California Child and Family Services Review

California Child and Family Services Review

2008 Riverside County Self-Assessment

Susan Loew, Director

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services

Alan Crogan, Chief Probation Officer Riverside County Probation Department

“Critical to our success are people at the State, County, community, and neighborhood levels joining together in a comprehensive effort to ensure every child in California will live in a safe, stable, permanent home, nurtured by healthy families and strong communities.”

--Child Welfare Services Redesign, Stakeholders Group Final Report (September, 2008)

California’s Child and Family Services Review County Self Assessment

County: Riverside County Responsible County Child Welfare Agency:

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, Children’s Services Division

Period of Assessment: January 2008 - September 2008 Period of Outcomes Data: October 1, 2006 – September 30, 2007 Date Submitted:

County Contact Person for County Self Assessment Name: Mary Ellen Johnston Title: Regional Manager Address: 10281 Kidd Street, Riverside, CA 92503 Phone: (951) 358-4961 Email: [email protected]

Submitted By each agency for the children under its care Submitted by: County Child Welfare Agency Director (Lead Agency) Name: Susan Loew, Director Signature:

Submitted by: County Chief Probation Officer Name: Alan Crogan, Chief Probation Officer Signature:

Submitted by: Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County Name: Eva Guenther-James, President Signature:

Submitted by: Parent Representative Name: Art Hernandez, Parent Partner Signature:

CAPIT/CBCAP/ PSSF Liaison Name: Monica Mathis Title: Social Service Planner Address: 10281 Kidd Street. Riverside, CA 92503 Phone & Email: (951) 358-7150 [email protected]

Name and affiliation of additional participants are on a separate page.

of 88

mailto:[email protected]

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................4 A. Demographic Profile.........................................................................................................7

A1. Demographics of the General Population...................................................................7 A2. Child Welfare Services Participation Rates ................................................................8 A3. Education System Profile..........................................................................................12

B. Peer Quality Case Review .............................................................................................14 C. Outcomes.......................................................................................................................16

Safety 1: Children are first & foremost protected from abuse & neglect .........................16 Safety 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible & appropriate …………………………………………………………………………………………...17 Permanency 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations without increasing reentry into foster care....................................................................................18 Permanency 2: The continuity of family relationships & connections is preserved for the children …………………………………………………………………………………………...25 Well Being 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs....27 Well Being 2: Children receive services appropriate to their educational needs.............31 Well Being 3: Children receive services adequate to meet their physical, emotional & mental health needs.........................................................................................................31

D. Public Agency Characteristics.........................................................................................34 D1. Size & Structure of Agencies....................................................................................34 D2. County Government Structure..................................................................................35 Financial/Material Resources...........................................................................................36 Political Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................40

E. Systemic Factors.............................................................................................................44 E1. Relevant Management Information Systems............................................................44 E2. Case Review System................................................................................................45 E3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment & Retention....................................51 E4. Quality Assurance System........................................................................................54 E5. Service Array ............................................................................................................58 E6. Staff/Provider Training ..............................................................................................66 E7. Agency Collaborations..............................................................................................70

F. Summary Assessment....................................................................................................82

of 88

Acknowledgements

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) would like to thank the County Self Assessment (CSA) team members listed below for their hard work, commitment and contributions to this effort. This report could not have been written without their expertise and dedication. This assessment reflects many hours of discussion among the CSA team members in an effort to more accurately evaluate the child welfare system in Riverside County.

Board of Supervisors Karen Christensen Kristen Huyck Leticia DeLara Robin Reid

Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, Children’s Services Division Agatha Lowder Aggie Jenkins Al Albanez Allison Donahoe-

Beggs Amanda Spratley Ayantu Negash

Barry Dewing Belinda Christensen

Bridgette Hernandez Bruce Rudberg Catherine

McEntyre Chris Rosselli

Danna Kipnis Darrell Clark David Terrell Dean Wilson Diane Gentz Diane Jamerson

Donna Avery Felix Minjarez Garrett Bethel Gilbert Barron Giovanna Sedwick Guadalupe Dier

Guillermo Henry Gwenne Castor Ha-young Park Holly Benton Ivy Duong Jennie Pettet Jennifer Pabustan-Claar Jewel Pabustan Juana Hoevertsz Kristen

Thompson Laura Fuller Laurie Fineman

Linda Kim Linn Ramirez Lisa Sayles Lisa Shiner Lupe Mkhitaryan Maria Gutierrez

Maria Machuca Marna Miller Martha Matus Mary Ault Mary Ellen Johnston Melissa Duffield

Monah Hanson Monica Iriarte Monica Mathis Monique Wilson Nancy Satterwhite Nkoli Nwufo

Olga Nassif Pat O’Boyle Pauline McCarty-Snead

Phil Breitenbucher Phoung Mach Renita Lewis

Robert Sanchez Rosemary Jiron Ryan Uhlenkott Shari Voorhees Susan Mahoney Sylvia Deporto Tamera Blankenship Tammy Palmer Tee Granderson Teresa Solomon-

Billings Tiffany Noonan Terri Alberts

Todd Bellanca Vanessa Passero

Riverside County Probation Department Brandon Vang Bryce Hulstrom Cliff Vasquez Irma Botkin Mark Hake Neil Smith Patty Mendoza

Additional Government Agency Partners Name Agency Name Agency

Alfred Bell Superior Court of California Allison Haynes Office of Education Barbara Hofman CASA Bridgette Carson Mental Health Bruce Jorgensen Moreno Valley Unified Schools ChaiTae Hasty-Rodriguez Regional Medical Center Chalon Perrell Office on Aging Cherry Macalino Public Health Christine Peterson City of Moreno Valley Christine Thornberry District Attorney’s Office Cynthia Marez Prevent Child Abuse David Giertych Office of Education Deborah Sutton CASA Diane Radican Mental Health Diem Nguyen Office of Education Dorothy Reichard Corona-Norco Unified Schools Eldon Baber Prevent Child Abuse Erlys Daily Mental Health Eva Guenther-James Prevent Child Abuse Gil Murujo Desert Sands Unified Schools

Continued on next page

of 88

Additional Government Agency Partners (cont.) Name Agency Name Agency

J. Uniqua Burgess First 5 Riverside County Jaime Briones Moreno Valley Police Jan Powel Office of Education Joel Morales Sheriff’s Department John Wiser Office on Aging Justene Flores Sheriff’s Department Ken Schmidt Moreno Valley Unified Schools Lacey Lenon Office of Education Laura Fuller DPSS Administration Lauren Rodriguez City of Moreno Valley London Pickering Indio Police Department Maria Cox Mental Health Mary Grothem Corona-Norco Unified Schools Mike Elliot Moreno Valley Police Pamela Miller Superior Court of California Patty Rucker Moreno Valley Unified

Schools Ralph Jacobsson Mental Health Rochelle Pollard City of Moreno Valley Rod Jaffe DPSS Contract & Services Ruth Kantorowicz Child Abuse Prevention

Center Sandra Schack Office of Education Steve Steinberg Mental Health Tamera Blankenship District Attorney’s Office Tammi Meeks Regional Medical Center Tawnie Caballero Corona-Norco Unified Schools Theresa Alvarez Office of Education Tom Thomazin Mental Health Tracey Gomez Regional Medical Center Veronica Hilton Public Health Vicki Pollard Desert Sands Unified Schools Victor Bonds Moreno Valley Unified Schools Xochitl Velasquez Desert Sands Unified Schools

Community Partners and Stakeholders Name Agency Name Agency

Dr. Abby Alaswe Avante Garde FFA Ana Arias United Way Anne Coleman JFK Memorial Foundation Annette Cihuahua Indian Child & Family

Services Art Hernandez Parent Partner Beth Barker Jr. League of Riverside

County Candy Curiel Family Services Association Carl Bruno For the Children Association Cary Eatmon Muse Ark, Inc. Catherine Cee New Generations Church Cecilia Brown Martha’s Kitchen Chalon Perrell Grandparents Raising

Grandchildren Chanise Scott Betty Ford Center Chantel Schuering Agua Caliente Band of

Cahuilla Indians Darlene Bell Daughters & Sons United Debbie Millias Foster Parent Partner Debora Mickelson Volunteer Center of Riverside Doña Gaje Indian Child & Family

Services Donna Wray Foster Parent Partner Doug Cable For the Children Association Ed Butler JFK Memorial Foundation Ed Shipley 7 Habits of Parenting Edith Nevins S. California Wellness Project Eudora Mitchell Quinn Community Outreach Faith Karetji Olive Crest Fayza Gerges Atlantica Group Home Fonda McBemsey Safe House Gary McMane Catholic Charities Gary Melton Inland Empire Health Plan Genevieve Aparicio Child Abuse Prevention

Center Gloria Stripling Path of Life Ministries Haijin Li Parents Anonymous Heidi Meadows Moreno Valley’s Promise Hitaji Kidogo Little People’s World Holly Chavez Alternatives to Domestic

Violence Irene Becker PCWTA

Issac Vega Riverside Community College Jacqueline Luna Inland Regional Center Jeannine Rodriguez Children’s Way FFA Jeff Cayton Cambridge


of 88

Community Partners and Stakeholders (cont.) Name Agency Name Agency

Jeremy Johnson Riverside Community College

Jillian Carrington Alannah FFA

Jodi VandeWitte, Attorney Juvenile Defense Panel John Sousa Riverside Community College

Joy Southerland Volunteer Center of Riverside

Julie Stenger Child Care Consortium

Kanisha Jones Silence Aloud, Inc. Kate Thibault Alternatives to Domestic Violence

Kathy Theemling Olive Crest Kerri Dunkelberger Olive Crest Kevin Urtz Inland Regional Center Kim Piron Catholic Charities Kimberly Harts Alternatives to Domestic

Violence Lisa Molina MFI Recovery Center

Lovina Yearly Indian Child & Family Services

Luke Madrigal Indian Child & Family Services

Luz Mocete Concept 7 FFA Marcell Vargas Boy Scouts of America Maria Muniz Youth Partner Martha Villalobos Foster Parent Partner Mary Jo Ramirez California Family Life

Center Michael Alafa Youth Partner

Misty Rock Parent Partner Norma Toro-Hernandez Inland Regional Center Olivia Gutierrez Inland Regional Center Pamela Elie-Dunkley California Family Life

Center Peggy McGillicuddy Betty Ford Center Peggy Polisky Parents Anonymous Penny Davis Riverside Community

College Phillip Ferree Ferree’s Group Home

Rachel Hamilton PCWTA Dr. Renda Dionne Indian Child & Family Services

Rita Domond Turning Point Group Home Rev. Robert Harris Civil Air Patrol Cadets Rod Walker California Family Life

Center Rosalin Madrigal Alternatives to Domestic

Violence Sandra Toney Children’s Way FFA Sandra Williams PA Inc. Sheila Stephenson California Family Life

Center Shugella Weaver-Thomas Turning Point Group Home

Silvia Signoret For the Children Association

Sohair Bestawrous Atlantica Group Home

Stella Ruzzamenti Alternatives to Domestic Violence

Sue Clemente Boy Scouts of America

Susan Francis JFK Memorial Foundation Tino Valdez Alannah FFA Tony Aidukas For the Children

Association Valerie Petty Inland Regional Center

Veronica Yearly Indian Child & Family Services

Vickie Sesma Inland Regional Center

Victoria Stephen The Stephan Center Viola Lindsey Loma Linda University

of 88

of 88

A. Demographic Profile

A1. Demographics of the General Population

Introduction The purpose of this section is to provide general demographic data to describe the

context in which Riverside County’s child welfare services are provided. The demographic analysis section presents Census population estimates for 2000 and 2006. The data presented in this section has been summarized using the U. S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey Estimates.

General County Demographics

Riverside County is located in the southeastern region of California, bordered to the north by San Bernardino and to the south by San Diego and Imperial Counties. Riverside County extends from Orange County on its western border to the Colorado River, sharing its eastern border with Arizona. Riverside County has the fourth (4th) largest land area and the fourth (4th) largest population in California with a population growth of over 31.2% since 2000.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey Estimate, Riverside County is home to more than two (2) million people, with a median age of 32 years and an ethnic makeup of 43% White/Caucasian, 42.2% Hispanic/Latino, 5.8% Black/African American, 5.1% Asian, 0.5% Native American, 0.2% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 3.2% other. The County’s diversity is further emphasized when one (1) of every five (5) residents is foreign-born and almost one (1) of every three (3) speaks a language other than English in the home.

Household Type

Riverside County is composed of 471,125 families, 40% of which are raising children under the age of 18 years. Riverside County is home to 552,853 children, ages 0-17, which is 6% of California’s child population. The County’s average family size of 3.61 is slightly higher than that of the State average of 3.54.

Between 1997 and 2006, the overall birth rate in Riverside County to mothers, ages 15 to 19 years old, has steadily declined from 65.4 live births per 1,000 in population in 1997 to 41.4 live births per 1,000 in population in 2006. This represents a 37% decrease in births to teen mothers in Riverside County. From 1997 to 2004, the sharpest reduction rates were among African American teen mothers with a 74% decline. Hispanics have the highest rate of teen births, almost 50% higher than the County-wide average. Of all the births in the County, 7% were low birth weight infants.

Mirroring the State of California, nine (9) of every 100 families in Riverside County have an income rate under the Federal poverty level. Female single head of households with children under eighteen (18) years of age represent 30.7% of these families.

Poverty Approximately 12.2% of individuals in Riverside County are living with income under

the Federal poverty level. The prevalence of poverty in Riverside County has declined by approximately 2% between 2000 and 2006.


of 88

A1. Demographics of the General Population, Continued

Poverty (continued)

According to the U.S. Census “County and City Data Book: 2007,” Riverside County’s unemployment rate in 2006 was 5% of the total County’s civilian labor force, compared to 5.4% in 2000. According to C-IV data, in July 2008, 24,006 families in Riverside County received public assistance (CalWORKs). Riverside County’s Department of Public Health reported that in 2005, approximately 72,000 (14%) children ages 0-17 year old in Riverside County were without some form of health insurance for all or part of the family. The lack of health insurance continues to negatively impact the wellness of many County residents, but community efforts to enroll eligible children in an appropriate health program continues.

Active Tribes Riverside County is unique in that there are eleven (11) Federally recognized Native

American Tribes which reside within the County. These include the Agua Caliente, Augustine, Cabazon, Cahuilla, Morongo, Pechanga, Ramona, Santa Rosa, Soboba, Torres-Martinez and Twenty-Nine Palms Tribes.

The Riverside County Tribal Alliance for Indian Children and Families, which was formed in 2005, meets three (3) times a year to increase participation, communication, and understanding among the Court, the Tribes, and County agencies serving Native American families.

Additionally, Riverside County DPSS meets quarterly with Indian Child and Family Services (ICFS). ICFS represents a consortium of seven (7) of the 11 local Tribes in Riverside County; Cahuilla, Morongo, Pechanga, Santa Rosa, San Manuel, Torres-Martinez, and Twenty-Nine Palms.

A2. Child Welfare Services Participation Rates

Comparison of Child Welfare Participation Rates

In the following section, child welfare participation rates for Riverside County and the State of California are provided in the context of key child welfare indicators. In summary, Riverside County’s child welfare participation rate (per 1,000 children) is higher than that of the State. More specifically, Riverside County’s rate of child abuse reports are more frequent, with higher probability of abuse substantiation and child placement in foster care:

Measure California Riverside # children in general population < 18 years of age in 2007

10,007,501 594,358

# and rate of children with referrals in 2007 492,645 49.2 per 1,000 37,903 63.8 per 1,000


A2. Child Welfare Services Participation Rates, Continued

Comparison of Child Welfare Participation Rates (continued)

Measure California Riverside # and rate of children with substantiated referrals in 2007

106,706 10.7 per 1,000 8,389 14.1 per 1,000

# and rate of first entries in 2007 38,976 3.9 per 1,000 3,748 6.3 per 1,000

# and rate of children in out of home care as of 72,557 7.3 per 1,000 5,817 9.8 per 1,000

Key Findings Riverside County’s participation rates increased between 2004 and 2006, with the

exception of the rate of substantiated allegations. The rate of substantiated allegations remained stable at about 16 per 1,000 children in the County during the same period.

In 2007 the County’s rate of referrals, substantiations, and first entries decreased. The rate of children in out of home placement, however, increased slightly from 9.3 per 1,000 children in 2006 to 9.8 per 1,000 children in 2007. Over the last three (3) years, Riverside County’s participation rates (referrals, substantiations, all entries, and children in out of home care) have remained higher than the State’s average (see Figure 1).

CWS Participation Rates

0.0

10.020.0

30.0

40.0

50.060.0

70.0

2004 2005 2006 2007

Rat

e Pe

r 1,0

00

Referrals Substantiations Entries In Care

Figure 1

Source: CWS/CM S 2007 Quarter 4 Extract


of 88


Caseload Demographics

Number and Rate of Referrals, Substantiations and Out of Home Care By Ethnicity and Age

Consistent with Riverside County’s child population demographics, Hispanic and Caucasian children continue to have the highest number of referrals and substantiations compared to other ethnic groups in the County. The following graph (Figure 2), compares the percent of total child population, referrals and substantiations by ethnicity. The graph indicates that Hispanic and White children have a fairly proportionate representation compared to the total child population. In contrast, Black and Native American children appear to have the highest representation compared to their percentages in the population. Black children comprise about 12% of referrals and substantiations, but only 6.6% of the total child population. Asian/Pacific Islanders have the lowest rate of referrals and substantiations for all ethnicities.

