I. BACKGROUND
At the November 17, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Provenza requested a report to the Board outlining the protocols and procedures related to reunification thresholds in the Child Welfare Services program in the Child, Youth & Family Branch of the Health & Human Services Agency (HHSA). On February 3, 2016, Chair Provenza, Patrick Blacklock and Phil Pogledich met with HHSA staff to follow up on the Board's interest in child welfare policies. During that meeting, Chair Provenza requested that HHSA provide copies of: child welfare law, policies and procedures; Yolo County statistics in comparison to benchmark counties and the State; and the child welfare core training curriculum delivered by UC Davis to all Yolo County child welfare staff. HHSA delivered a copy of these documents to the County Administrator at the end of February.
On March 2, 2016, Chair Provenza met with HHSA Director Joan Planell to discuss options for Board review of the information provided. Options under consideration were for the Board to appoint a subcommittee that would report back to the full committee and for staff to develop a series of workshops.
At the March 8, 2016 Board meeting, Supervisor Rexroad requested that a discussion of protocols and procedures related to reunification thresholds and other matters in the Child Welfare Services program (CWS) take place at the March 22, 2016 Board meeting. Supervisor Rexroad prefers a more immediate response than that being recommended by staff. Section III of this staff report briefly describes elements of Supervisor Rexroad’s alternative approach, including various actions that staff understand are included in his approach. Section III also provides an initial response to each proposed action for Board consideration.
II. RECOMMENDED ACTION
As mentioned, staff recommend that the Board form an ad hoc subcommittee to support development of Child Welfare Services (CWS) policy workshops. These policy workshops will examine the practices, procedures, data, best practices, external reviews and legal parameters of child welfare services in Yolo County. This examination will position the Board to provide informed, meaningful policy direction on children’s welfare matters in the near term.
The following is a timeline for the development and implementation of the policy workshops, with fuller explanations of the topics set forth in Section II.A, below:
| Workshop |
Topics Covered |
| 1 |
- Oversight and Governance. Discussion of the Federal/State legal framework and the current schedule for completing a comprehensive local policies, procedures and training manual.
- Core Training. In depth examination of the training program used by Yolo County and across the state.
- Structured Decision Making. Examination of the individual safety and risk assessment tools used by Social Worker Practitioners.
- Thresholds for removal and reunification. Core and SDM applied practice in Yolo County.
- Juvenile Dependency Courts. Unraveling the complexity of the relationship between Child Welfare Services taking the actions and the Juvenile Dependency Court system that directs the actions.
|
| 2 |
- Yolo County Data. Analysis of case data and trend analysis over time of Child Welfare Services in Yolo County
- Statewide comparison. A side-by-side look at other Counties who are our neighbors and those known to “do it well”
- National comparison. A benchmark of Yolo CWS data in relation to state and national averages, highs, and lows
|
| 3 |
- Strengths of the Yolo County Child Welfare Services. A historical look at program progress and continued adoption of best practices across the state and nation
- Challenges facing Yolo County Child Welfare Services Staffing, “report card” reports, assessment tools and outcomes
- Opportunities in Child Welfare Services. A look ahead with opportunity for the ad hoc subcommittee to communicate further vision with full program understanding
|
A. WORKSHOPS
As noted above, the following paragraphs explains the proposed substance of each workshop in more detail.
1. First Workshop
a. Oversight and Governance
The California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS) Children and Family Division monitors and supports Yolo County CWS through regulatory oversight, administration and the development of program policies and laws. These State standards must be consistent with Federal statutes and regulations. California law governing child welfare services is largely set forth in the California Welfare & Institutions Code and the California Family Code, while Chapter 31 of the CDSS Manual of Policies & Procedures for Child Welfare Services provides State regulations, statutes, court decisions and the operational standards by which CDSS evaluates child welfare services performance. The Federal government develops and implements national policy by issuing regulations, overseeing state performance and conducting compliance reviews. It also allocates Federal funds for child welfare and related programs to state, county, city and tribal governments and public and private local agencies. These regulations and codes will be explained in theory and application.
