; quality assurance system; training; service array; or foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention. With regard to the statewide information system, while the CFSR evaluates whether the automated system can identify the status, demographic characteristics, location, and goals of foster care children, it does not evaluate whether the State's system meets the Federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) functional requirements. It has yet to be determined that California meets the SACWIS functional requirements. Some specific concerns identified with regard to the systemic factors were the following:
The following is a summary of the CFSR ratings regarding specific outcomes and systemic factors.
KEY FINDINGS RELATED TO OUTCOMES
I. SAFETY
Outcome S1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
Status of Safety Outcome S1 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity for Safety Outcome 1. Although
almost 90 percent of the cases reviewed were rated as having substantially
achieved this item, the State did not meet the national standard for the
percentage of children experiencing more than one substantiated or indicated
child maltreatment report within a 6-month period, or the national standard for
the percentage of children maltreated while in foster care.
With respect to maltreatment in foster care, according to the Statewide Assessment, the State's Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) does not currently capture information about child maltreatment perpetrators who are relative caregivers or group home staff. Consequently, the State's rate of maltreatment in foster care (1.06%) reflects only the incidence of child maltreatment experienced by children placed in foster family agency certified homes or in licensed foster family homes.
Item 1. Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child
maltreatment
Item 1 was assigned an overall rating of Strength based on the finding that in
96 percent of the applicable cases, the agency initiated an investigation of a
maltreatment report in a timely manner. The rating for this item is consistent
with information provided in the Statewide Assessment. According to the
Statewide Assessment, county compliance review data for State Fiscal Year (SFY)
2001/2002 indicated that 90 percent of the 10 counties that completed the review
process as of June 2002 were in compliance with respect to timeliness in making
initial contacts following a report of child maltreatment.
Item 2. Repeat maltreatment
Item 2 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although in
91 percent of the 47 applicable cases, there was no repeat maltreatment, the
State's rate of repeat maltreatment for the year 2000 reported in the State data
profile (10.7%) did not meet the national standard of 6.1 percent. Because the
two maltreatment recurrence indicators are assessed using different measures, it
is necessary that the criteria and standards for both indicators be met for the
item to be rated as a Strength.
Outcome S2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Status of Safety Outcome S2 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity with Safety Outcome 2. This
determination was based on the finding that the outcome was substantially
achieved in 85.1 percent of the cases reviewed, which is less than the 90
percent required for a rating of substantial conformity.
Although California did not achieve substantial conformity on this outcome, a general CFSR finding was that the agency made diligent efforts to provide services to children in their own homes and to ensure that the risk of harm to children was adequately addressed in a large percentage of the cases. The case review findings and stakeholder interviews indicated that, for the most part, CDSS uses an array of services, particularly in-home services, to prevent placement and reduce risk of harm. However, stakeholders and case reviewers also noted that the risk assessment process does not always identify underlying issues that contribute to the risk of harm to the children. Consequently, the services provided do not always address all of the relevant child safety areas. In addition, stakeholders expressed concern about the time limitations the State places on in-home family services, suggesting that services should be terminated based on whether a risk of harm continues to be present, rather than on whether the State's 12-month time limitation has been reached.
Item 3. Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent
removal
This item was assigned an overall rating of Strength because in 89 percent of
the cases, reviewers determined that the agency made diligent efforts to
maintain children safely in their own homes to prevent removal or facilitate
family reintegration after reunification. The Statewide Assessment notes,
however, that in California the proportion of children entering foster care
following a substantiated report is greater than the national average. According
to the Statewide Assessment, this suggests that greater efforts are needed to
support children in their own homes.
Item 4. Risk of harm to child.
Item 4 was assigned an overall rating of Strength because in 87.2 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that CDSS made diligent efforts to reduce
the risk of harm to children. The key concerns identified in the case reviews
pertained to risk assessments that failed to address underlying risk-related
issues, such as domestic violence or mental illness, and lack of follow-up to
ensure services were received.
II. PERMANENCY
Outcome P1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
Status of Permanency Outcome 1 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 1.