2007 Referrerals, Substantiations, First Entries and In Care Representation compared to Total Child Population

6.612.1 11.8 12.6 16.5

36.229.6 28.5 28.3

28.9

50.3 49.6 53.2 55.6 52.5

3.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.91.11.00.80.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Riv Child Pop. Referrals Substantiations First Entries In Care

Black White Hispanic Asian/P.I. Nat. Amer

Figure 2

Source: CWS/CMS 2007 Quarter 4 Extract

From 2004 to 2006, the rate of first entries in out-of home care tended to be the highest for children under the age of one (1) year old, followed by children ages 1 - 2 year old. This data is consistent with children’s risk and safety assessment factors and characteristics that very young children are more vulnerable and more likely to experience certain forms of maltreatment due to their small physical size, early developmental status, and need for constant care. In contrast, children in the 16-17 year old age group have the lowest rate of first entries. There appears to be a downward trend in rate of prevalence of first entry as the age of the child increases (see Figure 3).


of 88


Caseload Demographics (continued) First Entries Incidence Per 1,000 by Age

Group

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2004 2005 2006 2007

Rat

e Pe

r 1,0

00

<1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-17

Figure 3


The total number of children in care has increased by about 24% since 2004.The rate of children in care per 1,000 children in Riverside County is 9.8. Hispanic children account for more than half of the out-of- home placement caseload in Riverside County, proportionate to the total child population. White children account for approximately 29% of the out of home placements, a decrease from 35% as reported in the 2004 CSA (see Figure 4). The prevalence rates per 1,000 children for Black and Native American children are higher compared to other ethnic groups (24.5 and 22.4 per 1,000 respectively). Black and Native American children are again disproportionately represented in the County’s out of home placement caseloads. Asian/Pacific Islander children are slightly underrepresented (See Figure 2).

Children in Foster Care, by Ethnicity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2005 2006 2007Black White Hispanic Asian/P.I Nat Amer

Figure 4



of 88

of 88


Caseload Demographics (continued) (continued)

On July 1, 2007, children ages 6-10 and 11-15 years old had the highest number of cases (23% and 27%), and children under one (1) year had the lowest (7%). The prevalence rate per 1,000 children in care is highest for children ages 0-5 years old. Native Americans have very high prevalence rates for children 0-5 years old. Black children have the highest prevalence rates for children ages 6-10, 11-15 and 16-17 years old.

A3. Education System Profile

Introduction The purpose of this section is to provide a brief description of the County’s education

system. The data presented in this section is a summary provided by Riverside County’s Office of Education (http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us)

Educational Structure

Riverside County currently has 23 public school districts that extend services to 404 school sites. The Riverside County Office of Education is the service agency that supports the 23 school districts and links them with the California Department of Education. During the 2006-2007 school year, Riverside County’s enrollment was 401,995 students, comprising 3.9% of the total student population in the State of California. The County’s continuing growth is reflected through a 45% enrollment increase in kindergarten through 12th grades from 1997-2007.

Student Demographics

The student population is more diverse than the general population. In 2006-2007 the student body was comprised of children from the following ethnic groups: Hispanic or Latino (54.9%), White/Caucasian (29.3%), African American (7.4%), Asian/Pacific Islander (4.9%), American Indian (0.7%), and other/multiple or no response (2.7%).

The diversity of the student population is further emphasized when one of every four or 25% of students are limited in their ability to speak English. Of these, approximately 95.2% of the students speak Spanish, while other languages included Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, and Arabic. However, the percent of students scoring at or above the proficient level on the California Standards Test (CSTs) in the English Language Arts section has increased by 11% since 2001.


http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/

of 88

A3. Education System Profile, Continued

Educational Achievement

On average, the percentage of Riverside County students that met public college requirements is lower (28.6%) than the State average (35.9%). The ethnic proportions of those students eligible to attend a University of California or California State University in the year 2007 were as follows: Asians, 51%, Filipino, 42%, Pacific Islander, 32%, Caucasian/White, 35%, African American, 23%, Hispanic, 21%, and Native American, 27%. The 2006-2007 results of Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) were lower than the State average (see table below).

RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAT RESULTS 2006-2007 County te Sta

# of Students tested 9 6 8,41 162,78% of Seniors Tested 30 37 Average Critical Reading Score 0 3 47 49Average Math Score 1 3 48 51Average Writing Score 7 1 46 49Average Total Score1 8 7 141 1491 Rounding Difference May occur

Source: California Department of Education, Policy and Evaluation Division

In 2006, 78% of people 25 years and over had graduated from high school and 19% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Twenty-two (22) percent were dropouts, meaning they were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school.

Special Programs

There are numerous special programs that serve students who meet certain eligibility criteria. Assistance is provided in different ways such as a hot meal during the school day, special education, and subsidized child care.

More than half of the students enrolled in Riverside County schools during the 2006-2007 school year received free or reduced fee meals. Additionally, Riverside County schools serve 42,352 students with disabilities between the ages of 0-20 years old.

According to Jill Johnson, Eligibility Coordinator for the Division of Children and Family Services with Riverside County Office of Education, Riverside County currently has 5,933 children on a waiting list for subsidized child care. The lack of affordable child care continues to negatively impact children and families in the State of California and Riverside County.

of 88

B. Peer Quality Case Review

Children’s Services Division & Probation

Introduction The Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) was conducted during the week of March 24

through March 28, 2008 involving a joint process between the Riverside County Department Public Social Services, Children’s Services Division (CSD) and Riverside County Department of Probation. The information gathered during the case review, as well as the interviews with the social workers, supervisors and youth, all contributed to the findings discussed in the original PQCR report. Below is a summary of the themes shared during the PQCR process. These themes have been categorized into six (6) primary areas:

Strengths Services & Resources Staffing Training Court Structured Decision Making

Strengths Enhanced communication and rapport with clients or service providers was the most

often identified strength for both CSD and Probation. Likewise, involving clients in the development of their case plan and the use of Team Decision Making meetings were also cited as strong practice skills. Lastly, the commitment to connect families to social support networks such as extended family and community partners were described as strengths in the County practice.

Services & Resources

Service quality, quantity, and availability were common areas of focus for both CSD and Probation. Services were described as being both an area of strength and an area for improvement. Both CSD and Probation staff agreed that quality service provision had a direct and positive impact on the ability to successfully reunify children with their parents. Similarly, it was repeatedly noted that the lack of services in some areas, poor quality services in other areas, long waiting lists, lack of age specific services, lack of in home services and Spanish speaking services, inflexible service delivery times, and non-existent aftercare programs all hampered the ability for social workers and probation officers to successfully return children to their parents.

Staffing PQCR participants identified staffing issues and high caseloads as a consistent

theme throughout the PQCR process. Though it was recognized that caseload size has fallen over the last year for CSD, the participants noted that high caseloads and staff turnover have a negative effect on the ability to successfully reunify dependents with their parents and return wards to their communities. Similarly, more consultation time with supervisors and the need for increased case conferencing opportunities was identified. Lastly, the need for more flexible work schedules was identified as a way to ensure clients’ needs are met.


of 88

A3. Education System Profile, Continued

Training Training was identified as a major need in both departments. Case workers reported

being under-trained for their respective jobs. Both CSD and Probation staff cited the need for additional training in cultural sensitivity, case plan development, and risk/safety assessment. Case workers also indicated support for a mentoring program and a work environment focused on supporting their ongoing need for training. Staff in both departments identified their ability to dedicate portions of their time to attend training sessions as a barrier to participating in available training opportunities.

Juvenile Court Both CSD and Probation described the legal process as needing improvement.

CSD staff noted the need for consistent representation by County Counsel at all hearings, rigid legal time frames, and pressure from the Juvenile Court to return children prior to the completion of the case plan were all cited as areas of concern. Likewise, children being returned against the social worker’s recommendation and a perceived lack of parental accountability were reported to negatively impact successful reunification.

Probation staff indicated a need to hold parents accountable and for the Juvenile Court not to send children home prematurely as an area of needed improvement.

Structured Decision Making

The Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools were identified by CSD as both an area of strength and concern. Some social workers and supervisors reported the tool to be very helpful in assessing the family’s readiness for reunification. More social workers reported the tool was not an aid in the assessment/decision making process of the case. It was reported that the tool is not “user friendly” and could be easily manipulated to agree with what the social worker has predetermined prior to the completion of the tool. Although SDM use is high, the value and logic of the model has not been fully embraced by social workers.

of 88

C. Outcomes

Introduction The outcomes section analyzes the trends in Riverside County’s performance on

State and Federal required measures, using data obtained from the Center of Social Service Research (CSSR), University of California Berkeley’s website.

Safety 1: Children are first & foremost protected from abuse & neglect

Overview: Safety Indicators

Overall, in the area of safety, Riverside County has maintained its ability to ensure that children are safe in their homes and/or in out of home care. Riverside County maintains an Out of Home Investigations (OHI) unit which investigates all allegations of abuse in out of home care. Further, Riverside County has employed two (2) additional strategies to reduce the rate of maltreatment for children in out of home care. One strategy was the development of a standardized model of Foster Parent training known as PRIDE training. The second strategy was the implementation of the Family to Family Initiative, especially the use of Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings.

S1.1: No Recurrence of Maltreatment

Indicator S1.1 reflects the percentage of children who did not have a subsequent substantiated referral within six months of the initial substantiation. Riverside County's performance has remained steady over time at a 94% success rate. The County’s current performance during the 2007 calendar year is 94.3%, higher than the State average of 92.9% and close to the National standard of 94.6%.

No Recurrence of Maltreatment Review Period Riverside California National Standard

Jan. ‘06- Dec. ’06 94.2% 92.3% 94.6% Jan. ‘07- Dec. ’07 94.3% 92.9% 94.6%

S2.1: No Maltreatment in Foster Care

Indicator S2.1 reflects the percentage of children who were not victims of a substantiated maltreatment allegation by a foster parent/facility staff while in out of home care. Over time, Riverside County has continued to perform at a steady success rate of 99.6% over the last three quarters of 2007. The National standard for this measure is 99.68%.

No Maltreatment in Foster Care Review Period Riverside California National Standard

Jan. ‘06- Dec. ’06 99.51% 99.75% 99.68% Jan. ‘07- Dec. ’07 99.56% 99.66% 99.68%


of 88

Safety 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible & appropriate

Measure 2B: Timely Response

10-Day Response Compliance

The 10-day response compliance measure reflects the percentage of the total 10-day response referrals that have resulted in an in-person (or attempted) visit within ten (10) days of receipt of the referral. Over a year period, Riverside County has experienced a consistent increase in this process from 74.4% in report period 10/06– 12/06 to 86.8% in report period 10/07–12/07. One significant factor contributing to Riverside County’s improved performance on this measure is the County’s focus on improving staff education and training regarding time lines. Riverside County’s current performance of 86.8% continues to remain below the State average of 90.6%.

Immediate Response Compliance

The immediate response compliance reflects percentage of total immediate response referrals that have resulted in an in-person or attempted visit within 24 hours of receipt of the referral. Riverside County is currently at a 97.6% compliance rate which is slightly higher than the State average of 96.5%.

Measure 2C: Timely Social Worker Visits

The timely social worker visits measure is designed to determine if social workers are complying with required monthly visitations with dependent children. The table below illustrates Riverside County's improved performance in the most recent four (4) months. In the 2004 CSA, Riverside County’s performance on this measure ranged from 73.5% to 83%. Since quarter one of 2007, Riverside County’s performance has ranged from 94.6% to 97.2%. Since 2007, Riverside County has continued to perform better than the State average, which could be attributed to supervisors’ effective use of monitoring tools (i.e. case reports, Safe Measures).

Timely Social Work Visits Aug. 2007 Sept. 2007 Oct. 2007 Nov. 2007 Dec. 2007

Riverside 96.8% 96.0% 96.3% 96.4% 97.2%

California 90.1% 89.7% 90.1% 89.6% 89.7%


of 88

Permanency 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations without increasing reentry into foster care

Measure 2C: Timely Probation Officer Visits with Youth

In order to ensure that the probation officer is making monthly face-to-face contact with the youth in placement, the supervisor periodically audits the officer’s caseload, randomly calls the facility to inquire as to the care provider’s contact with a probation officer, and closely monitors the FC23 form.

With regard to 241.1 W&IC/Dual Status cases, if the Probation Department is the lead agency, the probation officer is required to make monthly contact with the youth. If CSD is the lead agency, then the social worker makes the monthly face-to-face contact. However, the probation officer continues to be available to the group home and the social worker to answer any questions regarding the youth’s probation status. For the youth having difficulty adjusting to being at the group home, the probation officer may be required to make face-to-face contact with the youth until stabilization is noted.

Pursuant to Division 31-320, section .414, the probation officer shall visit the youth at least once each calendar month, with at least a two-week time frame between visits and document the visits in the youth’s case plan.

Every probation officer submits statistics at the end of the month on form FC23, labeled “Probation Foster Care Placement Monthly Caseload Statistical Report,” which is provided to the department by the California Department of Social Services. The form outlines how many times a youth in placement was seen during the month and if a face-to- face visit was not made, then the probation officer is to list the reason why a contact was not made with the youth. The same form allows for a listing of how many face-to-face visits were made with the parent, as well as with the care provider.

Measure 8A: Children Transitioning to Self-sufficient Adulthood (includes both CSD and Probation youth)

Riverside County continues its effort to improve outcomes for foster and probation youth as they transition out of care. The Independent Living Program (ILP) is an integral component to the success of youth in this County. Riverside County’s ILP offers eligible youth, ages 16-21 years old with an array of services through Riverside Community College (RCC). The Workforce Preparation Department at RCC provides training, advocacy, mentoring and support services to aid all foster youth in developing competencies in areas such as education, career development, health and safety, daily living and financial resources.

In addition, Riverside County offers a transitional housing program for emancipated foster/probation youth, Transitional Housing Program-Plus (THP-Plus). THP-Plus is a transitional housing opportunity for youth, ages 18-24 years old, who have emancipated from the child welfare system. The goal of the program is to provide a safe living environment while helping youth achieve self-sufficiency so that they may learn needed life skills upon leaving the foster care support system.

CSD recently implemented an Independent Living Program region to further assist in improving outcomes for foster youth. In an effort to accomplish this, the ILP region has fostered the concept of an ILP redesign. The ILP redesign ensures that youth transition plans for independent living are individualized, with four (4) specific/ achievable goals that are developed in partnership with the youth, the caregiver, the primary social worker and any other adults invested in the youth's success.


of 88

Permanency 1: Children have permanency & stability in their living situations without increasing reentry into foster care, Continued

Measure 8A: Children Transitioning to Self-sufficient Adulthood (includes both CSD and Probation youth) (continued)

CSD recently implemented an Independent Living Program region to further assist in improving outcomes for foster youth. In an effort to accomplish this, the ILP region has fostered the concept of an ILP redesign. The ILP redesign ensures that youth transition plans for independent living are individualized, with four (4) specific/achievable goals that are developed in partnership with the youth, the caregiver, the primary social worker and any other adults invested in the youth's success.

Riverside County is also in the process of developing a leadership team to form a consortium that will help guide and support the countywide effort to help prepare youth to live independently. The consortium will act as intermediate support in the development and enhancement of resources that focus on the four (4) core areas of education, permanency, employment, and health and safety that impact vulnerable youth in Riverside County.

There are currently 3,015 County youth that have been referred to Riverside Community College for ILP services. According to the Independent Living Program (ILP) Annual Statistical Report (SOC 405A), of the 2,323 youth that received ILP services between October 2006 and September 2007, 28% (665) obtained a high school diploma or equivalent. Of the 173 youth enrolled in college, 79% (137) attended a community college and 21% (36) attended a four-year university.

According to the U.C. Berkeley Report, of the children between the ages of 16-17 years old exiting out of home care for the period of October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2007, approximately 28% exited by emancipation. For the 18-20 age group exiting out of home care, approximately 89% were by emancipation. Of the youth 16-17 years old that emancipated, approximately 64% were in care less than three (3) years and approximately 36% were in care three (3) years or longer. For the 18 year olds that emancipated during the same twelve month period, approximately 56% were in care less than three (3) years and approximately 44% were in care three (3) years or longer.

Overview: Reunification Composite

In general, Riverside County social workers are able to assist families to successfully reunify within one (1) year of the child’s removal from home. However, the County’s child reentry rate of 13% must be considered when planning service intervention strategies.


of 88


C1.1 and C1.3: Reunification within 12 Months (Entry/ Exit Cohort)

Indicators C1.1 and C1.3: Reunification within 12 Months

The reunification measures are designed to reflect the percentage of children reunified with their parents within 12 months of removal from the home.

Children’s Services Division (CSD)

Over the last five report periods, the CSD has experienced an overall increase in the rate of children that have been in care for less than 12 months, performing above the State average. More specifically in 2007, regarding C1.1 (exit cohort), 73.1% of children that reunified with their parents had been in care less than 12 months, which is higher than the State average of 64.2% and very close to the National standard of 75.2%. Regarding C1.3 (entry cohort), the CSD’s most recent performance for period July 2006 to December 2006 is 48.6%, which is higher than the State average of 40.8% and the National standard of 48.4%.

Probation Department

Over the past four (4) years, the rate of reunification within 12 months for Probation youth has remained below the State average and the National standard. The Probation Department’s performance for report period 04/07-03/08 is 25.2%, which is much lower than the State average of 64.2% and National standard of 75.2%. Over a period of two (2) years, the Department has experienced a decrease in this measure from 33.6% in report period 04/05-03/06 to 25.2% in report period 04/07-03/08. The Probation Department’s median time to reunification is about 17 months, which is longer than the State average of 7.9 months and the National standard of 5.4 months.