Attachment A to this staff report is a legal memorandum on relevant state and federal laws, including those relating to reunification. The memorandum was prepared by another county, but it has been reviewed for accuracy by juvenile dependency attorneys in the Office of the County Counsel.
b. Core Training
Social Worker Practitioners in the CWS program are sent through a comprehensive training program, the Core Training Program, which is developed in partnership between CDSS, the Statewide Training Education Committee and the University of California Extension program. The Core Training Program is offered at UC Davis Extension through the CDSS’ Northern California Training Academy (NCTA). “Core” is broken into two phases. Phase I consists of core curricula in five, three-day modules. All practitioners and supervisors must complete this 15-day training within 12 months of hire, though most complete it much sooner. Phase II courses delve into 14 additional content areas and are focused on specific roles, topics, or techniques. The Core Training Model will be explained in detail.
c. Structured Decision Making
The CWS program uses Structured Decision Making (SDM), which is a model that provides social workers with a research-based, standardized risk assessment tool to increase reliability and accountability during the intake and investigation process. SDM uses clearly defined standards and instruments for immediate, reliable, and long-term safety decisions. SDM is used widely in child and adult welfare and protective programs across the nation. The SDM model guides the investigation through clearly defined individual decision points and a common set of factors associated with each decision point. The model guides the assessment of safety and risk of abuse or neglect to a child, and guides determining what, if any, intervention is appropriate.
Attachment B to this report is a 2015 UC Davis report reviewing CWS’ implementation efforts of practices intended to promote child safety as a part of a larger continuous quality improvement review. U.C. Davis looked at appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and consistency of agency policies and practices through the lens of Safety Organized Practice, an approach which seeks to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect for families referred to CWS by improving critical thinking, case planning, and case management within CWS. Though only partly relevant to SDM, this report will be presented briefly during the first workshop.
d/e. Thresholds/Dependency Court
Once a child is removed temporarily from the care and control of their parent, the legally binding decisions about the placement or reunification of child in or out of their home are determined by a juvenile dependency court judge, not a CWS social worker. The juvenile dependency court judges rely heavily on the investigations, observations, and recommendations of the social worker who provide recommended detailed case plans, but judges have the ability to make whatever determination, in accordance or opposition to any recommendations of CWS, as they see fit. A detailed examination of the relationship between CWS, the juvenile dependency courts and counsel for parents and the children will also be explored in the first workshop.
2. Second Workshop
Data: Yolo County/State and National Comparison
All CWS data is stored in the Case Management System (CWS/CMS). This data is reported to CDSS monthly and many organizations access the data across counties to make comparative reports. Institutions such as U.C. Berkeley publish comparative analyses across counties. National institutions, such as the Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, also publish national and state-by-state statistics. This second workshop (and in all likelihood, a portion of the first workshop) will focus on the rich data comparisons within Yolo County, across time, across the State and the nation.
Specific data comparisons of potential interest to the Board are included as Attachment C to this staff report. The data in Attachment C include comparisons with over a dozen other counties regarding: rates of maltreatment of children in foster care; percentage of children with two or more substantiated allegations of abuse within twelve months; percentage of foster children discharged to permanency within various time frames; percentage of reunified children that re-enter foster care within twelve months; the rate of changes in placement for foster children, and information regarding adoptions within 24 months of entry into the foster care system.
3. Third Workshop
Strengths, Challenges and Opportunities
The third workshop will coalesce the information explored in the prior workshops into a detailed examination of strengths, challenges and opportunities facing CWS in Yolo County. This will be an opportunity to examine and apply best practices across the State and nation to begin crafting action plans to address opportunities in Yolo County.
III. ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Although staff recommends the action set forth above, Supervisor Rexroad prefers a more immediate response without a subcommittee and workshop evaluation process. His alternative action is provided here and described in part in the Yolo County Child Welfare Services Reunification Process document prepared by Supervisor Rexroad (Attached to this report as Attachment D, along with an Administrative Office of the Courts evaluation titled "Batterer Intervention Systems in California" attached as Attachment E, emails provided by Supervisor Rexroad attached as Attachment F as well as additional documents that will be supplementally attached as Attachment G).
