little hoover comm. still in our hands-a review of efforts to reform foster care in california

7/31/2019 Little Hoover Comm. Still In Our Hands-A Review of Efforts to Reform Foster Care in California

1/36

State of California

L I T T L E H O O V E R C O M M I S S I O N

F e b r u a r y 4 , 2 0 0 3

The Honorab le Gray Davis

Governor of Californ ia

Th e Hon ora b le J oh n L. Bu r ton Th e Hon or a b le J a m es L. Bru lt e

Pres id en t p r o Tem p ore of t h e Sen a te S en a te Min or it y Lea d er

a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e S e n a t e

Th e Hon ora b le Herb J . Wes s on , J r. Th e Hon ora ble Da ve CoxS p ea k er of t h e As s em b ly As s em b ly Min or it y Lea d er

a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e As s e m b ly

Dear Governor a nd Memb ers o f th e Legis la tu re :

In 1999 the Li t t le Hoover Comm iss ion de ta i led th e per i ls tha t face ch i ld ren in Cal ifo rn ia wh oare neg lec ted or abu sed . In it s repor t , Now in Ou r Han d s : Ca rin g fo r Ca liforn ia s Abu s ed &

Ne glected Ch ild ren, the Commiss ion ou t l ined a comprehens ive s t ra tegy for ensur ing tha t ourmos t vu lnera b le res iden ts rece ive adequa te p ro tec t ion , nu r tu r ing an d care .

Th r e e ye a r s h a ve p a s s e d s i n c e t h e r ele a s e o f t h a t r e p or t . In t h a t t i m e t h e r e h a s b e e n

cons iderab le ac t ion , bu t a lmos t no rea l p rogress . The grea tes t obs ta c le to mea ningfu l re form i san u nwi ll ingnes s on the p ar t o f bo th s ta te an d loca l leaders to take res pons ib ili ty fo r re forming

the fos te r ca re sys tem . The Secre ta ry of th e Hea l th an d Hum an Serv ices Agency to ld th e

Comm iss ion th a t th e respons ib il ity to lead re form s does n o t res t with t he S ta te an d i t is n o t h i sjob . He p la ced t h a t res p on s ib ilit y on th e cou n t ie s . Bu t cou n t y officia ls a s s er t t h a t wit h ou t

d i rec t ion an d new resou rces from th e S ta te , they can not o r wil l no t re form th e sys tem.

With no one in ch arge , the fos te r ca re sys tem fu mb les forward , an d often ba ckward , an d cos t s

ch i ld ren an d fami lies th e ir h app iness , th e ir p rosp er ity and even th e ir l ives .

I t i s impera t ive tha t the Governor and Legis la ture c la r i fy who i s respons ib le fo r the ch i ld ren

an d fam ilies in th e foster car e system . With out th at c lar i ty , m ill ions of dol lars an d mil lion s of hou rs wil l con t inu e to be was ted . In th e las t th ree years a lone :

The Legis la ture and Governor have cons idered over 100 b i l l s in tended to addressdeficiencies in the chi ld welfar e system . Bu t legis lat ive act ion ha s not dram at ical ly

improved the fos te r ca re sys tem .

The Depar tment o f Soc ia l Serv ices has launched a $3 mi l l ion p lanning process , bu t thep r o p o s e d r e f o r m s d o n o t a d d r e s s f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e r n s a b o u t s t a t e a n d l o c a l

responsibi l i t ies .

Sta te agenc ies spen t over $8 mi l l ion on research re la ted to ch i ld and fami ly wel fa re , toa s s e s s u n m e t n e e d s a n d t o e xp l or e o p t io n s f or r e fo r m . B u t s o m e o f t h a t r e s e a r c h h a s b e e ndis regarded , and many of the f ind ings have no t been publ ic ly re leased or p resen ted to the

Legislature.

Sta te an d coun ty offic ia l s ha ve spen t hu nd reds of thou san ds of do lla r s on consu ltan ts , s ta ff t ime and t rave l to meet , exp lore op t ions , deba te re forms , champion leg is la t ion , defea t

leg is la t ion an d lam ent th e lack of p rogress . But th ese ac t ions h ave no t y ie lded thed i rect ion or l eaders h ip th a t wou ld g ive anyone conf idence th a t rea l re form is u nd erway.

All of th is is on t op of th e bi ll ions th at ta xpa yers h ave spen t to serve chi ldren in foster car e overth e last th ree years . Th e 200 2-03 bu dget for foster care services is $2.2 bi ll ion. Yet despi te

th i s enorm ous p r ice tag , we cont inu e to fa i l thes e ch i ld ren . In m an y cases t he sys tem fa i ls to


2/36

meet fo rma l s ta nd ard s of ca re . In s ome ex t reme bu t in t o le rab le cases , the leve l o f ca re i s no

be t te r tha n th e abu s ive homes from which those ch i ld ren were rescued .

D u r i n g t h e l a s t t h r e e ye a r s :

An addi t iona l 100 ,000 ch i ld ren have exper ienced abuse or neg lec t tha t i s so severe as towar ran t the i r removal from th e ir hom es .

An es t imated 25 percen t o f the ch i ld ren in fos te r ca re h ave no t r ece ived t imely medica l ca re

an d 50 percen t ha ve no t rece ived app ropr ia te menta l hea l th se rv ices .

While the fa i lu re o f the educa t iona l sys tem to meet the needs of these ch i ld ren i s wel ldocum ented , o f ficia ls h ave no t even agreed on wh o is in ch arge of th i s is su e ,

Unemp loyment ra tes fo r eman cipa ted youth a re s t i ll e s t imated a t 50 percen t .

Most ap pa l l ing , an es t imated 2 ,80 0 ch i ld ren h ave ema ncipa ted f rom the fos te r ca re sys temonly to become h omeless .

Los Angeles Cou nt y a lone ha s s pen t over $1 2 m i ll ion t o add ress lawsui t s involving ch i ld renwho were n eg lec ted , h arm ed or k i ll ed wh i le in fos te r ca re .

To be sure , there a re cons t ruc t ive forums in which profess iona ls a re smar t ly th ink ing about

how services could be re-engineered to intervene ear l ier and more effect ively in s trugglingfam i lies where ch ild ren a r e o ften h arm ed. And some of th e mos t a ggress ive wou ld-be re formers

cau t ion tha t m an y wel l- in ten ded pr ofess iona ls a re b ea ten down by th e sh am e an d b lam e o f

some advocacy effor ts and are weary from the perennial f lood of legis lated, regulated or self-imposed improvemen t e ffor t s .

The Commiss ion accep ts tha t p rov id ing h igh qua l i ty fos te r ca re i s one of the grea tes tcha l lenges of s ta te and loca l govern men t . But i t a lso sees the care an d nu r tu r ing of thes e

ch i ld ren as one of the grea tes t ob liga t ions h e ld by s ta te an d loca l governm ent .

Af te r rev iewing the re forms tha t a re underway the Commiss ion has conc luded tha t they a re

inadequa te in one c ruc ia l way: We have fa i led to pu t in p lace the leadersh ip and management

s t ru c ture tha t would a l low any of thes e increment a l e ffor t s to be implemen ted cor rec t ly , or tohold an yone a ccoun tab le fo r the i r fa i lu re o r su ccess .

Both the s ta t e and coun t ies ha ve a ro le in h e lp ing thes e fam i lies . But th e cu r ren t m u ddle of au thor i ty an d respons ib il ity fru s t ra tes the inn ova t ive and sh ie lds th e un respon s ive . The bu ck

s tops n owhere . And u n t i l tha t p rob lem i s reso lved , d iscu ss ions ab out bes t p ra c t ices a re

academic and work ing groups about ou tcome measures a re meaning less . What wi l l happenwhen a cou n ty does n ot employ bes t pra ct ices? Who will be cal led to test i fy when th e

o u t c om e m e a s u r e s a r e n o t m e t ?

The State of California is facing a his tor ic f iscal cr is is that is necessar i ly consuming the

a t ten t ion of po licy-ma kers . These de l ibera t ions on pu bl ic spend ing sh ould recognize tha tthou san ds of pu bl ic employees a re work ing every day in th e fos te r ca re sys tem . Wi th th e r igh t

leaders h ip , we be l ieve th ese capa ble people can ma ke progress even wi th n o add it iona l fu nd ing .

When th e S ta te was flush with revenu e , s ign i fican t p rogress was n o t mad e . A fi sca l c r i s iss h o u l d n o t b e u s e d a s a n e xc u s e t o fu r t h e r d e la y a c t io n .

Unt i l fos te r ca re i s a t emp orary , shor t - te rm an d sa fe p lace for ch i ld ren , it i s incu mb ent u pon a l lcomm u ni ty leaders to focus po lit i ca l cap i ta l on th i s i s su e . When th e S ta te in te rvenes to

pro tec t the l ives o f ch i ld ren i t t akes on a t rem endou s ob l iga t ion . It i s t ime for us to live u p to

th a t ob l iga t ion .