Several factors have been identified that are believed to impact the Probation Department’s performance on reunification outcomes. One factor that may contribute to length of stay in out of home care, is the youth’s treatment needs and the level of intervention required. Youth requiring a higher level of care such as a Rate Classification Level (RCL) 12 placement, spend more time in out of home care. Additionally, many youth leave RCL 12 program facilities without permission, resulting in further court action which may extend their time in out of home care. Another factor impacting reunification is the age of the youth at the time of placement. Youth who are age 13 or 14 years old are more likely to act impulsively which impacts placement stability and adjustment. Lastly, the commitment of both the parents and the youth in adhering to the case plan goals is a factor that can impact the length of time a youth remains in the Probation system.


of 88


C1.2: Median Time to Reunify within 12 Months

The measure C1.2 reflects the median length of stay in out of home care in months for children who reunified. Over the past four (4) years, Riverside County has successfully maintained a median reunification time of seven (7) months for the child’s initial removal. Riverside County’s most current performance of 7.1 months is shorter than the State average of 7.9 months and longer than the National standard of 5.4 months. Since 2006, median time to reunification has decreased for all ethnicities, except for Hispanic children. Months to reunification for Hispanic children increased from 6.9 months in report period 01/06-12/06, to 7.6 months in report period 01/07-12/07. Median time to reunify is lowest for children under the age of one (1) year old, at approximately three (3) months, and highest for the ages 16-17 years old at approximately eight (8) months to reunification.

Median Time to Reunify within 12 Months

01/04-12/04 01/05-12/05 01/06-12/06 01/07-12/07

Riverside 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.1

California 8.7 8.4 7.9 7.9

These three (3) indicators show that Riverside County continues to be successful in timely reunification.

Since the implementation of Structured Decision Making in Riverside County, all families are assessed using the “Reunification Re-assessment” tool. This tool assists social workers to determine if a parent(s) is prepared for the return of their child(ren) and if it is safe to return the child(ren) to a parent’s care. Further, Team Decision Making meetings have been implemented in targeted zip codes in Riverside County. These meetings ensure that community and family support systems are in place at the onset of their child welfare case and ongoing safety plans are in place for the family. This assists families with needed support to successfully reunify.

C1.4: Reentry within 12 Months of Reunification

The reentry measure reflects the percentage of children who re-enter foster care after reunification services are provided to the families.

Children’s Services Division (CSD)

The CSD has experienced a decrease in performance in this measure. Over time, the rate of reentry has slowly increased from 13.4%, as reported in the 2004 quarter three Outcomes and Accountability County Data Report, to 14.6% reported in the 2007 quarter three report. The County’s performance improved from 14.6% to 13% in the most recent quarter. The most current reentry rate is still higher than the State average of 11.3%, and the National standard of 9.9%.

Internal analysis of children who reunified in 2006 showed that children who were removed once again within 12 months were more likely to be 0-5 years old and were placed in non-kinship care. Children under the age of five (5) years old are considered to be more vulnerable to abuse and neglect.


of 88


C1.4: Reentry within 12 Months of Reunification (continued)


Although this reunification rate is lower than expected, the Probation Department continues to be successful in ensuring that youth who are reunified are not returning to out of home care. On measure C1.4, reentry following reunification, Probation’s current performance for report period 04/06-03/07 is 6.1%, lower than State average of 11.3% and the National standard of 9.9%. Over the last four (4) report periods, the Probation Department has continued to perform better than the State average and the National standard.

The success rate on this measure may be attributed to consistent monthly contact between Probation Officers, youth and parents while the youth is in out of home placement and after the youth return home. These meetings help to ensure the safety and well-being of the youth and provide opportunities to review the case plan and service objectives. Furthermore, within the last five (5) to eight (8) years, reduced caseloads for case carrying probation officers has allowed for more frequent contact with the youth and their family and increased case plan compliance.

Due to the County's desire to improve overall performance on this measure, reentry was identified as an area of focus in the County’s Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) in March 2008. Stakeholder feedback, both during the 2008 PQCR and the County's Self Assessment process, indicated the need for increased communication and coordination of services between CSD, community partners and the Juvenile Court.

Community partners and stakeholders identified the following areas of concern that may impact Riverside County's high rate of reentry into out of home care:

the lack of a transition plan when children are returned home, which includes community support systems and services

frequent social worker changes and limited worker-to-worker case consultation upon case transfers

the Juvenile Court prematurely closing cases before the case plan is complete or closing cases against CSD recommendations

termination of contracts mid-service delivery when clients might not have completed all case plan requirements

limited face-to-face contact with family (children, parents, and caregivers) to assess needs and monitor progress

the lack of effective parenting classes where parents can learn skills which they can apply to real life parenting situations

Note: see Attachments B through K: PQCR and CSA Discussion Matrixes for additional information.

Overview: Adoption Composite

Overall, Riverside County has been continuously successful in securing adoptive families for children and finalizing adoption within 24 months.


of 88


C2.1: Adoption within 24 Months (Exit Cohort)

The adoption measure reflects the percentage of children adopted from foster care, within 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home. Riverside County’s performance in this measure continues to be an area of strength. Approximately, 35% of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption have been in care for less than 24 months. The most current performance rate of 34.5% as reported in the 2007 quarter four report is close to the National standard of 36.6%. As shown in the table below, Riverside County has consistently exceeded the State average on this measure

Adoption Within 24 Months 04/06-03/07 07/06-06/07 10/06/09/07 01/07-12/07

Riverside 33.1% 34.2% 35.6% 34.5% California 32.5% 32.6% 32.6% 31.2%

Riverside County continues to use concurrent planning to promote the goal that every child has a permanent, loving home. As part of the concurrent planning process, Riverside County maintains policy that mandates specific times for concurrent planning starting from the date the child is detained. This allows parents to take an active part in planning for their child’s future should the child be unable to safely return home.

Riverside County additionally employs the use of a “Child Available” process. This process begins at the time the Department recognizes that a child will be unable to return home. Through the “Child Available” process, the child is matched with a prospective adoptive home.

Children that may be difficult to place due to their age, number of siblings, or perhaps a disability are referred to the “Heart Gallery.” Through the Heart Gallery, continued recruitment of adoptive homes and training for caregivers, Riverside County is able to further ensure that all children will have permanency (see Section E. 3 Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment & Retention for additional information).

C2.2: Median Time to Adoption (Exit Cohort)

Measure C2.2 reflects the median length of stay in foster care in months from the date of latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption. Riverside County’s time to adoption is generally shorter than that of the State’s average as a whole. Riverside County’s most recent performance for calendar year 2007 is approximately two (2) months shorter than the State’s average overall median time line.

Median Time to Adoption (Months) 04/06– 3/07 07/06– 06/07 10/06– 09/07 01/07– 12/07

Riverside 28.4 27.9 27.7 28.0 California 29.7 29.5 29.6 29.8


of 88


C2.3: Adoption within 12 Months (17 Months in Care)

Measure C2.3 reflects the percentage of children in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer on the first day of the year and who were discharged to a finalized adoption by the last day of the year. In the last two years, Riverside County’s performance has remained above the State average and the National standard. Riverside County’s current performance is 25.5%, higher than the State average of 16.5% and the National standard of 22.7%.

C2.4: Legally Free within Six Months (17 Months in Care)

Measure C2.4 focuses on the number of children who are in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer and not legally free for adoption and then takes the proportion of children who become legally free for adoption within the next six (6) months.

Riverside County’s performance on this measure has decreased from 10.9% in report period 01/06-06/06 to 8.4% in report period 01/07-06/07. However, over the last four quarters, Riverside County’s performance on this has been higher than the statewide average but lower than the National standard. Riverside County’s most recent performance is 8.4%, compared to the statewide performance of 6.2% and the National goal of 10.9%.

C2.5: Adopted within 12 Months (Legally Free)

An area of strength for Riverside County includes the C2.5 measure which reflects the percentage of children adopted from foster care who are adopted within 12 months from the date that they became legally free. The most current performance rate of 56.6%, is higher than the State average of 55.3% and the National standard of 53.7%. Over time the County has consistently exceeded both the State average and National standard on this measure. A factor that is believed to contribute to Riverside County’s success in this outcome is the role of the Court. Riverside County Juvenile Court is careful to make rulings throughout the case that ensure that no underlying factors will surface at the time of adoption to delay the process. This helps to ensure that permanency is obtained quickly for children who are unable to safely return home.

C3.1, C3.2: Exit to Permanency (24 Months in Care/Legally Free at Exit)

C3.3: In Care 3 Years or Longer (Emancipated/ Age 18)

The three (3) measures for long term care examine the proportions of Riverside County youth who exit due to permanency or emancipation. Riverside County is performing better than the State average on all Long Term Care measures and Riverside County is above the National standard on two of the three measures. Indicators C3.1 and C3.2 reflect the percentage of children discharged to a permanent home prior to turning 18 years old. Approximately 30% of all children discharged to a permanent home prior to turning 18 years old have been in out of home care for 24 months or longer. Additionally, almost 100% of all children who were legally free for adoption were discharged to a permanent home prior to turning 18 years old. Conversely, in calendar year 2007, approximately 38.2% of children in foster care who emancipated or turned 18 years old while still in care had been in foster care three (3) years or longer, less than the State average of 59.4% but slightly higher than the National standard of 37.5%.


of 88


Overview: Placement Stability

In general, Riverside County has been able to successfully maintain stability in foster care placements. Children placed in kin care settings are more likely to experience one (1) or two (2) placement moves compared to children placed in FFA, foster home or group home settings. Regardless of the length of time in care, children in kin care settings are more likely to have only one (1) or two (2) placements than children in other placement settings.

C4.1. C4.2 and C4.3: In Foster Care (<12 months/ 12-24 Months/ >24 Months) with 1-2 Placements

The three (3) measures for placement stability examine the percentage of children in foster care who have had two (2) or fewer placements during a specified period of time. Riverside County’s overall performance in the placement stability measures have been consistently lower than the National standard on all three indicators and lower than the State average on two of the measures. Riverside County’s performance in measure C4.2 has increased over the last four reporting periods. During calendar year 2007, 61.6% of children in care 12 to 24 months experienced two or less placements. This is an improvement from 57.3% during the calendar year 2006.

Its is believed that the County’s implementation of the Family to Family Initiative and Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings have contributed to the County’s improved success rate on this measure. TDM meetings help to ensure that children are placed in the least restrictive, most appropriate setting. This has helped to reduce unnecessary placement moves for children. Further, Riverside County has implemented an after hours response through our Relative Assessment Unit (RAU). Responding social workers specialize in relative and non-related extended family member (NREFM) home assessments. This has also helped to ensure that children are rapidly placed in relative/NREFM homes.

Permanency 2: The continuity of family relationships & connections is preserved for the children

Measure 4A: Child Placement – All Siblings

The second permanency measure reflects the percentage of children who are placed with all of their siblings in out of home placement. Riverside County has experienced continued improvement in this measure over the past five years. Though there was a slight decrease in January 2006, the County’s performance has consistently stayed above the State average. In January 2008, the County’s performance was 58.1% which was higher than the State average of 49.8%.

Children Placed with Some or All Siblings Jan. 2004 Jan. 2005 Jan. 2006 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2008

Riverside 50.0% 53.1% 52.4% 54.4% 58.1% California 42.9% 44.3% 45.8% 47.3% 49.8%


of 88

Permanency 2: The continuity of family relationships & connections is preserved for the children, Continued

Measure 4A: Child Placement – Some or All Siblings

Measure 4A reflects the percentage of children who are placed with some or all of their siblings in out of home placement. Over time, Riverside County has continued to experience a yearly improvement on this measure from 75% in January 2004 to 78.5% in January 2008. The County’s most recent performance in January 2008 is 78.5% which is higher than the State average of 70.5%.

Children Placed with Some or All Siblings Jan. 2004 Jan. 2005 Jan. 2006 Jan. 2007 Jan. 2008

Riverside 75.0% 75.4% 75.5% 77.4% 78.5% California 66.5% 67.0% 68.2% 69.0% 70.5%

This measure indicates that Riverside County is successful in placing children with some or all siblings. This has been one of the major focus areas for the County. One of the factors that affect performance in this measure and the likelihood that siblings are placed together is the size of the sibling group. There appears to be a downward trend in the number of children being placed together as the size of the sibling group goes up, implying the need to recruit foster homes willing to accommodate larger sibling groups. A review of the most recent quarterly report reveals that children placed in kin care setting are more likely to be placed with all or some of their siblings compared to children placed in non-kin care settings. More Hispanic and Native American children are placed with some or all siblings compared to the other ethnic groups.

Measure 4B: Foster Care Placement in Least Restrictive Setting

Measure 4B reflects the percentage of children placed in each setting type. Relative placements have increased overtime from 13.9% in 2004 to 18.8% in 2007. There has been an increase in the use of Foster Family Agencies (FFAs) over the past four years. The increase in the use of FFA placements may be related to the ongoing efforts by Riverside County social workers Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings, and countywide targeted recruitment strategies to increase the availability of suitable placements for children in foster care, maintain children in their same school districts and keep sibling sets together. Although FFA homes reflect the highest level of use over time, use of relative homes have also shown improvement over the past four (4) years. In 2004, Riverside County centralized its assessment and clearance of relative/NREFM placement homes. The percentage of group home placements has fluctuated over time since 2003 at approximately 2.7% and 3.5%. Foster care homes have decreased in percentage from 31.4% to 12.3%. Riverside County hopes to increase the number of foster family homes through a continued emphasis on improving the relationship between the Department and out of home caregivers through increased engagement and ongoing communication. FFA placement rates are higher for Hispanic children compared to Black or White children. Kin care placement rates are higher for Native American children compared to other ethnic groups.


of 88

Permanency 2: The continuity of family relationships & connections is preserved for the children, Continued

Measure 4E: Rate of ICWA Placement Preferences

Measure 4E reflects the percent of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) eligible children placed in foster care settings defined by ICWA. In the most recent report period, 10/07-12/07, Riverside County had 103 eligible children in care. Approximately 52% were placed in relative homes, which is an improvement from 48.5% in report period 10/06-12/06.

In order to better serve the needs of Native American children and families, Riverside County has identified social workers in every region that receive specialized training regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act.

In addition to providing services to Native American children and families, these social workers also act as subject matter experts, mentoring, guiding and providing technical expertise to their peers.

Well Being 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs

Protocols for Assessing Service Need of Children

Promoting early identification of developmental, health and social/emotional difficulties enables the family to better meet the needs of the child and enables more timely reunification and/or maintenance of the child at home. Therefore, it is CSD’s policy that all children under the age of three (3) years old who have a substantiated case of child abuse and/or neglect must receive a developmental screening. Screening is the initial step of the process to systematically identify those children who may be in need of special education and related services. It involves the initial collection of information about the child to determine if the child requires additional referrals to determine diagnosis and treatment needs.

An assessment of the child is completed within thirty (30) days of placement and every six (6) months thereafter. Children who are not Medi-Cal recipients may be referred to a Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) provider. CHDP provides preventative health services to non-Medi-Cal eligible children whose family income is equal to or less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty rate. They are eligible for health assessments based on the same schedule as Medi-Cal eligible children. CHDP provides preventive health services based on the Federally mandated Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program.

When children placed in foster care receive a well-child examination, a State form, PM 160 is filled out by the physician and submitted to the Public Health Nurse (PHN) for entry into the child’s Health and Education Passport (HEP). If the child receives a positive result on the developmental screen, the child is referred to Inland Regional Center (IRC) for an assessment to determine if further services are needed. The PHN follows up to ensure the child receives the assessment and assists in arranging the assessment as needed.


of 88

Well Being 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs, Continued

Protocols for Assessing Service Needs of Parent(s)

The assessment of safety and risk is central to protecting children from abuse, neglect or exploitation. This assessment is both formal, through use of the Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools, and informal, through observation by the case worker and interviews with the family members, significant others, and service providers. The assessment starts with the intake process and continues until services to the family are terminated. The process of safety and risk assessment focuses on the child’s safety from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, as well as appraises the family’s strengths and need for services.

ER social workers evaluate the existence of any conditions which places children at risk of abuse, neglect or exploitation, as described by law. Safety Assessments include the health, safety and protection of each child, along with their physical and emotional well being. Risk Assessments evaluate the likelihood of abuse and neglect to occur in the future, and the need for pre-placement preventive services for the child and the parents to address the identified risk factor(s).

At each phase of a referral or ongoing case, and upon each contact with the child, the assigned social worker assesses for overt signs of abuse, neglect or exploitation of a child, such as:

noticeable bruises, lacerations, burns, and other marks unsanitary condition in the home children who are withdrawn, or appear nervous about talking with a social worker

children who are dirty or thin, and expressed communication from a child or parent indicating abuse, neglect or exploitation.

Upon each contact with the child and family, the social worker assesses the family system by observing:

who is in control what role each adult plays in the home what role each child plays in the home interactions between family members, and parents(s) with unexplained injuries.

At each phase of a referral or ongoing case, and upon each contact, the social worker also assesses the family’s:

support systems willingness to care for their children ability to protect their children division of responsibilities cultural background and community interactions, and current abuse, neglect or exploitation based on assessment of risk factors.

The completed SDM Safety and Risk Assessment process and interviews with family members, significant others, and collateral contacts, assists the social worker in determining whether child welfare services are necessary.


of 88


Protocols for Assessing Service Needs of Foster/Pre-Adoptive Parents

AB 1695 requires that the same standards be met to approve licensed foster homes and relative/non-related extended family member (NREFM) homes. Under this mandate, prior to the placement of child(ren) with relative/NREFM’s, a criminal background check and prior child abuse clearance shall be obtained for relative or NREFMs who request that a child(ren) be placed in their care.