This determination was based on the following findings:
In general, the CFSR found that CDSS was not consistent in its efforts to ensure that children have permanency and stability in their living situations. All of the indicators assessed for this outcome were assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. A key concern identified was that there were delays in achieving permanency for children through reunification and adoption. The review findings indicated that in many cases the goal of reunification is maintained for too long a period of time and the courts are reluctant to approve TPR petitions unless the agency has an adoptive home for the child. Concerns also were expressed regarding the practice of using non-relative guardianship rather than adoption as a permanency option because families will lose access to services (e.g., child care subsidies) and/or will not receive sufficient financial assistance if they adopt.
Item 5. Foster care re-entries
Item 5 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Despite the
finding that no re-entries into foster care occurred for the cases reviewed,
data from the State Data Profile indicate that California's re-entry rate for
fiscal year 2000 (10.7%) does not meet the national standard of 8.6 percent or
less. States must meet both the case review and the data indicators to be rated
a Strength for this item.
Item 6. Stability of foster care placement
Item 6 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although 76
percent of the applicable cases were rated as a Strength for this item, in 24
percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that children experienced
multiple placement changes that did not further attainment of their goals or
their treatment needs. In addition, data from the State Data Profile indicate
that the percentage of children experiencing no more than 2 placements in their
first 12 months in foster care (77.8%) does not meet the national standard of
86.7 percent or more. The Statewide Assessment and stakeholders interviewed
onsite attributed multiple placements primarily to children in California often
being placed initially in an emergency shelter home or facility to allow the
agency to make an in-depth assessment of the children's placement needs and to
identify the most suitable placements. During the review of cases onsite,
however, this was not the primary reason found for unnecessary moves; the
changes in the cases reviewed resulted from the agency's lack of attention at
the time of placement to the foster parents' ability to meet the child's needs.
Item 7. Permanency goal for child
Item 7 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although this
item was rated as a Strength in 76 percent of the applicable cases, in 24
percent of these cases, reviewers determined that the agency had not established
an appropriate goal for the child in a timely manner. A key finding was that the
goal of reunification was being maintained for long periods of time, even when
there was a lack of evidence that reunification was likely to occur.
Item 8. Reunification, Guardianship or Permanent Placement with Relatives
This item was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although
81 percent of the applicable cases were rated as a Strength for his item, in 19
percent of applicable cases, reviewers determined that the agency had not made
diligent efforts to attain the goals of reunification, permanent placement with
relatives, or guardianship in a timely manner. In addition, data from the State
Data Profile indicate that the percentage of reunifications occurring within 12
months of entry into foster care (53.2%) does not meet the national standard of
76.2 percent or more.
Item 9. Adoption
This item was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although
60 percent of the applicable cases were rated as a Strength for this item, in 40
percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that CDSS had not made
diligent efforts to achieve adoptions in a timely manner. In addition, data from
the State Data Profile indicate that the percentage of finalized adoptions in FY
2000 that occurred within 24 months of the child's removal from home (18.0%)
does not meet the national standard of 32.0 percent or more. According to the
Statewide Assessment, although there have been significant accomplishments
regarding adoptions of children in foster care, adoption is not being achieved
in a timely manner. However, the Statewide Assessment also notes that
significant program efforts (e.g., concurrent planning, permanency planning
mediation, kin adoption, etc.) have been implemented in recent years to improve
the State's capacity to achieve timely adoptions.
Item 10. Permanency goal of other planned permanent living arrangement
This item was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although
50 percent of the 4 applicable cases were rated as a Strength for this item, in
50 percent of the cases, reviewers determined that the agency had not made
concerted efforts to ensure permanency for children with regard to alternative
living options. The key concern was that the goal of long-term foster care was
established for children without adequate exploration of other possible goals,
such as adoption or guardianship.
Outcome P2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Status of Permanency Outcome 2 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity with Permanency Outcome 2.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated as
substantially achieved in 88.0 percent of the cases, which is less than the 90
percent required for substantial conformity. Although California did not achieve
substantial conformity with this outcome, five out of six of the individual
indicators assessed for the outcome were rated as a Strength and most of the
stakeholders interviewed expressed positive opinions of the State's efforts with
regard to achieving this outcome. However, taken together, the percentage of
cases that were rated as having substantially achieved this outcome did not meet
the required 90 percent. Key concerns identified pertained primarily to the
agency's performance with regard to preserving connections for children in
foster care.
Item 11. Proximity of foster care placement
Item 11 was assigned an overall rating of Strength because in 96 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that CDSS made diligent efforts to ensure
that children's foster care placements were in close proximity to their parents
or relatives.