3/36

Still In Our Hands:A Review of Efforts to Reform

Foster Care in California

February 2003


4/36

Table of Contents

Still in Our Hands: No Leader, No Accountability............................................................1

A Broken, Costly System ......................................................................................................... 2

Improvements Have Been Made ...............................................................................................3

But Quality is Not Ensured.........................................................................................................3

From Home to Home.................................................................................................................4

Aging Out ...................................................................................................................................5

Foster Care Reform: A Perennial Challenge...................................................................... 6

Two Core Challenges: Leadership and Oversight........................................................... 8

No One in Charge ......................................................................................................................9

Accountability is Evasive..........................................................................................................11

Half the Children, More Than Half the Problems .............................................................14

A Structure for Improvement ................................................................................................15

What Must Be Done.................................................................................................................19Appendices................................................................................................................................23

Appendix A: Public Hearing Witnesses ..................................................................................25

Appendix B: Foster Care Related Legislation........................................................................27

Notes ........................................................................................................................................... 29

Table of Sidebars & Charts

Getting the Job Done.......................................................................................................................1

1998 Foster Care Entries, Time to Exit ...........................................................................................2

Now in Our Hands............................................................................................................................3

Number of Placements for Children in Traditional Foster Care 12 Months or More ......................4

Problems Well-Documented............................................................................................................6

Significant Resources Dedicated to Reforms .................................................................................7

Child Welfare Services Stakeholders Group.................................................................................10

Citizen Review Panels: Providing Independent Oversight...........................................................12

Foster Care Ombudsman..............................................................................................................13

Los Angeles Newspaper Editorials................................................................................................15The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services ......................................16

Los Angeles County: Commom Problems at a Bigger Scale ......................................................17

Missing Children.............................................................................................................................18

Create Effective Citizen Oversight.................................................................................................20

In Los Angeles ...............................................................................................................................21

If not you, then who? If not now, then when?...............................................................................22


5/36

STILL INOURHANDS

1

Still in Our Hands: No Leader, No Accountability

he l ife o f each ch i ld i s p rec iou s . The ir innocen ce and po ten t ia l i s

so va lued tha t when a ch i ld i s abused or neg lec ted the S ta te

in te rvenes . Each year some 40 ,000 ch i ld ren in Cali fo rn ia a re

taken away f rom paren ts who have fa i led to p rov ide adequa te care and

n u r t u r i n g .1

For mos t o f thes e ch i ld ren , the S ta te p rov ides a sa fe ha ven whi le fam i lies

ge t the i r l ives in o rder o r a new fami ly can be found to assume paren ta l

du t ies . This is a difficul t tas k given the comp lexi ty of dru g ad dict ion,

v io len t beha vior an d p over ty tha t m u s t be overcome to res tore fam i lies .

B u t t h is n o b le c a m p a ig n i s t a r n i s h e d b y t h e s u b s t a n t ia l n u m b e r o f ca s e s

in which th e governm ent fa i ls . Chi ld ren in fos te r ca re a re rou t ine ly

d e n i ed a d e q u a t e e d u c a t i on , a n d m e n t a l a n d p h y s ic a l h e a l t h c a r e . F o r

approximate ly one ou t o f four ch i ld ren who en te r the sys tem each year ,

fos te r ca re i s no t t emporary a t a l l , bu t a hear t less l imbo ch i ldhoods

s q u a n d e r e d b y a n u n a c c ou n t a b l e b u r e a u c r a c y . F or a s ig n ific a n t n u m b e r

of ch i ld ren , fos te r ca re i s no t hea l ing a t a l l, bu t in f lict s add it iona l t rau ma

o n yo u n g h e a r t s a n d m in d s . In t h e m o s t s e v er e ca s e s , c h i ld r e n a r e h u r t ,

th r ea ten ed an d even k i ll ed whi le in th e S ta te s ca re . And wh i le cou nty

agenc ies in te rcede when paren ts fa i l , the sys tem i s l ess d i l igen t in

policin g its elf.

These fa i lu res a re wel l known and wel l unders tood , which makes them

a l l t h e m o r e u n a c c e p t a b le .

The Lit t le Hoover Commission along with

grand ju r ies , advocacy organiza t ions , and

c o u n t y a n d s t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h a v e

d o c u m e n t e d t h e p r o b l e m s a n d i d e n t i f i e d

s o lu t i o n s . B u t im p r o ve m e n t s a r e m o d e s t

a n d o n t h e m a r g in . In t h e a u t u m n o f 2 0 0 2 ,

the Commiss ion conduc ted two publ ic

hea r ings in Sacra men to an d Los Angeles

to pr obe why we a re m oving so s low to fix a

sys tem tha t i s so impor tan t in the l ives o f

s o m a n y c h i ld r e n .

The law provides au thor i ty fo r s ta te and

local officials to innovate, strive for

excel lence a nd cont inu ous ly imp rove fos te r

care p rograms . And a t an y poin t in t ime , s ta te an d coun ty offic ia l s can

poin t to a su ccess fu l p i lo t p rogram or increm enta l improvemen t tha t ha s

T

Getting the Job Done

Understanding the challenges of the foster caresystem and identifying realistic solutions has notresulted in adequate reforms. Successful reformswill require:

Consistent public attention on what can beachieved and what is being achieved for thechildren in the publics care.

Clear lines of authority, responsibility and

accountability for making reforms happen. Child advocates to speak with a unified voice

to demand change and hold state and localleaders accountable.


6/36

LITTLEHOOVERCOMMISSION

2

helped a few fam i lies res pond to the h ars h r ea l it i es o f l ife . But t hes e

e x a m p l e s h a v e n o t a d d r e s s e d t h e c o r e n a t u r e o f a n u n r e s p o n s i v e

b u r e a u c r a c y .

The bo t tom l ine i s tha t we have no t commit ted ourse lves to what we say

fos te r ca re should ach ieve , and we have no t made i t c lea r whichindividu al or agen cy wil l be resp ons ible for progress . As h ard a s i t is to

tu rn a la rge sh ip , t ry do ing i t wi thout a cap ta in or a ru dder .

A Broken, Costly System

In i ts 1999 report the Lit t le Hoover Commission concluded: Despite

benevolen t in te rven t ions and b i l l ions of do l la r s , the government has

proven to be a poor sur roga te paren t seemingly incapable o f ensur ing

tha t these ch i ld ren rece ive the educa t ion , medica l ca re and counse l ing

t h a t a l l c h i ld r e n n e e d . In t h e e n d , t r o u b l ed c h i ld r e n e n d u p a s t r o u b l ed

adu lt s . The persona l an guish becomes a publ ic ca lami ty .2

When ch i ld ren en te r th e fos te r ca re sys tem t hey a re

placed with r elat ives, foster fam ilies , in grou p h omes

or oth er faci l it ies . For m ost , foster care is

t e m p o r a r y , a n d c h i l d r e n a n d p a r e n t s a r e r e u n i t e d

once specific issu es are add ress ed. Abou t one in five

ch i ld ren who en te r fos te r ca re a re reuni ted wi th

the i r fam i lies with in s ix mon th s . S l igh t ly more th an

ha lf ex it fos te r ca re be tween s ix an d 36 m onth s . For

t h e r e m a in d e r , t h e fo s t e r c a r e s y s t e m b e c o m e s a w a y

of life. App roxim at ely on e in fou r ch ildr en will

rema in in ca re fo r 42 mon th s or longer .3 B e ca u s e s o

many ch i ld ren remain in the fos te r ca re sys tem for

long per iods , an d becau se ma ny re tur n to fos te r ca re

af te r be ing reuni f ied , there a re more than 90 ,000

children in Ca liforn ias fost er care sys tem ea ch d ay.4

Car ing for abused and neg lec ted ch i ld ren i s

expens ive. The 200 2-03 bu dge t fo r fos te r ca re is

$2.2 bi l lion.5 Bil l ions more a re spen t fo r hea l th

care , menta l hea l th se rv ices , spec ia l educa t ion , cour t s and law

e n f o r c e m e n t , s u b s t a n c e a b u s e t r e a t m e n t a n d o t h e r s e r v i c e s f o r t h e s e

c h i l d r e n .6

Serv ing par t icu la r ch i ld ren can be very expens ive. To opera te an

emergency she l te r in Los Angeles , the MacLaren Cente r , cos t s $757 per

ch i ld per da y , o r $276 ,305 per ch i ld per year . And some ch i ld ren d o s tay

a t MacLaren for ex tend ed per iods . The ch i ld ren s p rogram a t th e S ta te s

3 months18%

6 months4%

12 months11%

15 months7%

18 months

6%24 months

13%

30 months10%

36 months7%

42+ months24%

1998 Foster Care EntriesTime to Exit

Source: Center for Social Services Research.


7/36

STILL INOURHANDS

3

menta l hosp i ta l cos t s $329 per ch i ld per day , o r $120 ,000 per ch i ld per

year . Car ing for a ch i ld in a g rou p home can cos t more than $6 2 ,000

an n u ally. At the low end , placing a chi ld with a r elat ive ma y only cost

$5 ,000 annua l ly , no t inc lud ing addi t iona l medica l , menta l hea l th o r

o ther cos t s .7

Improvements Have Been Made

Important ly, pol icy-makers have recognized the need to improve foster

care , and responded by increas ing funding or c rea t ing new programs to

resolve sp ecific prob lems . Since 1999 policy-ma kers h ave:

Increased inves tments in p revent ion and ear ly in te rven t ion

services.

Placed 270 publ ic hea l th nurses in county wel fa re and

probat ion off ices s tatewide to improve access to heal th care

services.