Through observation and interviews with the caregivers (foster parents, relative, NREFM, FFA, or group home), the social worker continually assesses the appropriateness of the placement and the caregivers’ suitability and ability to care for the child(ren) based on child’s history and needs. Additionally, the social worker determines whether the caregiver:

meets Title 22 safety requirements supports the case plan designed for the child(ren) follows through with needed services identified/arranged for the child(ren) is supportive of the child(ren)’s visitation with immediate family members, as well as extended family visits

is willing to care/continue caring for the child(ren) is respectful and supportive of the child(ren)’s cultural background, and can follow court-orders regarding protection of the child(ren).

At each phase of a referral or ongoing case and upon each contact with the child and/or caregivers, the assigned social workers continues to assess for overt signs of abuse, neglect or exploitation of a child, as referenced above.

Protocols for Engagement in Case Planning Process

The social worker ensures that the case plan is based on the priority needs, as identified by the SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment, and provides needed services to the family as ordered by the Juvenile Court for the duration of the case, consistent with W&IC 361.5 (a).

The social worker engages the family by including them in the development of the case plan. The social worker addresses all of the following sections when developing or updating a case plan:

case plan goals service objectives client responsibilities visitation schedule agency responsibilities, and contact schedule.

Once the case plan is developed, the social worker reviews the case plan with the parent(s)/guardian(s) and obtains their signatures on the case plan. The social worker then initiates services to the parent(s) and children by utilizing contracted agencies. The social worker provides service referrals and related information (service provider names, addresses, and phone numbers) to the parents and caregivers. The social worker continues to assess the families’ progress and address any further needs.


of 88


Services Available to Meet Needs

On an ongoing basis, CSD updates a Service Referral Laminate (SRL). The SRL is a laminated document that provides social workers with contact information on all DPSS contracted service providers. For additional information on programs and services available to meet client needs, please refer to Section E.5 Service Array.

Protocols for Visitation

Social workers provide supervision and case management to all case plan participants. They monitor each participant’s progress at each visit and document the parent’s/guardian’s compliance and/or failure to meet the case plan goals. Social workers clarify that failure to meet case plan goals can result in recommendations to:

remove children from family maintenance cases terminate services to parents/guardians, and establish a permanent plan for children.

Emergency Response (ER) social workers provide intense supervision to the family including one (1) or more face-to-face contacts per week for 30 days. They adhere to the Riverside County Contact Guidelines for additional monthly contacts.

Family Maintenance (FM) social workers complete a minimum of one (1) face-to-face contact with the parent and child(ren) per month. One (1) visit must take place in the home. One (1) additional contact per quarter must be in an outside setting such as the child’s daycare, a doctor’s office, or school. However, if the family’s risk level is determined to be “very high,” as determined on the results of the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Safety and Risk Assessments, the social worker must complete two (2) or three (3) face-to-face visits with the parent and child per month. Again, one (1) must be in the home and one (1) additional contact per quarter must take place in an outside setting.

Family Reunification (FR) social workers are required to complete a minimum of one (1) face-to-face contact per month with the parent/guardian and one (1) collateral contact. The social worker is required to complete at least one (1) face-to-face contact per month with each child, and two (2) collateral contacts. One (1) must be with the caregiver and the other with another collateral contact such as a teacher, daycare provider, or doctor.

Permanency Planning (PP) social workers are required to complete a minimum of one (1) face-to-face contact per month with each child and two (2) collateral contacts. One (1) must be with the caregiver and the other with another collateral contact such as a teacher, daycare provider, or doctor.

Social workers complete the following activities related to family visits and contacts:

assess appropriateness of family contact in Dispositional, Statutory, Review, Permanency and Selection and Implementation Hearing court reports

address family visitation arrangements in the case plan arrange and facilitate parent-child, sibling, and extended family visitation, as appropriate, and in compliance with the court order, and

ensure that children are informed of significant life events in their extended family, such as deaths, births, placement changes, permanent plans, and hospitalizations.


of 88

Well Being 2: Children receive services appropriate to their educational needs

Protocols for Assessing Child(ren)’s Educational Needs

CSD social workers ensure that: all school age children who are dependents of the Juvenile Court attend public school unless circumstances preclude such enrollment.

children suspected of being handicapped or identified as such have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) developed.

children who are developmentally disabled are referred to the Inland Regional Center (IRC) for assessment, evaluation, treatment and follow-up.

information relevant to the services case plan activities and the IRC Individual Program Plan are disclosed when requested by either agency

Social workers use the Request for a School Report, DPSS 2823, to request information regarding the child’s academic progress, behavior, special needs, and parental involvement. The social worker sends the DPSS 2823 to the teacher of each school-aged child at least every six (6) months prior to the preparation of the court report. The social worker uses the information provided on the DPSS 2823 to update the court and assist in planning for the child.

Services Available to Meet Child(ren)’s Educational Needs

CSD acknowledges that children need a strong educational foundation in order to foster future success and self sufficiency. In order to ensure that children struggling academically have educational support, CSD has partnered with Professional Tutors of America and Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE) to provide educational support for children.

Professional Tutors of America is a contracted service provider through CSD, who meets the educational support needs of foster youth that are not placed in group homes or FFA homes.

RCOE provides educational support through their Strategic Tutoring Program for those youth who are placed in group homes facilities or FFA homes.

Well Being 3: Children receive services adequate to meet their physical, emotional & mental health needs

Protocols for Assessing Child(ren)’s Physical Health and Dental

Foster children are entitled to receive quality health and dental care. Safe Measures compliance data, analyzed on 10/8/08 (extract date 10/6/08) shows that 83.4% of all children in an open Family Reunification or Permanency Placement case have a current preventative physical health examination in accordance with the Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) periodicity schedule.


of 88

Well Being 3: Children receive services adequate to meet their physical, emotional & mental health needs, Continued

Protocols for Assessing Child(ren)’s Physical Health and Dental Needs (continued)

To facilitate timely, quality medical and dental services for foster children, CSD coordinates medical and dental treatment for foster children through Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP). Social workers:

provide resources for health and dental care to each out of home caregiver ensure that children in out of home care receive a medical and dental exam within thirty (30) days of out of home placement

ensure that foster children receive yearly preventative medical and dental examinations

ensures that medical and dental concerns are followed-up and treated provide all medical and dental information to the foster care Public Health Nurse (PHN) for verification and documentation in the child’s Health and Education Passport (HEP)

participate in all conferences regarding a foster child’s health and dental concerns

instruct relative caregivers keep a record of the medication given to children in their care

review all children’s health records upon each home visit request required court orders for psychotropic medication schedule training for caregivers to provide the level of care a child needs for his/her specific medical conditions prior to placement

Note: For additional information on Public Health Nurses, see section D Public Agency Characteristics, Staffing Characteristics for Private Contractors.

Protocols for Assessing Child(ren)’s Mental/ Behavioral Health Needs

A child exhibiting one or more “behavioral indicators” referenced below will be referred for a mental health assessment or mental health services through the Riverside County Department of Mental Health (DMH), a community provider, or the child’s insurance provider. Significant “behavioral indicators” exhibited by a child may include:

suicidal or homicidal ideation history as a victim of abuse difficult behaviors in current living situation bizarre or unusual behavior fears, worries, anxieties that interfere with relationships at school, work, or home

significant problems managing feelings problems making and maintaining healthy relationships problems with personal care inappropriate sexual acting out perpetrator of sexual abuse abuses alcohol or other drugs had a prior psychiatric hospitalization, and had prior treatment with a therapist.


of 88

Well Being 3: Children receive services adequate to meet their physical, emotional & mental health needs, Continued

Protocols for Assessing Child(ren)’s Mental/ Behavioral Health Needs (continued)

Emergency Response social workers use the Service Referral Laminate (SRL) to refer clients for services. Social worker’s in other programs may also use the SRL; however, for all open cases, referrals for a mental health assessment or mental health services can be accessed through the Assessment Consultation Team (ACT) clinician. For Children Placed outside Riverside County or California:

The social worker completes the DPSS 2468, Mental Health Services Referral and provides it to the ACT clinician to refer children to therapy, evaluation/testing, or medication.

For Dependent Children in FFA or Group Home Placement: If a Foster Family Association (FFA) or group home (GH) is unable to provide identified mental health services to a child placed in their care, the child may be eligible for referral to mental health services through Riverside County Mental Health’s Central Access Team (CAT). A member of CAT will make this determination based on the child’s Medi-Cal eligibility and other Mental Health criteria.

of 88

D. Public Agency Characteristics

Introduction

DPSS has been administering a variety of public assistance programs for over 60 years. DPSS employs approximately 3,350 staff in 170 classifications. In Home Supportive Services staff provide services to approximately 15,000 individuals and process approximately 500 Adult Protective Service (APS) referrals per month. The Children’s Services Division (CSD) provides ongoing services to approximately 6,660 children and processes on average 3,043 child abuse and neglect referrals per month. Of these referrals, approximately 1,400 require an in person response by a social worker. Children involved in the juvenile justice system, who are made wards of the Juvenile Court, are supervised through the Riverside County Probation Department.

Further, DPSS administers a variety of public assistance programs. DPSS serves approximately 280,000 individuals through the Medi-Cal program. Over 45,000 households receive Food Stamps, and 25,000 families receive CalWORKS benefits.

D1. Size & Structure of Agencies

County Operated Shelters

Riverside County utilizes designated shelter homes to provide temporary placement (up to 30 days) for children who have been detained. These licensed private homes are

available 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week. Of the 53 foster homes

participating in Riverside County’s Shelter Home Program, 48 are on active status.

County Foster Care Licensing

Riverside County uses foster family homes (FFHs), foster family agencies (FFAs), and group homes that are licensed through California’s Community Care Licensing Division. Relative and non-related extended family member (NREFM) placements meet the same standards as licensed foster homes and are approved by the County using the State mandated relative approval process.

County Adoption Agency

Riverside County DPSS, CSD is a licensed adoption agency in the State of California. All Resource Families participate in 33 hours of Resource Family Training. Upon completion of training, Resource Families have an approved Adoption Home Study in additional to being placement ready. Applicants must also complete the State licensing requirements of Community Care Licensing (CCL).

The majority of children who are adopted are children who have been placed by CSD with a relative, family friend, or licensed foster parent who has decided to adopt them. However, there is also a need for families who want to be matched to a child. There are currently over 100 children waiting to be matched to a prospective adoptive family. Resource Families identified as prospective adoptive placements are matched to children awaiting adoption.

Since 2004, CSD has made a commitment to concurrent planning by having both prospective foster and adoptive parents go through the same training and home study process. This means that all foster homes now have approved adoption level home studies, preventing delays in permanency when foster parents decide to adopt children placed in their care.


of 88

D2. County Government Structure

Introduction The Children’s Services Division (CSD) routinely monitors and addresses issues that

impact the provision of services to children and families. These issues include but are not limited to:

staffing characteristics, such as turnover, and caseload size bargaining unit issues financial and material resources funding sources, and administrative changes.

Staffing Characteristics: Turnover Ratio

In addition to administrative and support staff, the Children’s Services Division employs 735 social work staff, of which 590 are social workers and 112 are social work supervisors. Of the 590 social workers employed with the CSD, 234 have a Master’s degree or higher. Of the 112 supervisors employed, 84 have a Master’s degree or higher.

The turnover ratio for both case-carrying social workers and supervisors averaged 19.3% during fiscal year 2006/2007, yet has dropped to 12.1% as of August 2008. The turnover ratio for clerical staff, social service assistants, and other administrative support staff averaged 15.7% during fiscal year 2006/2007, but additionally dropped to 13.1% during August 2008. Although staff turnover for social worker positions continues to present a challenge, the turnover rate for Riverside County CSD is lower than the State average.

Currently, some of CSD’s recruitment and retention strategies include: a 5.5% pay differential for social workers, a hiring bonus of up to $10,000, licensure supervision for both Marriage Family Therapists (MFTs) and Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs); and paid release time for social workers pursuing an MSW degree, (commonly referred to as the 20/20 Program). The 20/20 Program pays staff for 40 hours, 20 hours of work activity and 20 hours of internship/academic endeavors. In addition, CSD collaborates with local universities to offer field placements in child welfare to MSW students. Most students who complete a field placement with CSD are employed as Children’s Social Service Workers (CSSWs) following graduation.

Staffing Characteristics: Private Contractors

CSD has contracts with private providers for selected services. The following private provider staff are co-located in CSD offices:

eleven (11) Public Health Nurses, two (2) Nurse Managers and two (2) Office Assistants from the Public Health Nurse Advocates Teaching Child Health and Safety (PATCHS) program

six (6) Public Health Nurses, one (1) Nurse Manager, one (1) Supervising Public Health Nurse and one (1) Office Assistant from the Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC)

five (5) Health Service Assistants and one (1) Nurse Manager from the Partner in Life Skills (PaLS) program

one (1) Social Security Consultant from the SSI Advocacy program, and eight (8) Mental Health Clinicians from the Assessment and Consultation Team (ACT).


of 88

D2. County Government Structure, Continued

Staffing Characteristics: Private Contractors (continued)

By co-locating staff from contracted providers in CSD offices, social workers can immediately refer families thereby eliminating much of the wait time for families. The co-located staff also serve as on-site subject matter experts (SMEs).

Staffing Characteristics: Worker Caseload Size by Service Program

In Riverside County, average caseloads for Family Maintenance (FM), Family Reunification (FR), and Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (PPLA) social workers are at or below the State caseload standard, but still above the minimum recommended standard based on the SB 2030 workload study. In order to more accurately track and monitor caseloads, CSD has established the following threshold levels to guide its planning processes and to create solutions to mitigate regional disparity in caseload assignments.

Ideal Caseload Threshold Caseload Emergency Response 15 18 Court Dependency 5 6 Family Maintenance/ Reunification

40 48

Permanency Program 48 54

It should be noted that CSD has successfully increased the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) social work positions (CSSS II, CSSW III-V, and SSW 1/II) from 473 in July 2005 to 669 in July 2008.

Bargaining Unit Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), Children’s Services

Division (CSD) has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the local bargaining unit Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 721 until 2009. Each month Riverside County Human Resources Department, DPSS management, and representatives from SEIU meet. These “Labor-Management Meetings” provide an opportunity for discussion about staffing issues related to labor concerns, retention, training, part time employment, and the hiring process.

Financial/Material Resources

Financial/ Material Resources

Riverside County makes use of several flexible funding opportunities and interagency collaborations to achieve positive outcomes for children and families. One such opportunity is the SB 163 Wraparound project, a collaborative between the Department of Mental Health (DMH), CSD, the Department of Public Health, Olive Crest Treatment Centers and the Probation Department. This project allows for flexible use of financial resources. Funds that would normally be used for group home placements are used to provide intensive services to children at risk of group home placement. SB 163 funding is transferred from CSD to the contractors and the contractors in turn provide the needed services to children identified as being “at risk.”


of 88

Financial/Material Resources, Continued

Financial/ Material Resources (continued)

Another source of flexible funding is the Children’s Trust Fund. Local funds (birth certificate fees, kid’s plates, and donations) are deposited into the trust and are used to augment awards made to community partners who provide early prevention and intervention services. A portion of the Children’s Trust Fund is earmarked to fund the Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County (PCARC) council, which functions as a countywide advocate for the prevention of child maltreatment.

In order to make the best use of limited funds, Riverside County leverages its funds by contracting with agencies with “value added services.” Value added services are identified as those services not required as part of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, but which strengthen or add value to the provided service. Examples of such services are child care, use of evidence-based treatment models, parent support services, transportation and services provided in underserved areas.

Additionally, Riverside County utilizes Child Welfare Services Outcomes Improvement Program (CWSOIP) funds to support two (2) prevention programs. The first is Pre-filing Family Preservation Drug Court, a collaboration between the Superior Court, CSD, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, the Department of Mental Health and a community based organization, Mental Health Systems, Inc. The second is the Differential Response program, a collaboration between CSD and two (2) community based organizations, John F. Kennedy (JFK) Memorial Foundation and Family Services Association of Western Riverside County. These programs are geared to strengthen and support families, so children can be safely maintained in their homes.

Funding Sources

In addition to the CWS basic allocation, CSD also makes use of the following available funding options, collaborating with other agencies, contractors and individuals as noted:

Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT) funds support contracts with a number of non-profit agencies and community-based providers, including but not limited to Alternatives to Domestic Violence, Catholic Charities, Family Services of the Desert, Family Services Association of Western Riverside County, John F. Kennedy Memorial Foundation, Mental Health Systems Inc, My Family Inc., Parents Anonymous Inc, Perris Valley Recovery, and Shelter From The Storm.

Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) funds support contracts with Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County (PCARC) and are used to develop/implement or expand/enhance community based family resource and support programs.

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) funds support contracts with a number of non-profit agencies and community-based providers, including but not limited to, the Child Abuse Prevention Center, Alternatives to Domestic Violence, Catholic Charities, Family Services of the Desert, Family Services Association of Western Riverside County, John F. Kennedy Memorial Foundation, Mental Health Systems Inc, My Family Inc., Parents Anonymous Inc, Perris Valley Recovery, and Shelter From The Storm.


of 88


Funding Sources (continued)

Adoptions funds support contracts for home studies completed by qualified providers.

Foster Parent Training and Recruitment (FPTR - AB2129) funds work with the County’s Foster Family Associations, Shelter Homes, Enriched Foster Care/Department of Mental Health, Parent Partners (2 contracted providers), and certified area trainers.

Independent Living Program (ILP) funds support contracts with Riverside Community College (RCC) and the Department of Probation to work in conjunction with ILP social workers in CSD.

Emancipated Youth Stipends (EYS) are offered through the County’s ILP program and through a contract with RCC.

Kinship/Foster Care Emergency Funds support work done with relative caregivers and foster parents to establish and maintain placements.

Kinship Support Services Program (KSSP) support contracts with the California Family Life Center to provide community based support services to relative caregivers and the children who are placed in their homes, or who are at risk of dependency.