Item 12. Placement with siblings
This item was assigned an overall rating of Strength based on the finding that
in 94 percent of the applicable cases, siblings were placed together, or their
separation was deemed necessary to meet the needs of one or more of the
children. According to the Statewide Assessment, placing siblings together is an
agency priority unless there is documented evidence that doing so is detrimental
to one of the children.
Item 13. Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
Item 13 was assigned an overall rating of Strength because in 90 percent of the
applicable cases, reviewers determined that CDSS had made concerted efforts to
facilitate visitation, particularly among siblings in foster care. According to
the Statewide Assessment, a CDSS mail survey of California's county child
welfare agencies and juvenile probation departments revealed that most
respondents arrange for visitation between children and their parents, siblings,
and grandparents.
Item 14. Preserving connections
Item 14 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although the
item was rated as a Strength in 84 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers
determined that in 16 percent of the applicable cases, the agency had not made
diligent efforts to preserve children's connections to community, heritage,
faith, and friends.
Item 15. Relative placement
This item was assigned an overall rating of Strength because in 88 percent of
the applicable cases, reviewers determined that the agency had made diligent
efforts to locate and assess relatives as potential placement resources. The
Statewide Assessment also notes that California places children with relatives
at a higher rate than any other placement option.
Item 16. Relationship of child in care with parents
Item 16 was assigned an overall rating of Strength because reviewers determined
that in 90 percent of applicable cases, the agency provided adequate services to
support the parent-child relationships of children in foster care.
III. WELL-BEING
Outcome WB1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
Status of Well-Being Outcome 1 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 1.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated as
substantially achieved for 59.2 percent of the cases reviewed, which is less
than the 90 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity.
An overall CFSR finding was that CDSS is not consistent in meeting the service needs of children and families. In addition, although State policy requires parent participation in the case-planning process, there were a substantial percentage of cases in which parents and children (when appropriate) were not involved in case planning. Finally, although caseworkers were found to visit children with sufficient frequency, particularly children in foster care, caseworker visits with parents often were not sufficiently frequent or of sufficient quality to ensure children's safety and promote attainment of case goals.
Item 17. Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents
Item 17 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although the
item was rated as a Strength in 65 percent of the cases, reviewers determined
that in 35 percent of the cases CDSS had not been effective in addressing the
service needs of children and parents. Although there were no cases in which
reviewers found that CDSS had not addressed the needs of foster parents, several
stakeholders commented that the agency's efforts to address foster parents'
needs could be strengthened, particularly the need for respite services and
in-home assistance to address a child's behavioral/mental and physical health
issues.
Item 18. Child and family involvement in case planning
Item 18 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although the
item was rated as a Strength in 53 percent of the cases, reviewers determined
that in 47 percent of the cases, CDSS had not made diligent efforts to involve
parents and/or children in the case planning process. This finding is not
consistent with information reported in the Statewide Assessment that it is CDSS
policy that parents be involved in the case planning. The Statewide Assessment
also notes that CDSS promotes the philosophy that a strength-based approach to
families is the most effective method of engaging parents in case planning.
Item 19. Worker visits with child
Item 19 was assigned an overall rating of Strength based on the finding that in
90 percent of the cases, reviewers determined that caseworker visits with
children were of sufficient frequency and/or quality to monitor children's
safety and well-being. This is consistent with information provided in the
Statewide Assessment noting that the percentage of counties passing the
compliance reviews on making monthly contacts with the child improved from 69
percent in State Fiscal Year (SFY) 1998/1999 to 90 percent in SFY 2001/2002.
Item 20. Worker visits with parents
This item was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although
the item was rated as a Strength in 82 percent of the applicable cases,
reviewers determined that in 18 percent of applicable cases, the frequency
and/or quality of caseworker visits with parents were not sufficient to promote
the safety and well-being of the child or promote attainment of case goals.
Outcome WB2: Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
Status of Well-Being Outcome WB2 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 2
based on the finding that 81.1 percent of the cases reviewed were found to have
substantially achieved this outcome. This is less than the 90 percent required
for substantial conformity.
Item 21. Educational needs of the child.
Item 21 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although the
item was rated as a Strength in 81 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers
determined that in 19 percent of the applicable cases, CDSS had not made
diligent efforts to meet the educational needs of children. The key concern
identified was that in some cases children were not receiving services to
address the needs identified through educational assessments.