E s t a b l i s h e d t h e O m b u d s m a n O f f i c e f o r F o s t e r C a r e a n d a

tol l - free help l ine to provide chi ldren in foster care and their

fam i lies with in format ion an d as s i s tan ce .

Improved t rans i t iona l and independent l iv ing programs ,

th rough e f for t s such as the Suppor t ive Trans i t iona l

Emancipa t ion Program and the Trans i t iona l Hous ing for

Foster Youth Fund.

Establ ished f ive regional t raining centers to provide t raining

to new a nd cont inu ing ch i ld welfa re workers .

But Quality is Not Ensured

Despi te these s ign i f ican t e f for t s and expendi tu res , many ch i ld ren in

fos te r ca re a re n o t receiv ing the s e rvices th ey requi re . S ta te an d federa l

laws en t i t l e ch i ld ren in fos te r ca re to a fu l l range of educa t ion , hea l th ,

d e n t a l , m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d s u b s t a n c e a b u s e t r e a t m e n t s e r vic e s . B u t

p a r e n t s , y o u t h a n d a d v o c a t e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t m a n y c h i l d r e n a r e d e n i e d

a c c e s s t o n e e d e d c a r e . R es e a r c h s u p p o r t s t h e s e c la i m s :

The Depar tment o f Hea l th Serv ices repor t s tha t ch i ld ren in fos te rc a r e a r e s u p p o s e d t o r e c eive a m e d ic a l a s s e s s m e n t w it h i n o n e m o n t h

of el igibi l i ty , but just 65 percent of these chi ldren receive services

with in two mon ths . Anoth er 10 percen t wai t th r ee mon ths . The

depar tment says tha t 14 percen t o f fos te r ch i ld ren wai t more than

t h r e e m o n t h s f or m e d ic a l a s s e s s m e n t s a n d s o m e m a y n e v er r e c e ive

requi red m edica l ca re .8

A Universi ty of California s tudy found that 50 percent of chi ldren infos te r ca re a re n o t rece iv ing ap propr ia te m enta l hea l th s e rvices .9

Now in Our Hands

The Commissions 1999report, Now in Our Hands:Caring for Californias

Abused & NeglectedChildren, includes a detailedanalysis of the child welfaresystem. The Commissionissued 14 findings andrecommendations and urgedpolicy-makers to take astrategic approach tosystematic reform. A copyof the report can beaccessed from theCommissions Web site:www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html
http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.htmlhttp://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html


8/36


4

The Depar tm ent o f Hea l th Serv ices repor t s tha t h a l f o f a l l ch i ld ren infos te r ca r e a re n o t rece iv ing den ta l ca re .1 0

Many emancipa t ing fos te r youth a re no t made aware of the i rel igibi l i ty for benefi ts that could support their housing, chi ld care and

employment needs .1 1

Even th ough two-th irds o f fos te r youth ha ve co llege amb i t ions , m an ye m a n c i p a t i n g y o u t h d o n o t a t t e n d b e c a u s e i n f o r m a t i o n o n h i g h e r

edu ca t ion an d finan c ia l a id oppor tun i t ies i s no t cons i s ten t ly p rov ided

in a t im e l y m a n n e r .1 2

Thes e cha l lenges a re comp oun ded by h igh tu rn over o f soc ia l workers a nd

other s taff , by poor coordinat ion of services for youth and famil ies , by

l imi ted qu a l ity cont ro l , and by th e m ovemen t o f ch i ld ren from one fos te r

c a r e p l a c em e n t t o a n o t h e r .

Fos te r ca re was en vis ioned as a t em porary sa fe ha ven to care for ch i ld renu nt i l they can b e reu ni ted with th e ir fami lies o r a dopted b y new fam i lies .

The real i ty is qui te differen t . Denn is McFall , director , Beha vioral Heal th

Serv ices , S i sk iyou County , summed up the fos te r ca re sys tem in a way

echoed by man y fam i lies , exper t s an d even coun ty adminis t ra tors : It is

no t a sys tem in which anyone would want the i r ch i ld o r g randchi ld to

becom e in volved.

From Home to Home

A par t icu la r cha l lenge in the fos te r ca re sys tem i s

find ing s tab le, app ropr ia te p lacements . Thechal lenge is greatest for chi ldren in foster care for

long per iods of t ime . In 20 00 ap proxima te ly 40 ,000

c h i ld r e n e n t e r e d fo s t e r c a r e a n d 1 6 , 0 0 4 r e m a i n e d i n

care fo r 12 m onth s or longer ; man y have s tayed with

re la t ives and the i r p lacements a re genera l ly s tab le ,

bu t fo r the 8 ,664 ch i ld ren who have been p laced in

t rad i t iona l fos te r ca re p lacemen ts , th e m ajor i ty have

exper ienced mu l t ip le p lacements . For ty-th r ee

percen t o f the 8 ,6 64 were moved th ree or more t imes ,

while 11 p ercen t m oved five or more t imes .1 3

County welfare off icials concede that the problem of

f ind ing appropr ia te p lacements has g rown to c r i s i s

proport ions. 1 4 Children in foster care r ightful ly

c om p l a i n t h a t t h e y a r e s h u t t le d fr o m o n e p la c e m e n t

to the nex t as county soc ia l workers t ry to f ind an

a p p r o p r i a t e p l a ce m e n t . E a c h m o v e s e ve r s t en u o u s

Number of Placements for Childrenin Traditional Foster Care

12 Months or More (n=8664)

Source: Center for Social Services Research.

5+ Placements

11%

4 Placements11%

3 Placements21%

2 Placements32%

1 Placement25%


9/36

STILL INOURHANDS

5

re la t ionsh ips wi th careg ivers and in te r rup ts school ing , hea l th care and

other su ppor t s th a t a l l ch i ld ren n eed to th r ive .

I n a n e x t r e m e c a s e , o n e y o u n g w o m a n t o l d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t s h e

l ived in 6 0 differen t hom es or faci l it ies du ring her 1 2 years in foster ca re.

At one po in t s he was s en t to live in a noth er s ta te . And s he tes t i fi ed tha ts h e w a s a l m o s t i m m e d i a t e l y s e p a r a t e d f r o m h e r s i s t e r a n d n e v e r

reun ited . When s ib lings en te r fos te r ca re , 40 percen t a re p laced with a ll

the i r s ib l ings and 65 percen t a re p laced wi th a t l eas t some of the i r

s ibl in gs. For s ibl in g group s of four ch i ldren in foster car e, 29 percen t of

thos e fam i lies wi ll be p laced a l l toge ther an d 7 0 p ercen t wi ll be sepa ra ted

from a t least s ome of th eir s iblings. 1 5

Researchers ha ve docum ented th e va lue of ch i ld ren growing up in s tab le

famil ies with consis tent caregivers .1 6 Developmenta l theory sugges t s

and ou tcomes for ind iv idua ls ind ica te tha t ch i ld ren fa i r much be t te r

wi th s ing le careg ivers than when ra i sed in ins t i tu t iona l se t t ings , wheres ta f f members work in sh i f t s and f requent ly change jobs . 1 7 B u t t h i s

prob lem h as no t been so lved .

Aging out

This p lacement rou le t te i s o f par t icu la r concern for t eenage ch i ld ren ,

w h o s e c o m p l e x n e e d s e x p o s e t h e g r e a t e s t w e a k n e s s e s i n t h e s y s t e m .

These ch i ld ren of ten consume the mos t expens ive and leas t e f fec t ive

serv ices . And b ecau se ma ny of them spen d th e res t o f the i r ch i ldh ood in

fos te r ca re , they represen t a un ique s ta te ob l iga t ion to he lp them

transi t ion into the adult world.

R e s e a r c h t h a t h a s t r a c k e d y o u n g a d u l t s f o r u p t o f o u r y e a r s a f t e r t h e y

left fos te r ca re , su gges t s th a t em an cipa t ing youth exper ience a gam u t o f

cha l lenges :1 8

Approximately one-third fai led to complete high school , few enteredcollege.

S o m e 2 5 p e r c e n t e x p er i en c e d h o m e le s s n e s s .

U n e m p l oy m e n t r a t e s h o ve r e d n e a r 5 0 p e r c en t .

S o m e 2 5 p e r c en t w er e a r r e s t e d a n d s p e n t t i m e i n c a r c er a t e d .

About one- th i rd rece ived pu bl ic as s i s tan ce .

These ou tcomes resu l t in add i t iona l publ ic cos t s and soc ia l

consequ ences . Thes e ou tcomes a l so demon s t ra te tha t the fos te r ca re

sys tem has done a poor job prepar ing them for the cha l lenges of

adulthood.


10/36


6

Foster Care Reform: A Perennial Challenge

Based on the growing ev idence of fa i lu re , s ign i fican t res ources ha ve been

dedica ted to imp roving ou tcomes for ch i ld ren an d fami lies . But p rogress

i s scan t an d pa les in compa r i son to the cha l lenge . Cons ider :

Inadequacies and reform strategies are well-documented.Num erou s rep orts h ave out l ined th e fai l in gs of Californ ias foster care

s y s t e m a n d r e c om m e n d e d r e fo r m s . In r e c en t ye a r s m o r e t h a n a

dozen repor t s h ave docum ented the inadequ ac ies o f Ca l ifo rn ia s

fos te r ca re sys tem. Many inc lude concre te re form proposa ls .