State Family Preservation (SFP) funds are used for the County’s four (4) Family Resource Centers (FRCs).

Specialized Training for Adoptive Parents (STAP) funds are used to provide specialized training and fund the annual “Heart Gallery” event.

Supportive and Therapeutic Options Program (STOP) funds contracts or MOUs with the Department of Mental Health to provide counseling sessions, substance abuse treatment, crisis intervention and respite.

Transitional Housing Program Plus (THP Plus) funds support contracts with Anka Behavioral Health and Optimist Transitional Housing Program to assist emancipated youth with subsidized housing and supportive services.

Stuart Foundation funds support Family to Family Initiative efforts with resource families, community partners, educational efforts on behalf of foster children and initiative training opportunities for CSD staff.

Child Welfare Services Outcome Improvement (CWSOIP) funds collaborations with a number of County partners and agencies for two (2) prevention programs including, Differential Response and Pre-Filing Family Preservation Drug Court.

Children's Trust Fund funds are overseen by the County’s lead child abuse prevention council, Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County (PCARC). These funds are used by PCARC for county-wide prevention efforts.

Wraparound (SB 163) funds support County contracts with the Department of Mental Health and with Olive Crest Treatment Centers to move children and youth out of group home care and into less restrictive placements.


of 88


Funding Sources (continued)

CSD also receives funding to support foster care, relative care and adoptions. These funding sources include:

FC/AAP Eligibility EA-FC Eligibility Kin-Gap Eligibility AAP Assistance Grants FC Assistance Grants EA-FC Assistance Grants Kin-Gap Grants

The availability of these funding sources in addition to the CWS basic allocation allows CSD to fund programs and services which improve outcomes for Riverside County’s children and families.

Fiscal Accountability

The DPSS Fiscal Office is responsible for all fiscal reimbursement claiming, budgeting and some fiscal statistical functions within DPSS. The fiscal office ensures that all payments are made within the set deadlines and that monies are received, abated, recorded and posted within the guidelines established by Department policy.

Contractors are required to bill separately for each service they provide under the new SFY 2008-2011 agreements. This enhances the ability to ensure required percentages of the funding are expended appropriately (i.e., 50 % of CAPIT/CBCAP allocated to primary prevention, 20% of PSSF allocated to Family Support, Family Preservation, Time Limited Reunification, and Adoption Support and Stabilization services). As part of Riverside County’s fiscal process, program revenues and expenditures are tracked and recorded through the County’s financial system called Online Administrative Services Information System (OASIS).

Required Competitive Bid Process

Riverside County uses a competitive bid process or Request for Proposal process for all CSD contracts. Riverside County’s abbreviated RFP process is as follows:

1. Need for RFP is identified by CSD 2. Contracts Administration Unit (CAU) develops RFP and Scope of Work with

assistance from subject matter expert(s) in CSD 3. CAU drafts RFP and routes through proper channels for approval; program

liaison, program supervisor, assistant regional manager, regional manager, deputy director, assistant director, and director

4. Final RFP is assigned a number by the Purchasing Department and posted to the County website at www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us

5. Purchasing Department sends RFP to identified bidders – open bid 6. After RFP closes, CAU schedules evaluation meeting and bids which are

determined complete are evaluated; evaluators for RFPs are selected from various regions, programs and agencies


http://www.purchasing.co.riverside.ca.us/

of 88


Required Competitive Bid Process

7. CAU awards contract to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder 8. CAU sends Notice of Award 9. CAU writes the contract and routes the draft contract through proper channels

for approval 10. CAU sends the final contract to the vendor for negotiation/approval 11. Upon agreement of terms and conditions of contract, CAU finalizes the

contract 12. CAU executes the contract after County Counsel approves the document and

obtains Board of Supervisors approval if necessary.

Political Jurisdictions

Introduction Riverside County has a Council-Manager form of County government that meets

every Tuesday with few exceptions. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors represents the following five (5) districts respectively: Bob Buster, District One (1); John Tavaglione, District Two (2); Jeff Stone, District Three (3); Roy Wilson, District Four (4) and Marion Ashley, District Five (5).

Cities Riverside County is represented by 26 incorporated cities; these include Banning,

Beaumont, Blythe, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Cathedral City, Coachella, Corona, Desert Hot Springs, Hemet, Indian Wells, Indio, Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Perris, Rancho Mirage, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula and Wildomar.

School Districts

There are 23 local school districts, in Riverside County, which are autonomous, and administratively supported by the Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE). In total, operations include 465 K-12 sites. In addition to the public school network, there are 152 private K-12 educational institutions.

In effort to partner with the school districts, CSD, school personnel, police, probation, and the District Attorney’s Office meet bi-monthly as the School Attendance Review Board (SARB). The board’s role is two-fold: first, it identifies children who have excessive absences from school, reasons for those children’s absences, and family service needs; second, the board refers families for services that support the achievement of positive outcomes for children and families. While a collaborative relationship aimed at achieving positive outcomes for children and families remains a goal, interactions between CSD and school districts are limited and the relationships need to be strengthened.

Riverside County has seven (7) colleges and universities; they are College of the Desert, Mount San Jacinto College, Palo Verde College, Riverside Community College, California Baptist University, La Sierra University, and University of California, Riverside.


of 88

Political Jurisdictions, Continued

Relationships with Schools

Riverside County DPSS, CSD participates in multiple collaborative efforts with local school districts. These efforts include the following:

Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE) has a grant to fund an Educational Liaison position to act as the educational central point of contact for children/youth placed in group homes. The goal of this position is to increase communication between schools and CSD, and to track, monitor and support academic progress. Funding for this position includes a 50% cash match from CSD.

RCOE provides Strategic Tutoring services for children/youth who are 18 years of age or younger and who are in a group home, FFA or shelter placement. Foster children are provided with a California Standard Test and Reporting (STAR) pretest to determine their skill level and are provided with a referral to a tutoring provider for assistance in the needed skill acquisition.

The Moreno Valley Multi-Agency Forum hosted by Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) addresses service accessibility and availability in Moreno Valley. Working throughout the year in small targeted workgroups, this forum hosts a yearly large group meeting in an effort to increase awareness of service needs, availability and to facilitate expedited services for those in need.

CSD participates in Foster Youth Freshman Orientations (FYFOs) in collaboration with the MVUSD, Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and the Corona-Norco Unified School District (CNUSD). These orientation meetings provide caregivers, social workers, educators and other interested parties with information on the educational needs of foster youth. In addition, foster youth are provided information on:

the California Youth Connection (CYC), the Independent Living Program (ILP), the Foster Care Ombudsman, career paths, local colleges and universities, and any additional services that support academic success in High School.

Local educators participate in CSD hosted Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings. During the period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, 101 local educators participated in TDM meetings in Riverside County.

Riverside Community College (RCC) offers eligible foster and probation youth, ages 16-21 years old, an array of services designed to assist youth in achieving self-sufficiency so that they may learn needed life skills upon leaving the foster care support system. The Workforce Preparation Department at RCC provides training, advocacy, mentoring and support services to aid all foster youth in developing competencies in areas such as education, career development, health and safety, daily living and financial resources.


of 88


Relationships with Schools (continued)

CSD provides internship field placements to students attending Cal State University (CSU) San Bernardino, CSU Long Beach, CSU Los Angeles, Loma Linda University (LLU), La Sierra University (LSU), Azusa Pacifica University or the University of Southern California (USC), who are working toward their Bachelor’s of Arts (BA) or Master’s in social work. CSD ensures that all field placement activities meet the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) criteria, as a majority of students in child welfare field placements are receiving a Title IV-E stipend.

CSU San Marcos (CSUSM) works to expand and enhance educational opportunities for current and former foster youth, who are first time Freshman (no previous college experience), living in Riverside County. The ACE Scholar Services Program ensures that eligible former foster youth are guaranteed admission to CSUSM.

Law Enforcement Agencies

There are twenty-four (24) distinct police jurisdictions which include the Riverside Sheriff’s Office (RSO), and city police departments in each of the incorporated cities listed above. To further the partnerships of CSD with law enforcement agencies, Emergency Response social workers have been co-located at the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Jurupa sub-station and Corona, Perris and Moreno Valley Police Departments.

In May of 1990, CSD established a multidisciplinary effort known at the Riverside County Assessment Team (RCAT). The team consists of representatives from CSD, the District Attorney’s office, Riverside Sheriff’s Department and the Riverside County Medical Center. The goal of the program is to reduce the physical and emotional trauma to child victims of abuse. The program is designed to reduce the number of investigative interviews with the child, provide a more consistent and skilled service to the child and the family, increase efficiency and success in the prosecution of child abuse cases, and reduce the duplication of efforts by community agencies.

Additionally, CSD works collaboratively with the Sheriff’s Department’s Drug Endangered Child (DEC) taskforce, the Allied Riverside Cities Enforcement Task Force (ARCNET) and the Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force (CVNTF). These taskforces meet monthly and include representatives from CSD, the Community Health Agency (CHA), the District Attorney’s (DA) Office, and law enforcement. The purpose is to coordinate public agency response to drug lab arrests which involve toxic substances and to ensure drug-endangered children receive appropriate medical treatment and follow-up. Riverside County ensures social workers are able to respond with a taskforce to raids on illegal drug laboratories. CSD also ensures that a public health nurse through the PATCHS program follows up with the children found in these homes.


of 88


Tribal Agencies The Riverside County DPSS meets quarterly with Indian Child and Family Services

(ICFS). ICFS represents a consortium of seven (7) of the eleven (11) local tribes in Riverside County; Cahuilla, Morongo, Pechanga, Santa Rosa, San Manuel, Torres-Martinez, and Twenty-Nine Palms. ICFS Board of Directors includes delegates from Riverside-San Bernardino Indian Health, San Diego American Indian Health Center, and the Indian Human Resource Center.

ICFS strives to achieve positive outcomes for all families by providing evidenced based, culturally competent foster care and adoptive licensing services to all Native American families. CSD has assigned social workers who are subject matter experts regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to each CSD office to interact with ICFS and ensure ICWA compliance.

of 88

E. Systemic Factors

E1. Relevant Management Information Systems

Introduction Relevant management information systems (MIS) refers to the Child Welfare

Services/ Case Management System (CWS/CMS) and includes management information systems that supplement CWS/CMS in the delivery of child welfare services. Both CWS/CMS and these additional systems will be described in this section.

The purpose of the CWS/CMS application is to enhance case management services by providing comprehensive, timely and accurate information to social workers and administrative staff. The CWS/CMS application is available and utilized by all 58 counties in California providing a central location for obtaining client information, child abuse/neglect history and other critical information, 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week.

Children’s Services Division

CWS/CMS is widely used in Riverside County by DPSS staff at various levels of the organization. Social workers are the largest group of users and utilize CWS/CMS for case management purposes. Specifically, social workers are responsible for the following: entering contact information with children, parents, and collateral contacts, creating court reports, developing case plans, and maintaining the integrity of case information.

Supervisors receive, assign and monitor active cases. Supervisory functions include: review and approval of case plans, court reports, case transfers and closures, and ensuring timely face-to-face contacts are made with children and families.

Clerical staff members use the application to enter placement and foster care information.

Public Health Nurses (PHNs) use the application to enter and track children’s health information such as immunizations, CHDP medical and dental exams, and court authorized prescribed psychotropic medications.

Management and administrative staff use CWS/CMS for monitoring County performance. Daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports are produced in an effort to monitor the child welfare delivery system and assist in management decision making.

Other relevant management information systems include:

Access/SAS/Business Objects - are tools used by CSD to extract data in the State CWS/CMS application. These tools are used for reporting, quality assurance, statistical analysis, operational, strategic planning and other purposes.

Structured Decision Making - a web-based assessment and reporting tool used by social workers for determining safety and risk and other case planning decisions.

Safe Measures –provides management reports from the CWS/CMS data warehouse on various child welfare service delivery functions.


of 88

E1. Relevant Management Information Systems, Continued

Children’s Services Division Data Quality Issues

CSD remains committed to improving data entry and maintains a dedicated Computer Based Training (CBT) unit which provides ongoing training for all software applications including CWS/CMS. All CWS/CMS users receive mandatory CBT training and can participate in additional training as needed. As CSD recognizes that there continues to be issues around accurate data entry with regard to client ethnicity, Native American tribal status and educational information, CBT training with specific instructions for entering data and recording services delivered to children and families continues to be a priority focus.


Beginning in August 2008, the Riverside County Probation Department implemented the use of the Juvenile and Adult Management System (JAMS) for case management of all persons on Probation. This system, developed by the Probation Department’s Information Technology (IT) Division, replaced the WANG system, which lacked the capacity to be upgraded. While information on the WANG system cannot be uploaded to JAMS, Probation officers continue to have read privileges to all information contained in WANG.

E2. Case Review System

Introduction In Riverside County there are three (3) Juvenile Court locations:

Indio Dependency Court Riverside Dependency Court, and Southwest Detention Center.

Note: See Attachment A for additional information on courthouse staffing and structure.

Co-Location of Children’s Services Staff

CSD court staff are located at each of the three (3) above mentioned court locations. Co-locating staff has permitted daily interaction between the court, CSD staff, judicial officers, County Counsel, and Juvenile Defense Panel (JDP) attorneys. This ongoing collaboration has fostered improved delivery and effectiveness of services.


of 88

E2. Case Review System, Continued

Collaborative Efforts

CSD, Probation Department and Judicial staff are committed to continued improvement of their working relationships. Toward that end, the following meetings are held:

Weekly meetings for the Riverside County Family Preservation Court team, which includes the Court, Mental Health, CSD, Mental Health System Inc. and West Ed Services. The team provides weekly assessment of each Family Preservation Court participant.

Bi-Monthly meetings with the Judicial Officer and CSD Management to address protocols, impacts of new legislation and any issue/topic/situation that may require face-to-face discussion. Additionally, the Probation Department meets regularly with the Juvenile Court to ensure consistency in procedures and services throughout the County.

Monthly the Indio court 602 bench officers meet with CSD, Probation, the District Attorneys Office, the Public Defenders and JDP to discuss team building, 241.1 assessments and dual status cases.

Quarterly meetings at the Riverside Juvenile Courts and allow for discussion between, the judicial officers, CSD management, the Court Clerk’s Office, the Department of Mental Health and CASA.

In all three (3) judicial districts, there are child friendly waiting rooms operated by Department of Education staff, where dependent children can safely wait under staff supervision while hearings are being conducted

Collaborative efforts between the Juvenile Court, CSD and the Probation Department have helped to diminish the necessity for case continuances. Further it has fostered increased clarity as to the needs and expectations for each agency.

The Riverside County Chief Probation Officer reports directly to the Superior Court and oversees intake, investigative and supervisory functions for juvenile delinquency matters.

Report Filing Deadlines

CSD has established the following guidelines for filing court reports:

Detention Reports are filed twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Detention hearing

Jurisdictional/Dispositional Reports are filed by eleven a.m. (11:00 a.m.), three (3) days prior to the Jurisdictional/Dispositional hearing

Status Review Reports are filed and mailed to the parents and child, fifteen (15) days prior to the Statuatory Review hearing.

Court Report Addendums are filed by eleven am (11:00 am), three (3) days prior to a hearing.


of 88


Children’s Services Division: Process for Timely Notification of Hearings

CSD employs Noticing Assistants as centralized staff solely responsible for the processing of all written notices received from CSD social workers. Social workers forward their noticing requests to the Noticing Desk which includes the names, relationship, and addresses of each party, the type of hearing and all additional instructions required. Noticing Assistants send each identified party a Notice of Hearing, which includes all statutory requirements for noticing identified in the Welfare and Institutions Code (W&IC).

In addition, the CSD Policy Unit has developed policy instituting utilization of the JV 290, Caregiver Information Form. Created by Judicial Council, this form provides counties with an optional document for caregivers to use when they want to submit written information to the Court regarding children in their care. The JV 290 is completed by the caregiver, submitted to the Court and included in the court record in the child’s dependency hearing.

Probation Department: Process for Timely Notification of Hearings

Currently, the court advises parents at the time of disposition/placement order of the time and date for the placement review court hearing. Probation sends a letter to the youth, parent(s), placement facility and placement provider administrator approximately six (6) weeks prior to the hearing. Two (2) weeks prior to the hearing, a probation officer telephones the placement facility, the youth and the parents to remind/advise them of the review hearing and arrange for the youth to be transported to court.

Children’s Services Division: Process for Partnering with Parents-Children-Youth in the Case Planning Processes

In accordance with W&IC 16501.1, case plan standards/guidelines are specified in the Riverside County Children’s Services Handbook (CSH), which defines policies and procedures for case plan initiation, assessment and implementation.

Riverside County continues to utilize Structured Decision Making (SDM) as its primary assessment tool. SDM assessment tools assist social workers to engage families in the child welfare process, enhancing global assessment of family needs, and facilitating conjoint discussion and development of individualized case plans to meet those needs. Additionally, in partnering with families in this process, social workers are better able to adapt services to meet family’s cultural needs and identify/build on familial strengths.

CSD continues to use the CWS/CMS automated version of the case plan, which contains all the federally mandated case plan elements that are reinforced by State law and regulations (W&IC 16501.1 and Child Welfare Services Manual of Policies and Procedures, Division 31-206).


of 88


Children’s Services Division: Process for Partnering with Parents-Children-Youth in the Case Planning Processes

The content of the case plan includes specific case plan goals, visitation needs, and service objectives. This information is developed based on feedback obtained from the parent, child and court and also includes the results of the SDM Family Strengths and Needs tool. CSD staff allow time for parents to receive, review and discuss the case plan prior to the Court’s approval. Case carrying social workers have 30 days from the date of child detention to discuss the case plan with the parents and have the parents sign the case plan receipt/acknowledgment. A Children's Social Service Supervisor reviews and approves the completed case plan prior to submitting it to the Court.