Outcome WB3: Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Status of Well-Being Outcome 3 - Not in Substantial Conformity
California did not achieve substantial conformity with Well-Being Outcome 3.
This determination was based on the finding that the outcome was rated as
substantially achieved in 77.8 percent of the applicable cases, which is less
than the 90 percent required for a determination of substantial conformity. The
CFSR found that CDSS was highly effective in meeting children's physical health
needs, but was less consistent in its efforts to address children's mental
health needs, particularly for children in the in-home services cases. A key
concern identified by stakeholders was that mental health services are not
always of sufficient quality to meet children's mental health service needs.
Item 22. Physical health of the child
Item 22 was assigned an overall rating of Strength based on the finding that in
95 percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that CDSS was
adequately addressing the health needs of children in foster care and in-home
services cases. Overall, medical and dental services were accessible, services
were provided, and documentation was thorough.
Item 23. Mental health of the child
Item 23 was assigned an overall rating of Area Needing Improvement. Although
this item was rated as a Strength in 74 percent of the applicable cases, in 26
percent of the applicable cases, reviewers determined that CDSS had not made
concerted efforts to address the mental health needs of children. Most of these
cases involved children receiving services while remaining in their homes.
KEY FINDINGS RELATING TO SYSTEMIC FACTORS
IV. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM
Status of Statewide Information System- In Substantial Conformity
California is in substantial conformity with the factor of Statewide Information
System.
Item 24. State is operating a Statewide information system that, at a
minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic characteristics, location,
and goals for the placement of every child who is (or within the immediately
preceding 12 months, has been) in foster care.
This item is rated as a Strength because information on the status, demographic
characteristics, location, and goals for each child in foster care is
retrievable from the State's automated child welfare system. The CFSR does not
evaluate whether the State's system meets the Federal Statewide Automated Child
Welfare Information System (SACWIS) functional requirements, and this report
does not address those requirements.
V. CASE REVIEW SYSTEM
Status of Case Review System - Not in Substantial Conformity
California is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Case
Review System. Findings with regard to the specific items assessed for this
factor are presented below.
Item 25. Provides a process that ensures that each child has a written
case plan to be developed jointly with the child's parent(s) that includes the
required provisions.
Item 25 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although State statutes
require caseworkers to develop case plans and to involve parents in the
development process, there is no statewide protocol in place to ensure parent
and child participation in developing the case plan. In 47 percent of the
applicable cases reviewed during the CFSR, parents (and children, when
appropriate) were not involved in developing the case plan. According to many
stakeholders and case reviewers, the most common approach to the case planning
process is one in which the caseworker prepares the plan and then presents it to
the family.
Item 26. Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each
child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a court or by
administrative review.
This item was rated as a Strength because the State has statutory and regulatory
requirements for conducting 6-month periodic reviews and these reviews usually
are completed in a timely manner. Stakeholders in one county noted that reviews
are held more frequently than every 6 months for children who are younger than 3
years old.
Item 27. Provides a process that ensures that each child in foster care
under the supervision of the State has a permanency hearing in a qualified court
or administrative body no later than 12 months from the date the child entered
foster care and no less frequently than every 12 months thereafter.
This item was assigned a rating of Strength because the State has statutory or
regulatory requirements that permanency hearings be held every 12 months and
these hearings usually are held in accordance with this requirement.
Stakeholders noted that the permanency review process is accelerated for
children who are younger than 3 years old.
Item 28. Provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings
in accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
This item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although the State has
statutory and regulatory requirements for terminating parental rights (TPR) for
children in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, when TPR is not
sought, the agency is not consistent in documenting reasons for not filing for
TPR. In addition, often the agency will not seek TPR, and/or the court will not
grant TPR, unless an adoptive home for the child has been identified and the
pre-adoptive home demonstrates a readiness to adopt. These practices are not in
accordance with the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA).
Item 29. Provides a process for foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and
relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of, and have an
opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the
child.
This item was assigned a rating of Strength because the State provides a process
for notifying foster, pre-adoptive, and relative caregivers of reviews and
hearings and affords them opportunities to be heard in any review or hearing.