Problems Well-Documented

Many reports document problems with the foster care system and includerecommendations for reform.

Code Blue: Health Services for Children in Foster Care, Center for CaliforniaStudies, December 1998.

The Future of Children: Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect, Center forthe Future of Children, Spring 1998.

Foster Youth Share Their Ideas for Change, Child Welfare League of America,July 1999.

Now in Our Hands: Caring for Californias Abused & Neglected Children, LittleHoover Commission, August 1999.

Family Preservation Initiatives: Foster Youth Share Their Perspectives for Change,California Youth Connection, 2000.

A Rage to do Better: Listening to Young People from the Foster Care System,

Pacific News Service, May 2000.

Listening to Our Youth, California Assembly Select Committee on Adolescence,May 2000.

A Summary of Foster Youth Recommendations from California Youth ConnectionConferences, California Youth Connection, 2001.

Foster Care and Adoption: How Proposition 10 Commissions Can Help

Californias Most Vulnerable Young Children, UCLA Center for Healthier Children,Families and Communities, March 2001.

Reexamination of the Role of Group Care in a Family-Based System of Care,

Report to the Legislature, California Department of Social Services, June 2001.

Foster Care Fundamentals: An Overview of Californias Foster Care System,California Research Bureau, December 2001.

Recommendations for State-Level Activities to Coordinate CalWORKs and ChildWelfare Services, California Center for Research on Women & Families,December 2001.

Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health Services for Foster Youth, CaliforniaInstitute for Mental Health, March 2002.


11/36

STILL INOURHANDS

7

Significant resources dedicated to reforms. I n 1 9 9 9 t h eLegis la ture and Governor au thor ized the Depar tment o f Soc ia l

Services to spend $3 mi ll ion t o p lan re forms over th ree years th rough

a S tak eholders Redes ign pr ocess . S ta te agenc ies have ded ica ted over

$8 mi l l ion in research on t rends in ch i ld and fami ly wel fa re , unmet

needs and a l te rna t ive fu nd ing s t ra teg ies . And s ta te and cou ntyemployees have spen t count less hours in conferences , t ask force

meet ings , work ing group sess ions and o ther meet ings to d i scuss the

need for re form a nd po ten t ia l s t ra teg ies .

The Governor and Legislature are engaged. S i n c e 1 9 9 9 t h eLegis la ture has deba ted over 100 b i l l s and the Governor has s igned

into law over 40 pieces of legis lat ion to address deficiencies in the

child welfar e syst em. Policy-ma kers have provided ad dit ional

funding, specif ied the r ights of chi ldren in foster care, removed

regula tory roadblocks , i s sued new mandates fo r ch i ld wel fa re

w o r k e r s , s u p p o r t e d r e s e a r c h , a n d e x p a n d e d s e r v i c e s t o c h i l d r e n .A sa m ple of recen t legis lat ion is includ ed in Appen dix B.

Significant Resources Dedicated to Reforms

Child Welfare Services Stakeholders RedesignThe Department of Social Services (DSS) leads a three-year effort begun in August 2000 to developspecific strategies to improve outcomes for children and families involved in the foster care system.Cost: $3 million.

Investing in Research

California Department of Social Services

Explore alternative funding mechanisms for group homes. The report has not been released.Cost: $250,000.

Understand effects of welfare reform on children and families. In 1998, the Commission was toldthat this research would assess, among many other issues, whether welfare reform would impactthe abuse and neglect of children. Two reports have been completed and released. A third reportwas completed in 2000 but has not been released. Others also are pending completion.Cost: $8.1 million.

The Department of Mental Health Determine the cost of providing mental health assessments and treatment services to all children in

foster care. The report was completed in June 1999 but has not been released. Cost: $175,000.

Additional reports, task forces and meetings have been convened to address the foster care crisis.

March 1999 DSS convened the Foster Care Group Home Law Enforcement Task Force and issued areport.

May 2001 DSS issued a report on the effectiveness of utilizing best practice guidelines for theassessment of children and families services.

June 2001 DSS issued its findings and recommendations on ways to improve the group care system.

October 2002 The Governors Initiative Workgroup met to discuss registering foster youth atWorkforce Investment Act One-Stop Centers and developing services to meet the needs ofemancipating foster youth.


12/36


8

Despi te these e f for t s , p rogress h as been s low in improving th e qu a l ity o f

the fos te r ca re sys tem and ou tcomes for ch i ld ren and fami l ies . S ince

1998 the number of ch i ld ren in the fos te r ca re sys tem has dec l ined by

approximate ly 8 percen t .1 9 T h e p r i m a r y d r i v e r b e h i n d t h e r e d u c e d

c a s e l o a d s h a s b e e n a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e n u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n l e a v i n g t h e

sys tem. Between 1998 an d 2001 , desp ite a growing popu la t ion , are la t ive ly cons is ten t number of ch i ld ren en te red fos te r ca re each year .

Coupled wi th an increase in the number of ch i ld ren reuni ted wi th the i r

fami l ies , adopted or emancipa ted , Ca l i fo rn ia has a s l igh t ly smal le r

n u m b e r o f c h i ld r e n i n fo s t e r c a r e t h a n in r e c en t y ea r s .2 0

But S ta te o f f ic ia l s a re unc lear on what has cont r ibu ted to these t rends

and so po l icy-makers have few c lues to gu ide the i r dec is ions on which

effor t s to expand or which to cont rac t . The f la t ten ing of en t ry ra tes

might h ave been th e resu l t of th e prev ious ly robu s t econom y, a dec line in

t h e n u m b e r o f t e e n a g e b i r t h s , c h a n g i n g p a t t e r n s o f d r u g u s e o r o t h e r

fac tors . Gains in the nu mb er of ch i ld ren find ing perm an ent p lacementsmay be the resu l t o f increased focus by count ies on the number of

adoptions and effor ts to bet ter support bir th famil ies to faci l i ta te chi ld-

fam ily reu n ificat ion.

Equal ly impor tan t , improvements p ioneered in some count ies have no t

necess ar i ly been adopted e lsewhere . Sys tema t ic cha nges to the fos te r

care sys tem are s t il l in the p lann ing s tages , leav ing open th e ques t ion of

whether case loads wi l l con t inue to dec l ine . From 1988 to 2000 ,

Cal ifo rn ia ma de cons is ten t p r ogress in decreas ing en t r ies an d increas ing

the nu mb er of ch i ld ren who exited the fos te r ca re sys tem. But th ose

ga ins d id no t pers i s t in 2001 and i t i s unc lear i f Ca l i fo rn ia could befac ing a n ew t rend of increas ing nu mb er of ch i ld ren en te r ing fos te r ca re

an d d ec lin ing ex it s .2 1 Most s ign i fican t , these t ra d i t iona l m easu re of the

fos te r ca re s ys tem a re weak ind ica tors o f qua l ity o r ou tcomes .

Two Core Challenges: Leadership and Oversight

Fos te r ca re re form faces two core cha l lenges tha t have no t been

adequ a te ly add ressed : The f ir s t i s des igna t ing a leader respon s ib le fo r

the fos te r ca re sys tem. The second i s the overs igh t n ecessary to p ro tect

t h e i n t e r e s t s a n d f u t u r e s o f n e g le c t ed a n d a b u s e d c h i ld r e n .

Fos te r ca re in Cal i fo rn ia i s genera l ly re fe r red to as a S ta te -superv ised ,

coun ty-adm inis te red sys tem. In m os t s ta tes , fos te r ca re is so lely a s ta te

resp ons ibil ity . Cal ifornia h as d elegated mu ch of i ts respon sibi li ty for

adminis te r ing se rv ices to ch i ld ren in fos te r ca re to the 58 ind iv idua l

count ies which inves t iga te cases , superv ise ou t -of -home p lacements


13/36

STILL INOURHANDS

9

and e i ther reuni fy the fami ly when prob lems a re reso lved or f ind a

p e r m a n e n t h o m e fo r c h i ld r e n .

Much of th is resp ons ibi li ty for protect in g and providing for th ese ch i ldren

fa l l s to county wel fa re depar tments , a l though the cases a l so fa l l under

c ou r t s u p e r vis i on . In a d d i t io n c ou n t y m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d d r u g a b u s eprograms , loca l school d is t r ic t s , l aw enforcement a nd o ther a genc ies p lay

a ro le in p ro tec t ing and se rv ing abu sed ch i ld ren . The nu mb er of

agencies involved and the complexi ty of local bureaucracies , funding

r u l e s a n d o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s p r e s e n t s n u m e r o u s b a r r i e r s t o p r o v i d i n g

a d e q u a t e ca r e .

Loca l e f for t s a re suppor ted by an equa l ly complex bureaucracy a t the

Sta te , inc lud ing the depar tments o f soc ia l se rv ices , hea l th se rv ices

m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d a lc oh o l a n d d r u g p r o gr a m s . Th e s e d ep a r t m e n t s ,

however , a l l f a l l under the Hea l th and Human Serv ices Agency , which

was created for the explici t purpose of coordinat ing the effor ts of relateddepa r tm ents . Other agenc ies tha t ma y be involved inc lud e the Cal ifo rn ia

Depar tment o f Educa t ion , and the communi ty co l leges , which of fe r

t ra in ing su ppor t fo r fos te r paren ts .