When a parent is unavailable to sign or refuses to sign the acknowledgement of receipt of their case plan, the social worker informs the Court of the reason why the parent did not sign their case plan acknowledgement/receipt.

Probation Department: Process for Partnering with Parents-Youth in the Case Planning Processes

The Probation Department continues to work within State and Federal guidelines in the completion of case planning. If a youth is detained by law enforcement and booked into Juvenile Hall, juvenile hall staff will initiate a partial case plan. A Field Services Probation Officer will then complete the case plan after an extensive interview with the youth and parent(s)/legal guardians(s).

The case plan is used to identify and assess the strengths and needs of the youth and family and includes all criteria defined in the regulations. The probation officer uses the case plan to set goals for the youth and family and establish an agency supervision plan. Following signatures from the probation officer, the youth and the parents, the case plan is reviewed and signed by a Supervising Probation Officer. Case note entries into the automated client management system alert the assigned probation officer to update the case plan at minimum of every six (6) months. Case plan review forms are maintained in the case files and are routinely audited by Supervising Probation Officers to ensure compliance.

Children’s Services Division: General Case Planning & Review

Initial case plans are attached to Jurisdictional/Dispositional reports along with copies, which are provided to all parties and their legal representatives. After the Jurisdictional/Dispositional hearing, the initial case plan is updated, reviewed and modified as needed but at a minimum of every six (6) months, in conjunction with statutory review hearings. Case plans are submitted as attachments to court reports 15 days prior to each scheduled statutory hearing.

In order to ensure compliance with statutory timelines, Court Officers are designated to ensure that the next statutory review is scheduled at the close of each court hearing and will meet with required timelines. Court hearing information is then recorded by the court officers in CWS/CMS, which includes a summary of the current hearing, along with all applicable information for the next scheduled review hearing.

Additionally, CSD staff meet regularly on each case for Concurrent Planning Reviews. These reviews bring the assigned social worker, supervisor and adoption liaison together to identify an alternative permanent plan for all dependent children in case they are unable to safely return home. Parents, children and extended families are encouraged to participate in the creation of the child’s concurrent plan, a discussion that is prompted immediately upon a child’s removal.


of 88


Children’s Services Division: General Case Planning & Review (continue)

At times, despite the CSD’s best efforts, reunification within the allotted timeframes fails. When this occurs, CSD makes recommendations to terminate parental rights when:

a concurrent plan of adoption has been established

an adoptive home has been located, and

adoption proceedings are imminent.

For those children not having adoption as their concurrent plan, social workers must provide and have on file, justification for why adoption was not considered as the child’s permanent plan and why termination of parental rights was not pursued.

Probation Department: General Case Planning & Review

A case assessment must be done within 30 days of the youth’s out of home placement; therefore, it is initiated upon the youth’s detention at Juvenile Hall. Once the matter is referred for a Dispositional court proceeding, the probation officer meets with the youth and their family. While acquiring a social history the probation officer considers the strengths and problems that exist within the family and determines what services, agencies or programs would be most helpful for the family and the youth.

The case plan is designed to list services to be provided to the youth and their family in order to address the problems that brought the youth to the attention of the Juvenile Court. The plan must specify required familial visitation and specify the probation officer’s responsibility in monitoring the services provided and visitation of the youth, parent(s), and the out of home care providers.

Initial case plans are attached to Jurisdictional/Dispositional reports along with copies, which are provided to all parties and their legal representatives. A case plan is updated as often as the service needs of the youth and family dictates and is necessary in order to assure achievement of service objectives. At a minimum, probation officers complete a case plan update in conjunction with each status review hearing, but no less than once every six months. Case plans are submitted as attachments to court reports fifteen days prior to each scheduled statutory hearing.

In determining a case plan goal, the number one priority is reunification with the parent or guardian. However, a concurrent plan is developed to ensure that each youth has an alternate permanent plan in the event that the family cannot be reunified. In cases, were youth are unable to return home, relative placement or placement with a non-related extended family member is considered as a primary placement option.

The Riverside County Probation Department has never pursued termination of parental rights when a family fails to reunify in the allotted timeframes. When a youth is not or cannot be reunified with a parent or guardian, the Probation Department releases the youth to the custody of the CSD.


of 88


Children’s Services Staff, Probation and Community Partner/ Stakeholder Feedback

During the CSA process, a workgroup composed of Children’s Services Division (CSD), Probation staff and community partners/stakeholders met to discuss court issues affecting reentry into foster care. The workgroup identified the following challenges:

The lack of a transition plan when children are returned home, which includes community support systems and services.

The need for the gradual return of children to the parents to assist parents in assuming the responsibility for the care and custody of their children

A need to train foster parents and relative caregivers during and after licensing on the purpose or intent of the JV 290 form, caregiver legal rights and confidentiality issues.

The need for more collaboration between CSD and caregivers to support parents and ease the transition of children back to their parents’ care.

The need for increased communication with CSD and the Court, to examine more efficient ways of combining services to help parents address the causes that led to dependency without overburdening the parents with too many case plan requirements.

A limited number of available mentors for probation youth and foster children, such as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA’s).

The need for increased opportunities for probation youth and foster children to have input during court hearings regarding issues that affect them.

The need for more collaboration between CSD and Probation on dual status cases.

The need for more open discussion regarding CSD’s recommendations with the parents and clarification with the parents of the legal timelines and the Juvenile Court process.

Visitation standards regarding frequency and whether the visit should be supervised need to be uniform and consistent countywide.

The Juvenile Court prematurely closing cases or closing cases against the recommendations of the CSD.

Note: see Attachment E (CSA Court Focus Group Matrix) for additional information.


of 88

E3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment & Retention

General Licensing

Foster parents/resource families are part of a team that includes CSD staff and biological parents working toward the primary goal of reunifying children and families.

All foster parents/resource families must be licensed by Community Care Licensing (CCL), a division of the California State Department of Social Services (CDSS). Foster parents/resource families must also complete 33 hours of training and a home study. Some of the training topics include how to discipline in a positive way and how to help a foster child express emotions related to loss and separation from their family.

Additionally, CSD has a formal process for conducting initial and annual reassessments of relative and non-related extended family members (NREFMs), which includes criminal background checks and home evaluations. This process uses the standards set forth by Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 9.5 and the California State Evaluator manual – Background Check Procedure Section 7-0000 through 7-22000. These standards are also used by the State to license foster homes.

The relative approval process is comprehensive and assists social workers in making the best possible placement decision for the child. However, the required paperwork and documentation make this a logistical challenge for the assigned social worker. To address this challenge, in 2004, CSD launched its original Relative Assessment Unit (RAU) to centrally conduct and complete relative/NREFM background checks and certification of caregiver homes. Since its inception, RAU has grown to four (4) units with three (3) units located in the city of Riverside and one (1) unit in Cathedral City.

RAU is comprised of Social Worker I & IIs who are solely responsible for evaluating relative/NREFM homes. Although the placement decision remains with the case-carrying social worker, RAU staff are responsible for the following:

initiating the approval process on behalf of all emergency placement assessment requests by the next business day

completing both the home evaluation and caregiver assessment for initial assessments, caregiver moves and annual reassessments of relative/ NREFM placements no later than 30 days from RAU’s receipt of request

assisting caregiver(s) in completing Corrective Action Plans (CAP) and Documented Alternative Plans (DAP)

taking all necessary actions to refer all appropriate members of a household to Live Scan

conducting criminal background checks on all adults living in the home assessing the home for maximum capacity completing any needed requests for a criminal history exemption, and creating all electronic SOC 815, 817, and 818 documents in the case

management section of CWS/CMS when a relative/NREFM caregiver has been selected by a social worker for placement.


of 88

E3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment & Retention, Continued

General Licensing

Effective January 1, 2008, prior to approving a Relative/NREFM home for a child’s placement, RAU staff ask each adult in the home whether they have resided in another state within the past five (5) years. The RAU social worker provides the applicant with a LIC 508 D, Criminal Record Statement to complete, which requires disclosure of residence in other states. The RAU social worker checks the child abuse and neglect registry of each state in which the adult has resided in the past five (5) years and documents these efforts in CWS/CMS.

Probation

The Probation Department continues to conduct its own caregiver assessments for relative and non-relative extended family member placements pursuant to the Adoptions and Safe Families Act/AB1695. Training of staff is ongoing and the Probation Department works closely with CSD to stay current with the changes to this process.

Recruitment & Retention

CSD contracts with two (2) foster parent recruiters: Sidney Williamson and Sylvia Signoret. Recruiters attend monthly orientations held by Community Care Licensing (CCL), and provide additional information to individuals interested in becoming foster parents. Additionally, the foster parent recruiters and local Foster Parent Associations (FPAs) are available on an ongoing basis to provide support, training and mentorship to foster parents.

CSD’s caregiver recruitment efforts are targeted by category: infants, ethnically diverse children, siblings, adolescents, medically fragile and children with special needs. Current general and targeted recruitment strategies include a variety of advertisements, outreach and events such as:

regional recruitment events “Bring a Friend” recruitment events (current caregivers refer friends, relatives and neighbors)

recruitment outreach through the Family Resource Centers (FRCs) community Partnership outreach through business and civic organizations annual community events such as festivals, fairs and other community outreach opportunities.


of 88


Recruitment & Retention (continued)

Other recruitment strategies include:

Penny Saver ads for hard to recruit areas public service announcements (PSA’s) on local radio stations presentations at local school PTA meetings and at FRCs classified ads in employment section of local news paper advertisement in SBC Yellow Pages on the internet direct mail to health care professionals and teachers brochures provided to current caregivers to share with friends recruitment posters in grocery stores, libraries and hospitals Speakers Bureau Parent Partners

The implementation of Family to Family (beginning in 2004) has been instrumental in the recruitment, development and support of quality foster homes. Family to Family strategies have included a standardized model of foster parent training known as PRIDE training, Team Decision Making meetings, and events such as Riverside County’s foster parent appreciation events

Although CSD has done an adequate job of recruiting and maintaining an ethnically diverse pool of caregivers, the CSD continues to strategize to increase the pool of caregivers and potential adoptive families for older youth and special needs children.

Additional support services and resources available to caregivers in Riverside County include time-limited child care, advocacy, family events, pre-service and in-service training, video library, caregiver’s newsletter and quarterly informational meetings.

Placement Resources

Internal analysis of children with open child welfare cases as of the end of June 2008 shows 66% of children with open cases have been placed in out of home care and a substantial portion of these children (35%) are placed with relative/NERFM caregivers.

In 2007, Hispanic children had the highest number of first entries (66%), followed by White/Caucasian children (28%). This representation is consistent with Riverside County’s child demographics. On average, 74% of children who reunify are typically in out of home care less than 12 months.

CSD successfully places children who are in care with some (78.5%) or all (58.1%) of their siblings. More Hispanic and Native American children are placed with some or all siblings compared to the other ethnic groups. During the calendar year 2007, 62% of children in care for 12 to 24 months experienced no more than two placement settings. This is an improvement from 57% during the calendar year 2006.


of 88


Placement Resources (continued)

The characteristics of children for whom placement resources are scarce include sibling sets consisting of three (3) or more siblings, teens, parenting or pregnant youth, and children with special medical needs.

While it is the practice of CSD to place children involved in the child welfare system and youth involved in the Probation system in the least restrictive placement possible, on rare occasions there are children/youth whose needs exceed any local resources that are available. In these cases, the search for appropriate placement may be expanded outside Riverside County and occasionally outside the State of California. The behaviors and personal histories of children/youth for whom placement resources are scarce include children with sexual acting out behaviors, depression and/or suicidal tendencies, aggression and/or violence, co-occurring developmental delay with severe emotional disturbance, and drug and/or alcohol dependency.

E4. Quality Assurance System

Introduction In order to ensure continued improvement in the quality of service delivery, Riverside

County utilizes a multi-faceted Quality Assurance system, which includes, but is not limited to those activities described below.

Children Services Division: Quality Assurance System

Riverside County is committed to fostering quality assurance activities that encourage professional practice, promote child safety and well being, increase job satisfaction and staff retention, and encourage the transfer of knowledge, skills, values and ethics.

To ensure the provision of quality services by CSD staff, Riverside County has developed a comprehensive system of supervision, as shown below, to assist supervisors in the oversight of critical child welfare functions.

Each supervisor is required to meet with their staff individually on a monthly basis to provide any needed case consultation, performance feedback and training. While supervisors are always available for consultation, CSD wants to ensure that each social worker was provided the opportunity to, at minimum, confer with their supervisor each month.

Supervisors schedule monthly all staff meetings or unit meetings. Unit meetings are mandatory and are attended by all assigned staff. These meetings provide an opportunity for all unit staff to meet, share knowledge and resources, and acquire feedback or assistance from their supervisor and peers.

Supervisors conduct monthly reviews that include audits of monthly contacts, compliance with court orders, and case documentation. Supervisors utilize Structured Decision Making (SDM), CWS/CMS and Safe Measures as tools to facilitate their case review process.


of 88

E4. Quality Assurance System, Continued

Children Services Division: Quality Assurance System (continued)

Supervisors participate in field visits with staff and conduct monthly customer service surveys

Supervisors maintain a tracking logs that document runaway/abducted children, child visits, Independent Living Plans and supervisor field visits

Additionally, supervisors participate in supervisory trainings and engage in monthly supervisory meetings with their assigned regional manager. Monthly regional manager and supervisor meetings are used to discuss staff disciplinary issues, performance evaluations and the overall unit status as it relates to the provision of child welfare services.

Probation Department: Quality Assurance System

Supervising Probation Officers perform random audits of five (5) case plans on a monthly basis. Probation officers are provided with an audit form detailing needed corrections. Once the audit is completed, audit forms remain in the client case file. Additionally, as of August 4, 2008, Probation initiated the use of the Juvenile and Adult Management System (JAMS), designed to increase Probations technological capacity for overall case management.

CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Quality Assurance System of Funded Service Providers

Parents Anonymous, Inc., was awarded the program evaluation contract for all CAPIT/PSSF funded agreements. Parents Anonymous, Inc., collect data, analyzes the data and provides outcome reports for all CAPIT/PSSF services.

Since participation in prevention and family support programs is generally voluntary, the importance of client engagement outcomes, such as enrollment and high participant satisfaction are emphasized. In addition to engagement outcomes, Riverside County has encouraged the development of short-term outcomes through the increased use of pre/post-tests to determine the effectiveness of the provided services in changing the knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations of clients.

Parents Anonymous, Inc. developed a web-based database to collect information regarding services provided, client demographics, and outcomes achieved.

Process for Oversight and Monitoring

DPSS, PCARC, and Parents Anonymous, Inc. hold quarterly CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Partners Conferences in which all contracted providers are invited. The purpose of these conferences is to enhance the communication and collaborative relationship between service providers and public agency partners. The conference also provides a forum for service provider issues and concerns to be addressed. Participants are contacted prior to the conference for items or issues they want addressed. This information is incorporated into the agenda which is distributed prior to the conference. The conference also serves as an opportunity to share what each provider is doing and information about new services, initiatives, and recent changes.

CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF data is presented and discussed during these quarterly meetings. As with all CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF data and reports, these outcome reports are shared, in aggregates, with the partners during quarterly conferences to ensure services address the community needs identified during the needs assessment process. No identifying client information is shared.


of 88


Process for Oversight and Monitoring (continued)

Additionally, Parents Anonymous, Inc. disseminates and evaluates anonymous client satisfaction surveys for each CAPIT/PSSF contractor. Results are reported to PCARC and DPSS and incorporated into the CAPIT/PSSF annual reports. Surveys gather client responses regarding the overall quality of services, helpfulness of services in meeting client needs, convenience of services, professionalism of staff, accessibility of location, and other items. Client satisfaction surveys are distributed in English and Spanish at least three times per fiscal year to all clients served during an identified “survey week.” All contracts require providers to distribute postage paid client satisfaction surveys to each client. The client faxes or mails the survey directly to the evaluator.

In addition to the oversight of the program evaluator, DPSS assigns four separate units to oversee the CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF agreements. The Program Development Unit (PDU) serves as the liaison between DPSS and contracted providers. The Internal Review Group (IRG) conducts contract audits on all contracts and measures the provider’s adherence to contract terms and conditions. The Contracts Administration Unit (CAU) and the Management Reporting Unit (MRU) perform monitoring visits on all contracted providers. CAU assists the providers through recommendations to help them avoid future audit findings, while MRU oversees the funding for each contract to ensure funds are expended as specified in the contract. Program or quality of service questions are directed to PDU for resolution. PDU liaisons contact providers on a monthly basis and communicate any information or concerns from the providers to IRG, CAU, and MRU as appropriate.

Evaluation of Services

To ensure appropriate services are provided and meet the needs of clients, Riverside County utilizes three measures to determine the effectiveness of programs. The measures were formulated and finalized by Parents Anonymous, Inc. in partnership with each direct CAPIT/PSSF service provider. The measures used are Exit Assessments, Outcome Measures, and Client Satisfaction Surveys.

The goals for the Exit Assessments are documented in the web-based database and entered by the provider upon the participant’s exit from services.

The goals include:

a short-term goal and objective for the participant to “Learn the Basic Concepts/Skills Related to the Service Provided”

an intermediate goal and objective to “Acquire Competency in the Skills/Concepts Related to the Service Provided”

a longer-term goal and objective to “Be Able to Transfer the Skills/Concepts Into Their Daily Life.”