Supervisor Rexroad has expressed concern about the appropriateness of Yolo County CWS’ case management and (in particular) reunification efforts. Staff understands that he intends to offer the following recommendations for improvements to County processes:
1. Effectiveness of Reunification Services
Determine the amount of money spent on reunification services such as anger management and parenting classes, evaluate efficacy of such treatment and, if appropriate, identify more effective treatment models.
Staff response: The courses offered are approved by the court but the efficacy of these services and their costs will be explored in the second workshop.
2. Structured Decision Making
Decrease reliance on the Structured Decision Making model to guide decisions. Instead, place greater weight on parent conduct over a longer period of time with increased social worker discretion disfavoring reunification services.
Staff response: Structured Decision Making (SDM) is an evidence and research-based tool that uses structured assessments to improve the consistency and validity of decisions and is used in 54 of 58 California counties. The principle behind SDM is that decisions can be improved by the following: clearly defined and consistently applied decision-making criteria; readily measurable practice standards, with expectations of staff clearly identified and reinforced; assessment results directly affecting case and agency decision making. Its use will be addressed in the first workshop.
3. Bypass Discretion
Exercise discretion to bypass reunification services in a greater number of cases and instead proceed directly to permanency planning (i.e., planning a permanent out-of-home placement for the child with a guardian, in foster care or by adoption).
Staff response: Bypass is appropriate under certain circumstances and CWS recommends it to the court when it is. The caution however, is that bypass is only legally available under the Welfare & Institutions Code in specifically enumerated situations and is disfavored by the law’s strong preference for family preservation and maintaining family relationships if at all possible. Legal thresholds for removal and reunification and the court’s role in this process will be addressed in the first workshop.
4. Greater CWS Support of Foster Families
Increase the number of available foster homes in Yolo County, thereby decreasing group home placements, with greater CWS support of existing foster families. Supervisor Rexroad is concerned about the perception of some foster families that CWS responds punitively by removing a foster child from a placement when that foster family resists reunification efforts by seeking de facto parent status.
Staff response: Staff supports recent State legislation, AB 403, effective January 2017, which mandates the reduction of group home placement for foster children and prioritizes their placement in family homes. Staff is cognizant of the crucial and valuable role of foster parents and has already implemented Resource Family Approval to build the capacity and number of local family foster homes. Yolo has received additional State funding to increase foster family home recruitment. Staff disagrees that CWS treats foster families punitively. However, this perception is very concerning and will be addressed and corrected to the degree possible, and will be included as part of the challenges and opportunities in the third workshop.
5. Policies and Procedures
Develop, implement and publish on CWS website policies and procedures which clearly state the process social workers must follow when any of the bypass criteria are present.
Staff response: The development of policies and procedures related to bypass and in general would be beneficial and posting them on the website would lend to consistency and transparency. The development of policies and procedures will be included as part of the challenges and opportunities in the third workshop.
6. Dedicated Child’s Counsel
Dedicate a member of the County’s Indigent Defense Panel to representation of children in child welfare legal proceedings. Representation currently rotates among three members of the panel, along with representation of the parents in these proceedings.
Staff response: Staff is currently evaluating the feasibility of having a dedicated child’s counsel and/or additional measures to ensure robust legal advocacy of children. This will be addressed in the third workshop.
7. New Administrator at Child Welfare Services
Appoint a dedicated administrator at CWS to ensure all possible discretion is being exercised to bypass reunification services whenever possible.
Staff response: Staff proposes to instead pursue the bypass policy mentioned in Item 5, above, to ensure bypass opportunities are fully considered and pursued where appropriate. Staff is confident that current CWS management is providing effective leadership and is appropriately addressing the issues raised. They should not be displaced. Outside, impartial evaluations of CWS performed in the last several years did not identify concerns with current leadership and largely validated CWS’ practices. However, staff recognizes the value of identifying and addressing both strengths and weaknesses of CWS as an opportunity to better serve the children of Yolo County. This is best accomplished through the recommended subcommittee and workshops in order not to destabilize CWS and the services it provides children. |