No One in Charge

On e l im itat ion t o th e des ign of Californ ias foster ca re s ervices is

ambigui ty as to who i s in charge and respons ib le fo r re forming a

dysfu nc t iona l sys tem. Dur ing an Au gus t 2002 pu bl ic hea r ing , Gran t land

J ohn son , Ca l i fo rn ia s Secre ta ry for Hea l th an d Hu ma n Services ,

conceded tha t in th e th ree years s ince th e Comm iss ions repor t wasre leased th e fos te r ca re sys tem ha s n o t been f ixed :

Im here to te ll y ou th a t, y es w e agree, th e s y s te m is brok en and

need s f ixing. We agree that the sy stem is inad equate. We agree

that its too bureau cratic. We agree that there are too m an y

disconnections betw een the State an d local governm ent an d the

Secretary for Health and Hu ma n Se rvices an d a s ocial worker w ho

is enga ging w ith a child.

The Secre ta ry a rgued tha t f ix ing fos te r ca re i s d i f f icu l t because there i s

n o t a g r e e m e n t o n t h e r o l e o f t h e S t a t e i n r e f o r m i n g a s y s t e m t h a t i slocal ly ad m inistered . Local agen cies , h e sa id, oppos e s t at e ini t ia t ives

b e c a u s e t h e y a r e p e r c e i v e d a s u n f u n d e d m a n d a t e s , i n c r e a s i n g

work loads , a nd a dding compl ica ted repor t ing requi rements .

And the Secre ta ry a rgued aga ins t sugges t ions tha t the S ta te requi re

count ies to be t te r coord ina te ch i ld wel fa re , menta l hea l th , subs tance

a b u s e t r e a t m e n t a n d r e la t e d s e r vic e s . H e a s s e r t ed t h a t t h e S t a t e a lr e a d y


14/36


1 0

provides counties with the f lexibi l i ty to integrate local services and that

ma ny do . He tes t i fied tha t it wou ld be ina ppropr ia te fo r the S ta te to

ma nd ate spec i fic improvemen ts , su ch as th e in tegra t ion of se rv ices . And

he sa id coun t ies seek ing re lief from bu rdens ome regula t ions can ask the

Sta te for waivers , b u t few seek th at r el ief eviden ce, he bel ieves, th at t h e

Sta t e is n o t imp eding imp rovemen t .

In cont ras t , county wel fa re d i rec tors to ld the Commiss ion tha t they a re

wai t ing for the S ta te to a l ign i t s ru les , requ i rements , funding and

organ iza t iona l s t ruc tu re wi th the goa ls it a sks th e coun t ies to meet . The

coun ty welfar e directors as sociat ion test i fied tha t th e lack of coordinat ion

a t the s ta te l eve l f rus t ra tes e f for t s to make sure tha t ch i ld ren rece ive

hea l th care an d paren ts receive a lcohol an d dru g t rea tm ent . The

count ies a l so ca l led for c lear s tandards , more f lex ib le resources ,

t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e , a n d o t h e r s u p p o r t s t o e l i m i n a t e t h e b a r r i e r s t h a t

preven t chi ldren from acces sing services. Coun ty officials su ggested i t is

t ime to s top funding p i lo t p ro jec t s tha t do no t in form sys temimprovemen ts a nd ins tead r e form fun ding ru les to do be t te r wi th ex is t ing

r e s o u r c e s .

Child Welfare Services Stakeholders Group

In 2000 the Legislature provided funding to the Department of Social Services to form the ChildWelfare Services Stakeholders Group and charged it with reviewing child welfare programs andrecommending ways to improve services for children and families. A large and diverse collection ofstakeholders has been working for two years to develop reforms. In 2003 the stakeholders group isexpected to issue a plan of action to implement its recommendations.

The stakeholders process has produced notable recommendations to improve opportunities forprevention, promote best practices and provide holistic care to children and families.

But some child advocates argue that the process has not addressed the fundamental challenges anyreform will need to overcome, including:

Addressing the tension between promoting program consistency across counties and addressingreal demographic, geographic and financial differences among the counties.

Ensuring the availability of adequate and appropriate placements for all children in foster care. Bringing greater flexibility and incentives to foster care funding to encourage innovation and

promote system improvement. Increasing collaboration and coordination among state agencies, particularly the departments of

social services, health, mental health and education. Increasing collaboration among local agencies, particularly county agencies and local school

districts. Identifying strategies to improve outcomes in under-performing counties.

And many stakeholders complain that the three-year process is taking too long, has failed to identifyor promote immediate reforms and is costing too much.

Moreover, recommendations alone have proven inadequate to produce needed reforms. Without adesignated leader responsible and accountable for improving outcomes, stakeholderrecommendations will not find their way into the lives of troubled children and families.

Source: CWS Stakeholders Group. CWS Redesign: Conceptual Framework. May 2002. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaDepartment of Social Services.


15/36

STILL INOURHANDS

1 1

An d th e cha ir of th e Board of Sup ervisors of Californ ias largest cou nt y,

Los Angeles , compla ined to the Commiss ion tha t more mus t be done to

prod the Governor , the Legis la ture and the count ies themselves to

b e c om e t r u e p a r t n e r s i n s e r vin g c h i ld r e n .2 2

Californ ias pol icy-mak ers m u st crea te a focal poin t with in s ta tegovernm ent with respon s ib il ity fo r fos te r ca re a nd mu s t c la r i fy s ta te a nd

local roles in th e foster car e system . Reform will e i ther requ ire the Stat e

to lead or to es tab l i sh a c lear mandate tha t count ies a re respons ib le fo r

th e opera t ions of the fos te r ca re sys tem .

Clar i fy ing ro les an d r espon s ib il it i es fo r th e fos te r ca re sys tem i s th e m os t

impor tan t fir s t s tep in re forming the sys tem. Cha nge wi ll no t ha ppen

u nt il i t i s c lea r who is resp ons ib le fo r b r ing ing abou t tha t cha nge . And

clar ifyin g roles wil l enh an ce effor ts to imp rove accoun tab i li ty.

O n e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t h a t m u s t b e a d d r e s s e d , a t t h e S t a t e a n dlocal ly, is th e coordinat ion of services a mon g pu blic agencies a nd service

providers . This p rob lem i s de ta i led in m an y of the prev ious repor t s on

fos te r ca re . The S ta te s fos te r ca re leader mu s t ens u re tha t th e mu l t ip le

s ta te agenc ies th a t s e rve thes e ch i ld ren an d fam i lies a re work ing toward

c o m m o n o b j ec t ive s . E a c h c o u n t y B o a r d of S u p e r vis o r s m u s t e n s u r e t h a t

loca l and communi ty agenc ies , inc lud ing school d i s t r ic t s , non-prof i t

se rv ice prov iders and o ther s takeholders , a re work ing toward common

ends . And i t is th e respons ib i li ty o f bo th th e S ta te an d coun ty boards of

su perv isors , to ens u re th a t th e ir resp ec t ive s t ra teg ies a re a l igned .

Accountability is Evasive

Cal i forn ia does no t adequa te ly measure or moni tor the qua l i ty o f fos te r

care and how wel l the sys tem prepares ch i ld ren for the cha l lenges of

adu lth ood . Num erous effor t s a re u nd erway to t rack per forma nce . But

t h e r e i s n o c o n s e n s u s o n s t a n d a r d s , o r h o w p e r fo r m a n c e in f or m a t io n w ill

be used to improve ou tcom es and dr ive re forms . And th ere i s no

a g r e em e n t o n w h o c a n o r s h o u ld b e h e ld a c c o u n t a b l e.

Federal Performance Review. Under 1994 federa l gu ide l ines eachs ta te mu s t u nd ergo a federa l per forman ce review of fos te r ca re p r ogram s .

Cal i fo rn ia , l ike mos t l a rge s ta tes , i s no t mee t ing federa l s tandards andmust deve lop an improvement p lan tha t wi l l b r ing the s ta te in to

compl ian ce with th e new s tan dard s . If the s ta te fa i ls to adequ a te ly

address federa l concerns , Ca l i fo rn ia r i sks subs tan t ia l f inanc ia l

pena l t ies .2 3

Researchers an d of ficia ls in Cal ifo rn ia rep or t th a t ou tcom es for ch i ld ren

and fami l ies a re improving and in some respec ts , because of how the


16/36


1 2

federa l co l lec t s da ta and documents ou tcomes , these improvements a re

n ot ad equ at ely ref lected in t h e federa l review.

State Performance Review. AB 636 (Chap te r 678 , S ta tu tes o f 2001 ,S te inberg) es tab l i shed the Chi ld Wel fa re Sys tem Improvement and

Account ab i li ty Act o f 2001 . The b i ll r equ i res the Hea l th an d Hum anServices Agency to develop a plan to review all county child welfare

sys tems to ensure compl iance wi th s ta te and federa l requ i rements , to

moni tor ou tcomes , and to iden t i fy and rep l ica te bes t p rac t ices .

Citizen Review Panels: Providing Independent Oversight

In 1996 the President and Congress recognized that citizens could provide effective oversight of thechild welfare system. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was amendedto require states to establish citizen review panels to evaluate state and local efforts to protectchildren. Federal law requires California to establish three panels. Each panel must evaluateCalifornias child protective services based of the States child abuse prevention plan, federalstandards and other criteria the panels deem important.