Stakeholders interviewed during the on-site phase of the CFSR were in general
agreement that foster parents and pre-adoptive parents receive notification of
court hearings and administrative reviews. Some stakeholders expressed the
opinion that foster parents actively participate in hearings and that judges are
responsive to what foster parents have to say.
VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM
Status of Quality Assurance System - Not in Substantial Conformity
California is not in substantial conformity with the factor of Quality Assurance
System. Findings with regard to the specific items assessed for this factor are
presented below.
Item 30. The State has developed and implemented standards to ensure that
children in foster care are provided quality services that protect the safety
and health of the children.
This item was rated as a Strength because the State has established standards to
protect the safety and health of children and mechanisms to ensure adherence to
the standards. Mechanisms to ensure that standards are implemented appropriately
include the Foster Care Ombudsman Program, grievance procedures, complaint
investigations, State fair hearings, licensing compliance system, and child
welfare services compliance reviews. The State also certifies and monitors
out-of-State facilities where California children are placed.
Item 31. The State is operating an identifiable quality assurance system
that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services included in the CFSP
are provided, evaluates the quality of services, identifies strengths and needs
of the service delivery system, provides relevant reports, and evaluates program
improvement measures implemented.
This item was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although the State has a
quality assurance (QA) system, the primary QA activity - the Division 31
compliance review system - assesses compliance with only six factors and does
not assess the effectiveness and quality of services delivered. Stakeholders
noted that the State is developing a new QA system (to be implemented in January
2004) that will be similar to the Federal CFSR process and will include
outcome-focused reviews of randomly selected cases. Stakeholders also indicated
that many counties have developed their own QA procedures and Los Angeles County
stakeholders indicated that they have already begun implementing reviews that
are similar to the Federal CFSR.
VII. TRAINING
Status of Training - Not in Substantial Conformity
California is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of
Training. Findings with regard to the specific items assessed for this factor
are presented below.
Item 32. The State is operating a staff development and training program
that supports the goals and objectives in the CFSP, addresses services provided
under titles IV-B and IV-E, and provides initial training for all staff who
deliver these services.
Item 32 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although the State makes
available an array of training opportunities and some counties have implemented
formal new-worker training, there is no statewide requirement for initial
training for all staff that supports the goals and objectives of the Child and
Family Services Plan.
Item 33. The State provides for ongoing training for staff that addresses
the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties with regard to
the services included in the CFSP.
Item 33 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although a variety of
continuing education and training opportunities are made available to staff,
there are no statewide requirements for on-going training of staff that support
the goals and objectives of the Child and Family Services Plan.
Item 34. The State provides training for current or prospective foster
parents, adoptive parents, and staff of State licensed or approved facilities
that care for children receiving foster care or adoption assistance under title
IV-E that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their
duties with regard to foster and adopted children.
Item 34 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although the State makes
training for foster and adoptive caregivers and groupcare staff available, there
is no uniform statewide training required for all caregivers. In addition,
because training requirements for caregivers vary across the State, when foster
parents trained in one county move to another county, the training they have
received does not always meet the requirements of the new county.
VIII. SERVICE ARRAY
Status of Service Array- Not in Substantial Conformity
California is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of service
array. Findings with regard to the specific items assessed for this factor are
presented below.
Item 35. The State has in place an array of services that assess the
strengths and needs of children and families and determine other service needs,
address the needs of families in addition to individual children in order to
create a safe home environment, enable children to remain safely with their
parents when reasonable, and help children in foster and adoptive placements
achieve permanency.
Item 35 was rated as a Strength because the State has a broad array of services
available that assess the strengths and needs of families to create a safe home
environment so that children can remain at home, and/or achieve permanency if
placed in foster care. Stakeholders expressed positive views of the Kin
Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) program, the Kinship Support Service
Program (KSSP), and pilot Family Group Decision Making and Wraparound Services
programs.
Item 36. The services in item 35 are accessible to families and children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State's CFSP. Item 36 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although the State has a wide array of services, many of the services described under item 35 are not accessible to families in all political jurisdictions and, where services are available, there often are long waiting lists. In addition, stakeholders noted that there is a lack of necessary core services in all counties and, although there are exemplary pilot programs operating in various locations in the State, there is no effort underway to implement these programs statewide.
Item 37. The services in item 35 can be individualized to meet the unique
needs of children and families served by the agency.