Evidenced based measures were chosen to evaluate client outcomes for each program. The measures include the Parent Stress Index (PSI) and the Counseling Outcome Measure (COM).


of 88


Evaluation Reporting

Parents Anonymous Inc. has developed the Riverside County Evaluation Database (RCEDB). The RCEDB is a web-based system for documenting evaluation data for Riverside County CAPIT/PSSF funded programs, including the following Service Types: Anger Management/Domestic Violence, Counseling, Differential Response, Home Visitation, Parenting, and Post-Adoption Services. Data includes information on intake cases and individuals, program participation, exit cases, outcome measures for each service type, and participant satisfaction measures. Intake information includes referral sources, funding sources, court-ordered status, and individual demographics. Participation information includes number of times participated, counties, cities, zip codes, and demographics. Exit information includes number of people exiting; percentages indicating achievement of short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals and reasons for leaving before program completion.

The database is easily accessible and allows the upload of data from providers’ existing systems, eliminating unnecessary duplication of data entry. Parents Anonymous, Inc. provides detailed monthly reports by service type and allows DPSS another method to efficiently monitor the effectiveness of contracted services.

Parents Anonymous, Inc. provides ongoing individual technical support for data collection activities to all CAPIT/ PSSF funded providers.

of 88

E5. Service Array

Service Array: Children’s Services Division

Riverside County, CSD provides a wide variety of services to assist children and families. These services include, but are not limited to:

Differential Response* - community-based services offered to families referred to CSD when the allegations or investigative findings do not warrant an open CSD case.

Family Resource Centers - four (4) Family Resource Centers (FRCs) located in Riverside County’s areas of greatest need provide quality services, information, and referrals at no or low cost to families. FRCs assist in improving family life, particularly for overburdened or disadvantaged families.

Food and Shelter – referrals to food banks, temporary assistance offices, community pantries, local housing programs (including the Family Unification Program), temporary shelters (for adults and youth) and assistance with rent/mortgage.

Kinship Support Services – Kinship Support services provide peer counseling, group support, tutoring, transportation, information and referrals, and mentoring services to caregivers/relative families with dependent children.

Legal Assistance – information, referrals and resources for free and low-cost civil legal assistance and advocacy.

Anger Management* - classes are designed to stop abusive and violent incidents, teach alternative methods of expressing emotions, teach how to negotiate differences and hold offenders accountable for their behavior.

Counseling* - provision of individual, conjoint, family, or group counseling services to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of child maltreatment or domestic violence events. Counseling services help ensure permanency by maintaining or reuniting children with their parents, adoptive parents, kinship providers, or legal guardians.

Domestic Violence* - classes and advocacy services for victims of domestic violence to empower them and prevent future incidents of domestic violence. These services also include the provision of shelter and support services as necessary.

In-Home Demonstration – Homemaker services are provided in the client’s residence, and may include budgeting and money management, information on proper nutrition, meal planning and preparation, household safety, environmental and personal sanitation, grocery shopping, personal stress management, and linking clients to available community resources.

In-Home Visitation*- includes In-Home Parenting/Visitation services. Parent education and support services are provided in the client’s residence.

Independent Living Program (ILP) - works to transition youth from foster care to emancipation by providing an array of support services to foster youth ages 16-18. A contracted vendor provides training, advocacy, mentoring and other support services to aid foster youth at developing competencies in areas of Education, Career Development, Health and Safety, Daily Living and Financial Resources.


of 88

E5. Service Array, Continued

Service Array: Children’s Services Division (continued)

Health Services – various services including the Public Health Nurse Advocates Teaching Child Health and Safety (PATCHS) program, Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC), Partners In Life Skills (PaLS) program, Inland Empire Health Plan’s “Open Access Program,” SSI Advocacy, referrals to California Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP), information and referrals for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families and other programs that protect and promote the health status of families and children.

Interpreter Services - provides interpreters who are professional, confidential and certified in accordance with the law for any individual who needs an interpreter in any language, including American Sign.

Parent Education* - classes are intended to enhance parent knowledge, skills, and confidence to improve parental ability to provide a nurturing environment that promotes optimal child development. Classes are intended for adults who need assistance in strengthening their emotional attachment to their children, learning how to nurture their children, and understanding general principles of discipline, care and supervision.

Substance Abuse Treatment – programs include: Family Preservation Court* (Drug Court), Residential treatment, Detoxification, Rehabilitation, Sober Living, Outpatient treatment, Aftercare and others designed to assist individuals with substance abuse recovery.

Tutoring Services – in-home and on-site academic tutoring programs that provide overall support, develop positive study skills, increase confidence and scholastic aptitude for the best possible educational outcomes for children.

Wraparound - a collaborative between the Department of Mental Health (DMH), CSD, the Department of Public Health, Olive Crest Treatment Centers and the Probation Department. This program provides intensive services (through DMH and/or Olive Crest) to children at risk of group home placement.

Independent Living Program Aftercare Services – services for former foster youth through the age of 21. Former foster youth are linked to one (1) of six (6) Youth Opportunity Centers, housing programs, employment and education opportunities and other support services to assist them in improving their skills and ability to be independent.

Adoption Support and Stabilization* - two (2) contracted providers offer services which include crisis intervention, conflict resolution between birth families and adoptive families, counseling for the children, in-home assessments, and services to address other special needs of adoptive children.

Transitional Housing Program Plus (THP Plus) – a two-year subsidized housing program for post-emancipation youth with fifteen (15) additional supportive services designed to assist youth in becoming self-sufficient by graduation.

While the County offers a wide variety of services, participants in the Riverside County Needs Assessment Report – 2007 were in agreement that current funding levels are insufficient to meet all of the needs identified in the needs assessment process. The PCARC planning body reviewed the service needs identified in the Riverside County Needs Assessment Report – 2007 and designated those services noted above with an asterix (*) as targeted priorities for CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF funding.


of 88


Service Array: Probation Department

Pre-delinquency and delinquency prevention programs pursuant to AB1913 identify and provide services to divert youth from the juvenile justice system. In 1996, the Probation Department developed Youth Accountability Boards (YABs) which utilize citizen volunteers to divert youth from the juvenile justice system through the use of counseling and mentoring. The Schiff-Cardenas Crime Prevention Act of 2000 resulted in the creation of 16 Youth Accountability Teams (YATs) throughout the County in 2001. The YATs are comprised of probation officers, police/sheriff’s deputies, school officials, and deputy district attorneys. The teams identify and provide services to incorrigible youth or youth exhibiting pre-delinquent or emerging-delinquent behavior. Probation officers have participated in collaborative efforts with law enforcement, schools, and mental health professionals to divert youth from the juvenile justice system. These collaborations also include task forces to suppress gang and drug activity.

During the Probation intake process referrals to community partners (service providers) are provided to clients and their parents for pre-court intervention. During case plan development and assessment of needs, with input from the youth and parents, families are referred to community partners for individual, family, or group counseling to address identified needs such as substance abuse or family violence. Overall, the case plans are used as a guide to provide consistent care and appropriate services.

Once wardship is established, graduated sanctions are imposed in conjunction with referrals to community partners and supervision by Probation staff. Alternative-to-placement programs were available regionally, but several were disbanded due to budget constraints. Currently, only wraparound is available to those youth at risk of being removed from their home. If placement outside the parental home becomes necessary as determined by a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary screening committee, the Probation Department provides monthly contact with the youth and placement facility to secure appropriate services and care for the youth. Assistance through the Independent Living Program (ILP) is provided to all youth 16 years and older in foster care. For those youth graduating from County programs such as the Van Horn Youth Center, the Twin Pines Ranch, or the Youthful Offender Program, the Probation Department recently implemented an Enhanced Aftercare program. Additional mental health support can be obtained for qualified youth through the Therapeutic Behavioral Services (TBS) program. The Department of Mental Health also provides Multi-Dimensional Therapeutic Foster Care and Multi-Dimensional Family Therapy.

The Probation Department also provides multi-agency services to adult offenders, most notably through drug court and domestic violence diversion programs. These programs address not only substance abuse and violent behavior, but attempt to address related family dysfunction to eliminate the cycle of family criminality and abuse.

Eligibility for ICWA services is determined through interviews with the youth and parent, and during the completion of the case plan. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is contacted whenever placement outside the parental home is being considered.


of 88


Service Array Strengths: Community Partner & Stakeholder Feedback

Workgroups consisting of DPSS staff, Probation, Community Partners and Stakeholders identified the following strengths with regards to service provision in Riverside County:

The utilization of the Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools: SDM assists CSD staff in improving assessments of the family (Initial Safety and Risk Assessments, Family Strengths and Needs Assessment, Risk and Reunification Reassessments).

Counselors in many Riverside County schools are tracking children that are in foster care/ group homes to offer additional assistance. The additional assistance and resources provided to children and families can make the difference in whether children re-enter the foster care system.

CSD has ongoing meetings with Judicial Officers that facilitate communication to better serve families involved Juvenile Court proceedings.

CSD has worked to enhance communication between staff and out of home care providers through various meetings such as Right Partnerships, Shelter Parent meetings, and Parents by Choice meetings for foster parent association presidents.

Family Preservation Court (FPC) is an intense court-supervised program designed to assist parent(s) in eliminating drug and/or alcohol dependency, permitting children to be safely returned to their parent(s), and keeping the family together.

The Wraparound Program is reported to be a strength in Riverside County’s child welfare service delivery system. The ultimate goal of Wraparound is to help stabilize children and adolescents with their birth families or relative caregivers by providing intensive, comprehensive, integrated and creative treatment, intervention and support services in the child’s home environment.

The recent development of the ILP region to develop and offer comprehensive services to ILP youth both in care and after care.

Completion of timely Transitional Independent Living Plans (TILP) and Independent Living Program (ILP) assessments continues to be strength for Riverside County in its commitment to improve outcomes for foster youth.

The Family to Family (F2F) Initiative has improved countywide practice for recruitment, retention, and support of foster parent/resource families. F2F has helped to develop and improve communication with community partners and increase parent and youth engagement. Team Decision Making meetings have helped bring together parents, youth, CSD staff and community parents to assist in making the best decisions regarding the best placement for children. F2F has also helped to increase transparency regarding CSD data, program strengths and ongoing needs.

DPSS has four (4) Family Resource Centers (FRCs) located in areas determined to have the greatest need in Riverside County (Desert Hot Springs, Mecca, Perris, and Rubidoux). The FRC’s provide quality services, information, and referrals at no or low cost to families residing in the County. The FRC’s assist in improving family life, particularly for overburdened or disadvantaged families.


of 88


Service Array Strengths: Community Partner & Stakeholder Feedback (continued)

The Differential Response (DR) program provides community-based services to families who are at risk of abusing or neglecting their children. Families eligible for DR services have been referred to CSD due to allegations of child abuse or neglect, however, upon review the allegations the investigative findings do not warrant an open child welfare services case.

Quarterly CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Partners Conferences with all contracted providers helps to enhance communication and collaborative relationship between service providers and DPSS by providing a forum for service providers to discuss any issues and concerns they may have. The conference also serves as an opportunity to share what each provider is doing and information about new services, initiatives, and recent changes.

The Kinship Support Program (KSSP) offers peer counseling, parenting education, group support, tutoring, transportation, information and referrals, and mentoring services to relative caregivers and the children placed in their homes.

Riverside County uses the Parent Resources for Information, Development, and Education (PRIDE) Program as a foundation for Resource Family training. The PRIDE program is an established curriculum from the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) and an approved curriculum of Family to Family. PRIDE is designed to strengthen the quality of family foster care and adoption services by providing a standardized framework for the competency-based preparation of Resource Families. PRIDE Training ensures that foster and adoptive parents:

acquire the knowledge and skills to protect and nurture children meet children’s developmental needs support relationships between children and their families connect children to long lasting, safe and nurturing relationships, and work as a member of a professional team.

Family to Family Ice Breaker Meetings are scheduled within 14 days of a child’s placement in out of home care. The purpose of an Ice Breaker meeting is to bring together the child’s biological parent/legal guardian, caregiver and a CSD social worker in a facilitated meeting to encourage the sharing of information regarding the child’s likes, dislikes and daily routine. Communication between the parent/ legal guardian and caregiver supports a positive working relationship, lessen trauma experienced by the child and provide for continuity of care.

Ongoing meetings between DPSS staff and community partners help to continually assess and provide services to meet the needs of children, youth, and caregivers (i.e. concurrent planning, 16 & over staffings, TDM’s, Multidisciplinary Team Meetings, etc.).

Information and referral services, such as 2-1-1 Riverside County (referral and resource line), the CSD Service Referral Laminate (SRL), Family Resource Centers (FRC) and the Kinship Warmline help in the provision of services to children and families throughout the County.

Riverside County’s ongoing collaboration with public and private agencies is recognized as strength. For additional information see section E7. Agency Collaborations.



of 88


Service Array Strengths: Native American Children and Families

Community Partners and Stakeholders further identified the following service array strengths specific to meeting the needs of Native American children and families:

Noticing of hearings for cases involving Native American children has improved.

Cultural awareness training is provided for all CSD social work staff upon hire as part of the “Induction” or initial training program. Collaboration between Indian Child Family Services and CSD provides social workers with information and skills building regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the need for culturally relevant child placements and local Native American resources and services.

Tribal STAR provides training to social workers, probation officers, educators, community based agency staff, attorneys/court personnel, Tribal youth service providers, case managers, CASAs, emancipation workers, foster parents and group home staff, and Tribal ICWA workers. The goal of Tribal STAR training is to impact practice and policy in public child welfare, ultimately leading to increased positive outcomes for Tribal foster children and youth by enhancing collaborative efforts between Tribal and non-Tribal entities.

Tribal Alliance meetings are held quarterly between the Tribes, Judicial Officers, CSD executives and staff, Department of Mental Health, Riverside County Substance Abuse, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs).

Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings are held on all cases with children and/or families with Native American ancestry. Tribes are notified of all scheduled meetings and tribal representatives, extended family members, and any additional persons the family feels integral to their success are asked to attend.

The Indian Child and Family Services (ICFS) Spirit Incredible Years program is a culturally tailored and evidence-based parenting education program that is available to anyone in the Native American community.

Quarterly Meetings with Indian Child and Family Services (ICFS), which represents the Tribal Consortium, and CSD management and staff to address and discuss the progress, strengths and challenges in working with Native American children and families.



of 88


Service Array Gaps and Needs

Community Partners and Stakeholders further identified the following concerns regarding the availability of services:

When children are reunified there is a lack of transitional services in place that addresses treatment issues (i.e. substance abuse, mental health services, etc.). There is also a need for an increase in TDMs and safety planning upon the child’s return to the home that addresses potential risk and safety concerns.

There is a need for improved training of social workers, including training on conducting comprehensive assessment for safety and risk factors, which may lead to children re-entering the child welfare system.

Frequent social worker changes are negatively impacting service delivery. Community partners specifically cited the need to improve worker-to-worker case consultations upon case transfers.

Parents and social workers lack knowledge and training regarding the availability of services, resources and prevention information.

Consistency is needed in services for biological and foster parents (similar parenting approaches) to increase successful reunification between the child and the parent.

When the Juvenile Court prematurely closes cases before the case plan is complete, or closes cases against CSD recommendations, it is reported to negatively impact successful reunification.

The termination of contracts mid-service delivery, when clients may not have completed all case plan requirements, was reported to create stress for parents and disrupt the learning and integration process, thereby impacting reentry.

An increase in face-to-face contacts with families (children, parents, and caregivers) is needed to better assess family needs and monitor progress. Inadequate assessment of familial needs may increase the possibility of reentry, as important underlying issues may be missed.

Services are difficult to obtain in the desert area of the County. The lack of service availability in this area, along with high staff turnover appears to be contributing to the desert region’s higher reentry rate.

There is a need to educate out of home care providers on available services and programs designed to meet children’s needs.

There is a need for more effective parenting classes, where parents can learn skills which they can apply to real life parenting situations.

Parents need more information regarding the child welfare system and the Juvenile Court process.

There is a need for expanded preventative services such as Team Decision Making meetings, Differential Response and Pre-Filing Family Preservation Court.


of 88


Service Array Gaps and Needs (continued)

There is a need for increased Voluntary Family Maintenance services and more Family Resource Centers throughout the County.

Note: see Attachments B through K: PQCR and CSA Discussion Matrixes for additional information regarding barriers to the availability/accessibility of services.

Service Array Gaps and Needs: Native American Children and Families

Community Partners and Stakeholders further identified the following service array specific to meeting the needs of Native American children and families:

There is a need for increased educational support and tutors.

There is a need for increased substance abuse and domestic violence services that are culturally relevant.

There is an increased need for evidence based parenting education that is culturally relevant and that is offered to the family after the child is returned home. This will allow parents to apply their newly acquired skills they have learned.

There is a need for increased services for Native American adolescents (substance abuse, anger management, etc.)

There is a need for services that address “Historical Trauma” experienced by Native American children and adults.

Tribal Alliance meetings would benefit from being co-chaired by tribal members and judicial officers. This would assist in communication for all Tribal Alliance members.

Parents need a more comprehensive understanding of their service case plan and how to access relevant services.

There is a need for transportation resources to assist parents in accessing needed services.

There is a need for a culturally specific Wraparound program services to meet the needs of the Native American community. Wraparound services should include culturally relevant case management, counseling and parenting.

Ongoing services and resources for families after case closure are needed including culturally specific healing aftercare programs.

There is a need for a crisis hotline with 24-hours a day, 7-days a week access for families who are in need of help, resources and referrals for services.

Children placed in relative care need additional support and resources.

Accessing mental health services is often time consuming and difficult, resulting in low client engagement rates.

There is a need for rehabilitation programs on the reservations for parents who are on parole. Currently there are few accessible support services.

There is a need for Tribal Courts.