Federal law requires states to provide the panels with information necessary for effective oversight,including confidential case materials, and staff assistance to support the panels duties. Federalrequirements allow states to use existing panels to perform the oversight functions, if the existingpanels meet the federal requirements for membership, meetings and responsibilities. Regional orlocal panels are allowed, if they meet statutory requirements to examine policies and procedures ofstate and local agencies.

Californias Panels Fall Short

In 1999, California established three local panels: in Placer, Napa, San Mateo counties. A fourthpanel was formed in Kern County in 2002. And the Department of Social Services has designated theChild Welfare Services Stakeholders group as a statewide panel for purposes of the federalrequirements.

The three original local panels have each reviewed local programs and activities and maderecommendations for improvement. But none of the local panels have reviewed the programs andpolicies of state agencies, as required by federal law and they have not benefited the children living inthe other 55 counties that collectively represent the vast majority of children in foster care. CaliforniasStakeholders group is undertaking an ambitious review of the States child welfare system, but themission of the Stakeholders group and the requirements of the citizen review panels are notconsistent.

Representatives of the Department of Social Services report that the efforts of Californias citizenreview panels are clearly documented in the States annual report to the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. At the Commissions request, thefederal agency is reviewing the status of Californias compliance. A spokesperson for the federaloffice told the Commission that the states $2.6 million CAPTA grant could be in jeopardy.

The Commission believes that California is not in compliance with the federal requirement to establishcitizen oversight of Californias efforts to protect children. The efforts of those panels designated bythe Department of Social Services as citizen review panels fall far short of the charge outlined infederal law. Congress and the President recognized the potential for effective citizen review.California needs to comply with this federal mandate.

Sources: Veronika Kot, et. al. 1998. Citizen Review Panels for the Child Protective Services System: Guidelines andProtocols. Des Moines, IA : Child and Family Policy Center. Office of Child Abuse Prevention. Annual Report of theCalifornia Citizen Review Panels Fiscal Year 1999-2000. May 2001. Sacramento, CA : California Department of SocialServices. Office of Child Abuse Prevention. Second Report of the California Citizen Review Panels, July 1, 2000 December 31, 2001. October 2002. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Social Services. Debra Sample, U.S. HHS,ACF. Personal Communication. January 22, 2003.


17/36

STILL INOURHANDS

1 3

The agency has es tab l i shed a workgroup and i s scheduled to deve lop a

review syst em by Apr i l 1 , 2003 .

Performance Indicators Project. The Cent er for Social ServicesResearch a t UC Berke ley es tab l ish ed th e Per forma nce Ind ica tors Pro ject

to ma ke ava i lab le t imely and u sefu l da ta a bou t ch i ld ren who a r e involvedin the ch i ld wel fa re sys tem. Wi th s ta te an d foun da t ion fu nd ing , the

Center reconf igures da ta to permi t adminis t ra tors , researchers and

others to t rack ind iv idu a l cases an d ou tcom es over t ime .2 4

B u t p o lic y a n a ly s t s a n d e xp e r t s a c r o s s t h e n a t i on a r g u e t h a t s t a n d a r d s

an d da t a a lone a re inadequ a te . They often a r e d ifficu l t fo r the pu bl ic and

pol icy-makers to unders tand , and they f requent ly a re no t re l iab le

re flec t ions of ou tcomes . Thes e exper t s a rgu e tha t the mos t p ioneer ing

s ta tes a re c rea t ing s t rong loca l overs igh t boards , independent s ta te

o ve r s ig h t m e c h a n i s m s , a n d c o n s i s t e n t a n d c le a r r e p o r t in g t o t h e p u b l ic

o n o u t c o m e s .2 5

With s tandards and da ta , these boards can prov ideovers igh t an d c rea te a ccou nta b i li ty.

T h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s l o n g a s s e r t e d t h a t p u b l i c

accountab i l i ty fo r ou tcomes enhances cont inuous

improvemen t . And in the cas e of fos te r ca re where

t h e S t a t e h a s a n im p o r t a n t o b lig a t io n t h a t i t h a s f a ile d

to meet those ou tcomes need to be moni tored by

ded icated ci t izens ou tside of govern m en t . Cal iforn ia

needs a s ta te - leve l , independent overs igh t board wi th

t h e m a n d a t e a n d t o o ls n e e d ed t o m o n i t o r p e r fo r m a n c e ,

d o c u m e n t c h a l le n g es a n d r e c om m e n d r e fo r m s .

Cal i fo rn ia has ded ica ted some resources to an

o m b u d s m a n p r o g r a m , b u t t h a t o f f i c e i s n o t s t r u c t u r e d

in a way tha t can asser t ive ly inves t iga te shor tcomings

or pu blicly ident ify system atic fai lures . Even in

difficul t f isca l t imes, r eal locat in g resou rces to oversigh t

can be expec ted to increase per formance and reduce

dem an ds on th i s ext raord ina r i ly expens ive sys tem.

C r e a t i n g a s t a t e s t r u c t u r e t h a t c a n b r i n g l e a d e r s h i p

an d accou nt ab i l ity a t th e s ta te leve l i s an es sen t ia l fi r s ts tep toward wholesa le re form. But th ose e ffor t s mu s t be ma tched in the

58 coun t ies , as well. And pa r t icu la r a t ten t ion n eeds to be pa id to

Los An geles Cou n ty.

Foster Care Ombudsman

California has an ombudsman forfoster care who reports to thedirector of the Department of SocialServices. The office is notempowered to recommend policy orpractice changes that could reducethe need for ombudsman services.

Its lack of independence preventsthe ombudsman from being a publicadvocate for children in foster care.

Other states have independentombudsman programs. RhodeIsland and Connecticut each have anombudsman for foster care that isappointed by the Legislature andreports directly to the Legislature.

Source: California State Ombudsman Officefor Foster Care. Annual Report, May 2000-2001.


18/36


1 4

Half the Children, More Than Half the Problems

Los Angeles County operates the largest chi ld welfare agency in the

coun t ry . The Depar tmen t o f Chi ld ren a nd Fam i ly Serv ices fields over

160 ,000 emergency re fe r ra l s a year and has a case load of 50 ,000 to

6 0 , 0 0 0 c h i ld r e n .2 6

At a publ ic hear ing in Los Angeles , the Commiss ion met wi th fos te r

y o u t h a n d p a r e n t s , c o m m u n i t y l e a d e r s , c o u n t y s u p e r v i s o r s , a n d o t h e r

officia ls to un ders ta nd t he ch a l lenges of loca l leaders h ip . The h ear ing

was ca lled in d i rec t respon se to s ta te o ffic ia l s who a sser ted tha t coun ty

leaders a re u l t im at ely resp ons ible for th e qua l ity of foster ca re.

Tes t imony a t the hear ing re i te ra ted of ten wi th a human vo ice and

emot iona l s to r ies the i s sues ra i sed in o ther count ies and in fo rmal

inqui r ies by gran d ju r ies , p r iva te consu l tan ts a nd o th ers .

Coun ty officia ls t o ld th e Comm iss ion th a t th ey a re m aking progress : 2 7

All new and prospec t ive p lacements a re assessed to ensure tha t

re la t ive careg ivers m eet the s am e s ta nd ard s a s l icensed fos te r fam i ly

h o m e s .

An inves t iga t ive academy was c rea ted to enhance the sk i l l s o f

emergency respons e soc ia l workers .

P e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d m a n a g e m e n t s t a n d a r d s h a v e b e e n i m p l e m e n t e d

t h r o u g h o u t t h e d e p a r t m e n t .

Trans i t iona l hous ing p lacements , independent l iv ing se rv ices and

wrapar oun d se rv ices have been increased .

The number of fos te r ch i ld ren rece iv ing menta l hea l th care has

increased by 74 percen t .

A serv ice in tegra t ion branch has been deve loped wi th in the Chief

Administrat ive Office to faci l i ta te coordinat ion across county

agencies .

B u t t h a t p r o g r es s h a s b e e n i n s u ffic ie n t . An d t h e t e s t im o n y u n d e r m i n e s

the pos i t ion of the Hea l th and Human Serv ices Secre ta ry tha t count ies

are ab le to deve lop an d m an age a qua l ity fos te r ca re sys tem a lone .


19/36

STILL INOURHANDS

1 5

Coun ty officia ls to ld th e Comm iss ion tha t m an y of the cha l lenges fac ing

t h e c o u n t y c a n b e c o r r e c t e d a n d a r e b e i n g a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h c o u n t y

ac t ions . But fu nd am enta l concerns re la t ing to fu nd ing , p lacement

r e s o u r c e s , c u m b e r s o m e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s c a n n o t b e a d d r e s s e d

withou t s ta te leadersh ip , an d co llabora t ion a cross m u l t ip le s ta te , cou nty

agenc ies an d o ther loca l agenc ies . Coun tyleaders to ld the Commiss ion tha t Ca l i fo rn ia

mu s t bu ild a s t rong s ta t e - loca l par tn ersh ip for

foster care for reforms to be effective.