Item 37 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although counties have the
flexibility to develop and deliver services to meet unique community needs,
stakeholders conveyed concern about a lack of individualized services for youth
and Native American children. In addition, many of the cases reviewed had case
plans that were generic and lacked an individualized approach to serving
children and families.
IX. AGENCY RESPONSIVENESS TO THE COMMUNITY
Status of Agency Responsiveness To The Community - In Substantial
Conformity
California is in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Agency
Responsiveness to the Community. Findings with regard to the specific items
assessed for this factor are presented below.
Item 38. In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, the State engages in
ongoing consultation with tribal representatives, consumers, service providers,
foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public and private child-
and family-serving agencies and includes the major concerns of these
representatives in the goals and objectives of the CFSP.
Item 38 was rated as a Strength because information provided in the Statewide
Assessment and obtained through the onsite CFSR stakeholder interviews indicates
that State and county child welfare agencies are highly responsive to input from
the community in developing the goals and objectives of the CFSP and have
developed councils, task forces, and other organizations to ensure that there
are sufficient avenues for community input.
Item 39. The agency develops, in consultation with these representatives,
annual reports of progress and services delivered.
Item 39 was rated as a Strength because county child welfare agencies and CDSS
have established many collaboratives and those partners have begun to
participate in the development of the State's Annual Progress and Services
Report.
Item 40. The State's services under the CFSP are coordinated with services
or benefits of other Federal or federally assisted programs serving the same
population.
Item 40 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although there are exemplary
efforts at the county level with regard to coordinating services and benefits of
other Federal or federally assisted programs serving the same population, there
is a lack of State-level coordination of services and benefits, including
coordination with Tribes and Tribal organizations.
X. FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENT LICENSING, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION
Status of Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention
California is not in substantial conformity with the systemic factor of Foster
and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. Findings with regard
to the specific items assessed for this factor are presented below.
Item 41. The State has implemented standards for foster family homes and
childcare institutions, which are reasonably in accord with recommended national
standards.
Item 41 was rated as a Strength because the State has established standards for
licensing and approving homes that are reasonably in accord with recommended
national standards.
Item 42. The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster
family homes or child care institutions receiving title IV-E or IV-B funds.
Item 42 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement. Although CDSS has one common
set of licensing/approval standards, there is evidence that, across counties,
staff interpretation of the standards is not consistent. As a result, the same
standards are not being applied to all foster family homes. In addition, all
relative foster family homes have not been assessed and approved against the new
standards.
Item 43. The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal
background clearances as related to licensing or approving foster care and
adoptive placements and has in place a case planning process that includes
provisions for addressing the safety of foster care and adoptive placements for
children.
Item 43 was rated as a Strength because stakeholders reported that criminal
background checks for foster and adoptive placements are completed prior to
placing a child with the family. California law also requires a check of the
Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) maintained by the California Department of
Justice and in many counties reviews of Department of Motor Vehicle records are
conducted.
Item 44. The State has in place a process for ensuring the diligent
recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic
and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive homes
are needed.
Item 44 was rated as an Area Needing Improvement because the State does not have
a statewide process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster
and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the
children in care. Stakeholders noted that there is a need to recruit more Native
American and African American homes.
Item 45. The State has in place a process for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements for waiting children. This item was rated as a Strength because there are processes in place for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or permanent placements. California formed the Cross Jurisdictional Task Force to develop strategies to maintain compliance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act related to cross-jurisdictional adoptive placements. Stakeholders commenting on this issue noted that recruitment efforts often cross county lines and both internal and national adoption exchanges are used to find potential adoptive families.
This document presents the findings of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) for the State of California. The CFSR was conducted the week of September 23, 2002. The findings were derived from the following documents and data collection procedures:
The key characteristics of the 49 cases reviewed are the following:
The first section of the report presents the CFSR findings relevant to the State's performance in achieving specific outcomes for children in the areas of safety, permanency, and well-being. For each outcome, there is a table presenting key findings, a discussion of the State's status with regard to the outcome, and a presentation and discussion of each item (indicator) assessed. Because Los Angeles County serves a very large population of children and families, findings pertaining to Los Angeles County may be presented and discussed in addition to the discussion of the overall State findings when relevant. The second section of the report provides an assessment and discussion of the systemic factors relevant to the child welfare agency's ability to achieve positive outcomes for children.