But pol icy reform alone wil l not address al l

tha t a i ls th i s sys tem . Advoca tes o ften tes t i fy

about the unava i lab i l i ty o f se rv ices , and the

cha l lenges fac ing ch i ld ren in a sys tem tha t i s

t rying to do th e r ight th ing. Yet in

Los An geles , an ex t raord ina ry am oun t o f

a n g u is h w a s p r e s e n t e d f r om fo s t e r p a r e n t s , a sw e l l a s b i r t h p a r e n t s , a b o u t t h e f u n d a m e n t a l

sa fe ty of ch i ld ren in fos te r ca re . One woman ,

who cares fo r her g randchi ld ren , asse r ted tha t

public employees s imply fai l to respect those

th ey a re t ry ing to se rve or those who a re t ry ing

to he lp pro tec t ch i ld ren . It was no t about

resour ces or se rvices . It was abou t respec t .

As e l sewhere , t he prob lems in th e Los Angeles

County fos te r ca re sys tem are wel l known and

c lear ly documented , as summar ized onp a ge 1 7 , a n d c h a r a c t e r iz ed in t h e a d j a c e n t

newspa per ed i to r ia l s .

A Structure for Improvement

Los Angeles County expends cons iderab le resources in an a t tempt to

provide overs igh t to the fos te r ca re sys tem and improve the qua l i ty o f

ser vices. The following ent i t ies ea ch play an overs igh t role:

The Los Angeles County Commission for Children and Families.F o u n d e d i n 1 9 8 4 , t h e C o m m i s s i o n i s m a d e u p o f 1 5 m e m b e r s w i t h

each county superv isor appoin t ing th ree members fo r l imi ted te rms .

The Com miss ion i s ch arged wi th m oni tor ing an d eva lua t ing e ffor t s to

improve services to chi ldren and famil ies . 2 8 Budget : $204 ,000

Sta ff: 2

The Los Angeles Times, July 2002:

Los Angeles has a foster care system

driven by what is available, not what isneeded. Children receive too few servicestoo late. Thousands are shuttled to

ineffective and expensive institutional care.They are poorly monitored, with noconsistent, individualized care. Not

surprisingly, many deteriorate in countycare, populating our jails, homelessshelters and mental wards after they age

out of a failed system. Many neverovercome the effects of the abuse orneglect they have suffered.

The Los Angeles Daily News, September 2002:

The horrors of the countys residentialcenter for emotionally troubled and abused

children were never any great secret.Theyve been documented for years kidsrunning away, abusive personnel, children

not getting placed in the foster homes theyneeded.

Source: Los Angeles Times. A Foster Care TragedyWorthy of Dickens. July 18, 2002. Los Angeles Daily

News. Stopping Abuse. It Shouldnt Take Litigation to GetGovernment to Do Its Job. September 12, 2002.


20/36


1 6

The Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (ICAN).The Counci l was es tab l i shed in 1977 to coord ina te se rv ices tha t

prevent , iden t i fy an d t rea t ch i ld abu se an d neg lec t . Memb ersh ip on

the cou nc i l inc lud es 27 cou nty , c ity , s ta te an d federa l agency heads ,

along with UCLA, five pr ivate sector m emb ers a ppoint ed by th e Board

of Superv isors , and the Chi ldren ' s P lanning Counci l .2 9

Budget : $85 2 ,67 5 S ta ff: 9 .

The Los Angeles County Childrens Planning Council. Th e

Counci l , founded in 1991 , i s a 46-member advisory body made up of

ap poin tees an d ex officio mem bers who ad vise t he Board of

Superv isors regard ing the p lanning and de l ivery of se rv ices to

ch i ld ren in th e cou nty . 3 0 Bu dget: $3.5 mill ion. Sta ff: 22.

Department of Children and Family Services, Office of theOmbudsman. The Office assis ts chi ldren, famil ies , community

organiza t ions , government agenc ies and o thers th rough educa t iona lse rv ices , p rob lem reso lu t ion an d conf lict m an agement with regard to

DCFS services.3 1 Bud get: $33 0,04 9. Sta ff: 4 .

Department of Auditor-Controller. Childrens ServicesOmbudsman. Serves a s a n advoca te an d pr ob lem s o lver fo r ch i ld renp la c ed i n g r o u p h o m e s . 3 2 Bu dget: $43 8,50 0. Sta ff: 4 .

Department of Auditor-Controller. Childrens Services InspectorGeneral. Inves t iga tes mat te r s involv ing the abuse or dea th of

ch i ld ren who have contac t wi th the Depar tment o f Chi ld ren and

Fam ily Services.3 3 Bud get : $34 3 ,000 . S ta f f: 3 .

The Los Angeles CountyDepartment of Children and Family Services

Leadership: Los Angeles County has an interim director who reports to the five-member Board ofSupervisors. Supervisors report frequent disagreements on how to manage the department.

Budget: $1.4 billion. Funding has increased by 34 percent since FY 1998-99.

Staffing: 6,922 employees. Workforce has increased by 25 percent since 1998.

Offices: 25.

Service Providers: DCFS contracts with 75 different foster family agencies and places children inthe care of 5,734 certified foster family homes and many more relative homes.

Affiliated Agencies: DCFS works with dozens of federal, state, county, regional and communityagencies and organizations to provide appropriate care to children and families.

New Foster Care Entries: 7,594 in 2001, a 21 percent decrease since 1998.

Sources: County of Los Angeles. Annual Report 2002-2003. Supplemental data provided by the Department of Children andFamily Services to the Little Hoover Commission. For number of offices, http://dcfs.co.la.ca.us/wdcfs/locations.htm.


21/36

STILL INOURHANDS

1 7

Chi ld advoca tes repor t tha t the e f fec t iveness o f these en t i t i es has been

u n d e r m i n e d i n r e c en t y e a r s b y s q u a b b l in g a m o n g t h e a g e n c ie s a n d t h e ir

cons t i tu enc ies . And th ey repor t tha t the Board of Su perv isors e i ther has

been unwi l l ing or unable to implement suf f ic ien t re forms even when

t h e s e e n t i t ie s i d e n t ify t h e c h a n g es t h a t s h o u l d b e m a d e .

Los Angeles County: Common Problems at a Bigger Scale

County Grand Jury Documents Problems

The 1999-2000 Grand Jury found that Los Angeles County was not meeting the basicrequirements of the foster care system because of organizational, management and othersystemic challenges.

The 2001-02 Grand Jury focused on problems at the MacLaren emergency shelter. The facility isdesigned to shelter children for no more than 30 days, but the average length of stay for allchildren was 48 days. More significantly, 86 percent of children stayed over 30 days, with theaverage length of stay for these children being three months. A total of 39 children spent morethan 300 days living at the center between 1999 and 2001, including multiple admissions. Two

children lived at the center for more than 700 days during this period. The Grand Jury also foundthat 70 percent of the children enrolled in school at MacLaren were performing below grade level.The Grand Jury concluded that the center has failed to investigate allegations that staff haveabused children in its care. The backlog of pending investigations extends back to 1997 and hasincreased over the past two years. The Grand Jury was concerned that by failing to investigateallegations of abuse the county runs the risk of exposing more children to threats and abuse.

Independent Analysis Documents Failures

In 2002 the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services commissioned anindependent analysis of foster care. That analysis found that the coordination and managementof care for children is inadequate. The report stated that most services and personnel continue toact in silo fashion, despite numerous attempts to promote service coordination and theintegration of goals.

The independent analysis revealed the following concerns:

The county lacks a standard process for screening children coming into the system orassessing the needs of those already in the system.

The county does not have a standard of care for all children. Consequently it is unclear ifchildren are receiving too few, too many or the wrong types of services.

Los Angeles has every type of program but not enough of any program to meet all needs.

Efforts to coordinate or collaborate are insufficient. There is no systematic attempt to link thestrategic plans of multiple local agencies. A lack of support from central government (suchas fiscal, legal and human resources) undermines collaboration.

Data sharing and retrieval is inadequate and a core barrier to providing timely, efficient care.The sharing of educational and health data is particularly difficult.

Birth and foster families are not viewed as potential sources of solutions. They are morefundamentally considered the problem.

Staff often lack the training and support needed to perform adequately. University-basedtraining does not prepare new staff for work demands, and philosophical differences acrosscounty departments undermine effectiveness.

Sources: Los Angeles County Grand Jury reports for 1999-2000 and 2001-2002. Kaplan and Associates. Where AreWe, Where Do We Go From Here, and How Do We Get There? August 8, 2002.


22/36


1 8

Missing Children

On September 27, 2002, Los Angeles County reported that it could not account for 740 children in itscare. Of the 49,843 children the county was supervising, 488 had run away, and 252 were abductedby family members.

In a report to county supervisors, the Department of Children and Family Services wrote that Therewas no instance in this sample in which a childs whereabouts was actually unknown to the socialworker handling the childs case.

In a second report, however, the department states that it does not have information on thewhereabouts or circumstances regarding many of the children who have run away from their care. Inan October 15, 2002 report, the department identified 77 children who had run away from foster careduring the month of September. Of those, 55 had not returned by early October.

The children reported as running away ranged in age from 2 to 22 years old. No one has been ableto provide the Commission with a reasonable answer to the question of how a 2-year-old successfullyruns away.

In general, the youngest children who are missing are abducted by their parents. The older childrenare reported to have moved on their own. However, 40 children between the ages of 13 and 17 were

reported to have run away with no information on their return. In one example, Emannuel M. is13 years old and was missing for at least three weeks.

Sylvia Pizzini, deputy director, Children and Family Services Division, California Department of SocialServices maintains that the issue of missing children is inappropriately highlighted and does notwarrant the focused attention. However, the former director of the Los Angeles County Department ofChildren and Family Services said missing children indicate that local agencies are not effectivelyserving children and families. She said these children are at risk for sexual assault, prostitution andother forms of violence.

Sources: County of Los Angeles, Department of Children and Family Services. Memos addressed to the Los Angeles CountyBoard of Supervisors. August 13, 2002 Board Motion (Synopsis #41) Regarding Department of Children and Family ServicesMissing Children. September 27, 2002. Summary of September 2002 Runaway Incidents Involving Children Placed by the

Department of Children and Family Services." October 15, 2002.


23/36

STILL INOURHANDS

1 9

What Must Be Done

The Commiss ion apprec ia tes those who have ded ica ted the i r ca reers o r

opened the i r hom es to he lp abus ed and neg lec ted ch i ld ren . It app lau ds

legislators and innovative county off icials who are t rying to work on the

ma rg in one b i ll , one broken hea r t a t a t ime .

But i t a l so sha res th e growing f rus t r a t ion of ma ny people who recognize

tha t these e f for t s a re no t adequa te ly lower ing the bar r ie r s to se rv ice or

respon ding to the m os t egregiou s fa il ings of the sys tem .

The Comm iss ions overwhelming concern r ema ins th a t th ere is n o one

person or agency a t the s ta te l eve l with respons ib il ity an d a u thor i ty fo r

ch i ld ren in fos te r ca re . The Comm iss ion f irmly be lieves th a t s t rong an d

suppor ted leadersh ip i s essen t ia l to implement any re forms d i rec ted by

th e Legislatu re or negotiated by s ta keh olders . That lead ersh ip also will

be requi red to ham mer ou t agreemen ts on th e rea l i s su e of how to c la r i fy

the ro le of the S ta te an d th e ro le o f th e cou nt ies . And th a t l eadersh ip wil l

be necessary to b r ing meaning to whatever per formance measures a re

requi red by the federa l governm ent o r c ra fted by th e S ta te .

Given the consequences for ch i ld ren , fami l ies and communi t ies o f the

cur ren t sys tem, the Commiss ion a l so be l ieves tha t focused c i t i zen

oversight is required at b oth th e s tat e and cou n ty level . Specifical ly:

Recommendation 1: The Governor and Legislature should designate a leader forCalifornias foster care system.

The Governor and Legis la ture should des igna te a l eader wi th in the

G ove r n o r s a d m i n i s t r a t io n a n d e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r h a s t h e a p p r o p r ia t e

au thor i ty an d gu idance to re form the fos te r ca re sys tem . Tha t leader

sh ould be he ld account ab le fo r imp rovemen ts .

Recommendation 2: The Governor and Legislature should transform the fostercare ombudsman into a Child Welfare Inspector General.

The Cal ifo rn ia Omb u dsm an for Fos te r Care sh ould be reorganized in to a

Chi ld Welfa re Insp ec tor Genera l . The Insp ec tor Genera l shou ld be ves ted

wi th the au thor i ty o f comparab le en t i t i es , inc lud ing the Inspec tor

General of the Youth and Adult Correct ional Agency, to invest igate

compla in t s and eva lua te loca l fos te r ca re agenc ies . 3 4 The Inspector

Genera l sh ould repor t to th e S ta te Chi ld Welfa re Overs igh t Board tha t i s

described below.


24/36


2 0

Recommendation 3: The Governor and Legislature should create a State ChildWelfare Oversight Board.

q Responsibilities: Th e B o a r d s h o u ld

make on-going recommendat ions to the

Legis la tu re an d Governor , s ta te an d loca lagenc ies and o thers on s t ra teg ies to

improve s tate and local effor ts to serve

children and famil ies involved with the

fos te r ca re sys tem. The board shou ld be

charged with ensuring the effect ive

opera t ion of local oversight board s. It

should recommend to the Legis la ture

a n d G o v e r n o r s a n c t i o n s a n d i n c e n t i v e s

to encourage counties to fol low the law,

adopt bes t p rac t ices o r imp rove th e loca l

fos te r ca re sys tem .

q Membership: The board should be

a mix of fos te r ca re s takeholders ,

inc lud ing cur ren t and former fos te r

y o u t h , a n d o t h e r c o m m u n i t y l e a d e r s .

Par t icu la r emph as is sh ould be p laced on

recrui t ing representat ives from

e d u c a t i o n , h e a l t h c a r e a n d b u s i n e s s

comm u ni t ies . The Legis la tu re an d the

G o v e r n o r s h o u l d e a c h m a k e

app oin tm ents to fixed- te rm pos i t ions .

Recommendation 4: Each county should designate a leader for foster care.

Each county Board of Superv isors should des igna te a l eader wi th in the

c o u n t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d e n s u r e t h a t l e a d e r h a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

au thor i ty and gu idance to re form the fos te r ca re sys tem, br ing toge ther

the e f for t s o f mul t ip le county depar tments and work wi th non-county

agenc ies involved wi th th e fos te r ca re sys tem. Tha t l eader sh ould be he ld

accoun tab le for imp roving ou tcomes for ch i ld ren a nd fam i lies .

Recommendation 5: Each county should create a local Child Welfare OversightBoard and a Child Welfare Inspector General.

q Responsibilities: Local boards should be d i rec ted to eva lua te loca l

fos te r ca re se rv ices and make recommendat ions to county

su perv isors , loca l agenc ies an d o thers on po ten t ia l imp rovemen ts .

Create Effective Citizen Oversight

The federal Child Abuse Prevention and TreatmentAct (CAPTA) requires California to establish, at aminimum, three citizen review panels to determinewhether state and local agencies are meeting theirresponsibilities to protect children. Federalstandards require the citizen review panels to be:

Independent. A majority of members must bevolunteers who are not staff to public agenciesinvolved in child welfare. The panels may examineany criteria its members deem important to ensurethe protection of children.

Expert. Members must be diverse, geographically

representative and include members with expertise inthe prevention and treatment of child abuse andneglect.

Supported. Federal law requires the state toprovide access to information and staff assistance toenable the panels to perform their duties.

Public. Panels must meet quarterly, and makepublicly available an annual report on its activities,including information on the States efforts toimplement their recommendations.


25/36

STILL INOURHANDS

2 1

q Membership: Membersh ip on loca l boards shouldi n c l u d e c u r r e n t a n d f o r m e r f o s t e r y o u t h , a n d o t h e r

s takeholders . Emphas is should be p laced on

recru i t ing represen ta t ives f rom educa t ion , hea l th

care , c iv ic and bu s iness comm u ni t ies .

q Staffing: Count ies should prov ide loca l boards theresources and au thor i ty to h i re Chi ld Wel fa re

In s p e c t or G e n e r a l s , w h o s h o u ld h a v e t h e r i gh t s a n d

responsibi l i t ies of comparable agents to invest igate

compla in t s , eva lua te p rov iders and i s sue repor t s to

the Oversight Board.

In Los Angeles

Los Angeles County Supervisorsshould reorganize the roles andresponsibilities of its multiple

boards, inspectors andombudsman services to focusthese resources on improving thequality of foster care.

The board should set clear goals toensure children in foster care aresafe, receive needed services, findpermanency or are prepared foradulthood. The new directorshould be held accountable forprogress.


26/36


2 2

If not you, then who? If not now, then when?

Protecting children will require above all else leadership. In September 2002, the Commissionidentified for the Health and Human Services Agency Secretary steps that could be taken withexisting resources and authority to improve the lives of children. Some efforts would bringimmediate results, while other steps would begin the necessary alignment of responsibility, authority

and accountability.

1. Designate an agency lead. Children in foster care and their families often require support andservices administered by numerous state and local agencies. Directors of individualdepartments or programs do not have the authority to cut across the bureaucracy to ensureadequate cooperation or care. The Health and Human Services Agency is the appropriate stateentity to be responsible for providing competent and comprehensive foster care. Today, theAgency Secretary can designate an agency staff person with the support and authority neededto allow the departments of Social Services, Mental Health, Health Services, Alcohol and DrugPrograms and others to ensure that state programs work as one and recognize their sharedresponsibilities for children and families.

2. Respond to crises. The agency staff person designated to lead should immediately tackle themost important crises facing children in foster care. Topping that list are those children who

have experienced multiple placements because of the systems failure to understand and meettheir needs. The State should develop a mechanism to quickly identify every child with multipleplacements. It should ensure those children have a comprehensive needs assessment. Itshould guarantee to those children that they will receive the services and a placement tailoredfor their success. And the State should monitor their outcomes. No child should suffer througha series of failed placements because adults failed to get it right after five tries. Today, theAgency Secretary can direct staff to take on this challenge and immediately improve lives.

3. Address governance issues. California needs an honest, frank and thoughtful discussion ongovernance in the foster care system. California will not be able to ensure that children in fostercare receive high-quality, effective services until federal, state and local lines of authority andresponsibilities are aligned. The Agency Secretary can bring together leaders from local, stateand federal governments to resolve the shared issues that impede high-quality foster care.

4. Ensure the State is an effective parent. While foster care is intended to be temporary, for

some children the State becomes their parent as they reach adulthood. As with birth parents,our moral obligation to these children does not end with emancipation. The State must do all itcan to ensure that children emancipating from the system have the guidance, education,employment and housing they need to be successful. Today, the Agency Secretary can directstaff to identify the