Note: see Attachments B through K: PQCR and CSA Discussion Matrixes for additional information regarding barriers to the availability/accessibility of services.


of 88

E6. Staff/Provider Training

Children’s Services Division; Staff Training

In July 2008, CSD revised the training program for new social workers, which is a collaborative effort between the Staff Development Division (SDD) and the Children Service Division (CSD) Training Region. Induction training was five weeks long, however, with the re-design it has been extended over a 16 week period. All social workers receive induction training in the basic skills and knowledge required for their position. Case-carrying social workers may not assume primary responsibility for any case decisions until induction has been completed.

Throughout the 16 week induction period, new social workers receive classroom training with PCWTA and SDD that covers both State mandated and County required child welfare training elements. Further, new social workers are paired with mentors from the CSD Training Region for supervised field experience which provides transfer of learning opportunities. These three training components are designed to compliment each other and to increase Riverside County’s ability to support the goals and objectives of the State’s child welfare system.

The CSD Training Region provides practical work experience for new social workers by offering program specific curriculum in Emergency Response (ER) services, Court Dependency Unit (CDU) services, and Continuing Services (CS). For example, a new hire in the ER training phase would receive PCWTA and SDD classroom training, while additionally receiving the Training Region’s ER specific training curriculum, and their own ER referral to investigate in conjunction with a mentor worker.

In addition, the Training Region (TR) units will focus on training established staff by providing program specific training when staff change programs, in-service training on specific topics, mentoring for both line staff and supervisors, and re-training staff who want to polish their skills and develop expertise in specific child abuse topics.

The TR also provides on-going training needs assessment of regional staff and tracking staff training for State mandated records. The TR will work in a collaborative effort with the Department's existing SDD to improve access to and development of region specific trainings geared to meet the needs of staff assigned to that region. By providing training in the regional offices using the TR units, it is hoped this improved access to training will motivate staff to develop their social work skills on a continuing basis.

Additionally, there is a twenty (20) hour annual requirement of ongoing training for all social workers, supervisors, assistant regional managers, and regional managers. Training provided covers advanced skills as well as updates on new programs, legislation, and regulations. As of July 1, 2008, the annual 20 hour requirement also became a State mandate.


of 88

E6. Staff/Provider Training, Continued

Probation Department: Staff Training

The Probation Department provides ongoing training for all staff that coincides with the fiscal year. Probation personnel participate in mandatory training through Riverside County’s Staff Development Department and through in house trainers located within the Probation Department. In addition, Probation staff participate in Supervisory Conferences that occur throughout the year.

Probation Officers are required to attend 160 hours of Core Training upon hire. This Core training provides new officers with an overview of the core functions of both the Probation Department and their position as a Probation Officer. The Probation Department is eager to enhance future training opportunities and will collaborate with CSD on the potential for future trainings that would benefit both CSD and Probation.

Provider Training

DPSS, PCARC, and Parents Anonymous, Inc. hold quarterly CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Partners Conferences in which all contracted providers are invited. The purpose of these conferences is to enhance the communication and collaborative relationship between service providers and public agency partners. The conference also provides a forum for service provider issues and concerns to be addressed. Participants are contacted prior to the conference for items or issues they want addressed. This information is incorporated into the agenda which is distributed prior to the conference. The conference also serves as an opportunity to share what each provider is doing and information about new services, initiatives, and recent changes.

Foster Parent / Prospective Adoptive Parent Training

There are currently eight (8) Resource Family Training and Assessment (RFTA) positions in CSD. Each trainer is expected to conduct three (3) trainings yearly, which include at least three (3) trainings conducted in Spanish each year. Trainings are usually held in the evening from 6 pm – 9 pm for 11 weeks, for a total of 33 hours of training. In the Fall of 2007, CSD implemented Saturday classes, which are held in the Spring and Fall from 9 am- 4 pm for five (5) weeks for a total of 35 hours of training.

With the implementation of Family to Family in Riverside County, training for foster and prospective adoptive parents (now entitled Resource Families) merged. Current practice in Riverside is for all resource families, regardless of whether they are foster or adoptive, to go through the same training and have an adoption level home study conducted. This consolidated home study ensures that a child’s adoption is not delayed as the family is already approved for adoption. This has additionally strengthened the quality of care for children by ensuring that all caregivers are evaluated in exactly the same manner.


of 88


Foster Parent / Prospective Adoptive Parent Training (continued)

There are currently eight (8) Resource Family Training and Assessment (RFTA) positions in CSD. Each trainer is expected to conduct three (3) trainings yearly, which include at least three (3) trainings conducted in Spanish each year. Trainings are usually held in the evening from 6 pm – 9 pm for 11 weeks, for a total of 33 hours of training. In the Fall of 2007, CSD implemented Saturday classes, which are held in the Spring and Fall from 9 am- 4 pm for five (5) weeks for a total of 35 hours of training.

Trainers conduct/participate in the following resource family activities:

Orientation - Resource family orientation is conducted on the first Saturday of each month (Spanish speaking orientation is conducted quarterly) in tandem with Community Care Licensing (CCL). At Orientation, families are given the County application and the State application, as well as an overview of the foster care licensing process. The RFTA unit meets monthly with CCL to discuss where families are in the approval process and to discuss any issues/concerns.

Initial Interviews – Once an application is received, families are called in to Live Scan for the County and for CCL and to meet the RFTA trainer. The trainer assesses the family and is available to answer any questions the family may have throughout the process. In August 2008, Structured Decision Making (SDM) for Substitute Caregivers was implemented. On the basis of the assessment, the trainer may request the family attend counseling, parenting, participate in a substance abuse assessment or participate in a psychological evaluation before they can begin the process. The trainer also reviews any additional paperwork with the family.

Training – The RFTA unit uses the PRIDE (modified) curriculum. The modified version of PRIDE is a combination of information from the PRIDE model, the Caregiver Core Training and Adoption Training. Foster Parent Trainers, who are experienced foster/adoptive parents, are utilized in the training classes following the Family to Family model. Prospective Resource Families find it invaluable to talk to, and hear from experienced foster and adoptive parents. Evaluations are collected at each class session and a final overview evaluation is given at the end of the training. Trainers work to make sure the training site is comfortable by providing beverages and snacks, additionally families participate in weekly pot lucks.

Home Studies – Home studies for resource families are based on a Psychological Assessment form, the Substitute Caregiver Structured Decision Making (SDM) tool, and an assessment of the physical safety of the family’s home. At least two (2) separate contacts are made with each family, during which there are individual interviews with each family member (including children if applicable), an interview with the couple and then a separate “family interview.” After the interviews are completed, the home study is developed and submitted to a supervisor for approval. The family is sent an approval letter once the home study is fully approved and they are ready for placement of a foster/adoption child. If the family desires to adopt, they are place in the “adoption matching pool” and assigned to one of their former class trainers. If the family wants to foster a child, their home study is sent to the CSD Placement Unit.


of 88


Foster Parent / Prospective Adoptive Parent Training (continued)

In addition to the above mentioned training, CSD has now implemented four (4) week adoption classes for relatives, non-related extended family members (NREFMs) and Foster Family Agency (FFA) families who have applied to adopt a child(ren) already placed in their care. These classes are conducted by adoption workers in the Kinship Unit and Specialized Adoptions Unit.

Further, Riverside County ensures that ongoing training is available to all resource families, including foster, adoptive, relative, and NREFM families, through the Foster and Kinship Care Education Program and Riverside Community College. The classes are offered in nine (9) different areas of Riverside County. There are Spanish speaking classes available.

Medically Fragile Training is also available to resource families who have completed or are participating in the process of becoming a resource family.

Mechanism for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Training

DPSS utilizes evaluation surveys as tools to assess the effectiveness of trainings offered countywide. Evaluation surveys are provided to training participants immediately following all trainings to assess if the:

process and resulting table/workgroup activities were of value to the learner terms and concepts were clearly explained materials presented added value to the learning experience process met the needs and expectations of the learner presenter was knowledgeable, well prepared and presented the information clearly and effectively

presenter promoted discussion, participation and responded to needs and questions

presenter had a professional demeanor presenter managed time effectively location was conducive to learning registration process was effective/efficient technology used fostered the learning process learners knowledge and skills have increased as a result of the training learner will be able to apply what they learned learner felt their input was heard and valued

In addition, each participant is asked what they liked and disliked about the training and how the training can be improved in the future. The information from analyzing the responses to each of the survey questions, including all the respondents’ comments and suggestions, are used to improve future trainings and enhance the learning process.


of 88

E7. Agency Collaborations

Introduction CSD continues its commitment to work conjointly with community partners and

stakeholders in coordinating resources for improvement in child welfare service delivery. CSD depends on several key processes, to include agency collaboration, in order to accomplish this goal.

Collaboration with Public and Private Agencies: Children’s Services Division

The County is committed to address and resolve areas needing improvement. CSD has held four (4) half-day community partner meetings between May and September 2008 to achieve this goal. CSD and key stakeholders have successfully joined efforts throughout the County Self Assessment (CSA) process and have developed a shared responsibility for the outcomes of children and youth in the child welfare system. Riverside County’s partners are open to new approaches and motivated to put shared ideas into action in the County’s System Improvement Plan (SIP).

In addition, the implementation of the Family to Family Initiative has increased departmental efforts to build community partnerships in order to meet the goals set forth under the child welfare reform initiative. Inherent in the Family to Family Initiative is the need for child welfare agencies to be inclusive and open to community partners so that they may have shared knowledge and responsibility, regarding the availability, quality, and the types of services offered to children, youth, and families.

On May 12, 2008, CSD held a Community Partner Forum meeting to provide community partners with feedback regarding the accomplishments achieved since the implementation of Riverside County’s SIP in October of 2004. Accomplishments include the implementation of the following:

Family to Family Initiative

Foster Parent Training (PRIDE)

Structured Decision Making assessment tools

Out-of Home Investigating Unit

Differential Response (DR) program

Pre-Filing Family Preservation Court

Wraparound program

Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care

THP-Plus program

Overall, improved partnerships, enhanced service quality, and increased volume of resources were among the most notable successes since the implementation of Riverside County’s 2004 SIP efforts.


of 88

E7. Agency Collaborations, Continued

Collaboration with Public and Private Agencies: Children’s Services Division (continued)

Areas of strength in agency collaboration identified by community partners and stakeholders during the 2008 CSA process included the following:

Family Resource Centers (FRCs) – FRC are neighborhood-based facilities which are available to families for drop-in services offered by various non-profit and public social service agencies. Each FRC offers services that are specific to the needs of the community they are serving. FRCs serve more than 4,500 clients and provide over 26,000 referrals for services annually.

Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings - from October 31, 2005 to May 31, 2008, social workers, families and community partners participated in 1,648 TDM meetings. In addition, during time period July 2007 to June 2008, 60 new foster homes were established in Family to Family targeted zip codes.

Department of Mental Health (DMH) – Collaboration between CSD and DMH helps to provide more comprehensive services to clients and promotes communication between service providers. Examples of collaborative efforts include but are not limited to Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDT’s), referrals for services through the ACT Clinician, the Interagency Committee on Placement (ICOP), Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC).

Family Preservation Court (FPC) – FPC is a voluntary preventative program in which clients with substance abuse issues may participate to address the need for the loss of custody and/or the need to file a petition with the juvenile court. Thus far, 211 participants have graduated from the FPC program. Only three (3) of these graduates’ children have re-entered the child welfare system. In addition, 69 babies have been born drug free since the program’s inception in September of 2002.

Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County (PCARC) – PCARC is Riverside County’s Board designated lead child abuse and prevention council. PCARC functions as a countywide advocate for the prevention and intervention of child maltreatment. PCARC has six (6) regional councils located throughout the County. These councils are composed of parent consumers, community leaders, school, law enforcement, and public agency participants (e.g. Children’s Services and Department of Mental Health). PCARC provides mandated reporter training throughout the County, conducts child awareness campaigns and offers conferences to educate the public and professional community regarding issues relating to child maltreatment.

Differential Response (DR) – The DR program benefits families by offering needed community services without court intervention or removal of the children from their homes. DR providers conduct home visits and meet with the families to offer case management and referrals to needed support services. Since its implementation in January 2007, more than 1,100 families have been referred to DR program providers.

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) - CASAs are trained volunteer community members that are appointed by the Juvenile Court to assist in making recommendations regarding the best interest of a dependent child. Coordination between the social worker, CASA, and the court system enhances the effectiveness of addressing a child’s needs while they are in child welfare system.


of 88




Tribal STAR training is available to social workers, probation officers, educators, community based agency staff, attorneys/court personnel, Tribal youth service providers, case managers, CASAs, emancipation workers, foster parents and group home staff, and Tribal ICWA workers. The goal of Tribal STAR training is to impact practice and policy in Public Child Welfare, ultimately leading to increased positive outcomes for Tribal foster children and youth by enhancing collaborative efforts between Tribal and non-Tribal entities.

Additional Tribal trainings are sponsored by local tribes in collaboration with DPSS and community agencies.


On-going countywide efforts to improve service delivery mechanisms include the following: Family to Family meetings with community members and providers, provider fairs, CAPIT and PSSF Partner Conferences, Community Partner Forums, foster parent appreciation events, regional community and events.

Communication and collaboration between CSD and community partner providers is working, but constituency groups acknowledge the need for improvement in the following areas:

Social workers, families, FFAs, group homes, and community partners do not all have the same information regarding policies, procedures, processes, services available, referral criteria and/or how to access the available services.

Adequate housing and transportation issues continue to impact family stability and success.

Social workers are not always available for consultation with providers.

Families lack a comprehensive post reunification transition plan which includes community based services during Family Maintenance, and following termination of court dependency.

Partners are not familiar with CSD policies, procedures, and processes. Staff turnover makes it difficult for partners to know current information in the midst of change.

Increase agency collaboration and communication with community partners/service providers (PCARC, faith based organizations, schools, Probation, community centers, etc.). Workgroups specifically cited that frequent community forums would be beneficial in sharing progress and updates on the County Self Assessment (CSA) and System Improvement Plan (SIP).


of 88



Foster parents, court, and school representatives are often unaware of the Independent Living Program (ILP) services and therefore are unable to encourage youth to take advantage of these services.

Multiple county agencies (DPSS, CSD, Probation, Mental Health, RCOE, etc.) serving the same children, youth, and families in Riverside County need to engage each other directly to increase communication, coordination of services, and sharing of responsibility for the outcomes achieved.

Note: see Attachments C through K: PQCR and CSA Discussion Matrixes for additional information.

Collaboration with Public and Private Agencies: Probation Department

The Probation Department has a good relationship with Riverside County’s Office of Education (RCOE). Probation officers participate in Individualized Education Plan meetings and School Attendance Review Boards (SARB) to obtain services for clients. Foster Youth Services (a unit of RCOE), is in the process of developing a computer program pursuant to SB 490 for the purpose of tracking the educational records of children placed outside their home by Probation or CSD. Through other school related collaborations, probation officers are assigned to specific school sites to work with school personnel and mental health professionals to address pre-delinquent behaviors. Schools, law enforcement, district attorneys office and probation officers work together to identify and service youth incorrigible and pre-delinquent behavior.

Probation collaborations with other county agencies are extensive. Mental Health professionals and a public health nurse participate on the placement screening committee to assure proper treatment is sought for youth placed outside the home. Youth and their families with significant mental health issues receive collaborative services through the Wraparound Program. Probation officers work with law enforcement on task forces to address gang violence and substance abuse. Defense counsel, the district attorney, the court, a private service provider (Youth Service Center), and probation officers work together to provide supervision and treatment to Riverside County wards. The Probation Department also works with CSD to provide Independent Living Program (ILP) services to youth 16 years of age or older who are/have been in out of home placements.

The Probation Department is developing training in conjunction with the Department of Mental Health and CSD to provide information to the community regarding the functions and services of each department. The Probation Department has limited interaction with Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or other agencies representing the interests of Native American children.

Barriers to collaboration with public and private agencies include the lack of fiscal resources and continued need to enhance communication between service providers and government agencies (DPSS, CSD, Probation, schools, and tribal leaders, etc.).


of 88


Prevention Partnerships

The Department of Public Services (DPSS) continues its commitment to collaborate with community partners and stakeholders in coordinating resources to reduce child neglect and maltreatment in Riverside County. The following matrix represents existing partnerships throughout Riverside County which focus on child abuse and neglect, prevention and intervention:

NAME PURPOSE PROJECTS CONTACT

INFORMATION MEETINGS

Allied Riverside Cities Narcotics Enforcement Task Force (ARCNET)

An allied, collaborative effort among all local law enforcement & other public agencies to respond to the possession and sales of street drugs, including clandestine drug labs; to be a resource for all cities regarding drug issues, and to initiate the first response to drug sales and labs

Ongoing investigations and evaluations of the increase or decrease of street drug sales and drug labs in the service areas; ongoing pursuit and dissemination of criminal intelligence regarding large drug labs; training of narcotics officer

Tony Valente Commander Allied Riverside Cities Narcotics Task Force P.O. Box 1028 Banning, CA 92220 (951) 922-4844

Monthly meetings with Banning P.D., Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE), Beaumont P.D., Hemet P.D., San Jacinto P.D., RSO, Riverside County Probation Department, and Children’s Services

Alvord Collaborative

To network with other agencies, and provide oversight for the Safe & Drug Free Schools, and Tobacco Use Prevention & Education entitlements

Utilize funds for educational programs in the schools, training for teachers, and referrals for youth who have been expelled or suspended from school, and their families

Charles Cummins Program Coordinator for Student Assistance & Safety Alvord Unified School District 10365 Keller Ave. & Riverside, CA 92505 (951) 509-5031

Quarterly meetings with district personnel, teachers, after school staff, City of Riverside, RCOE, CHA, DMH, YMCA, & other CBOs

CAPIT—PSSF Community Partner Meeting

Develop collaborative relationship between service providers and public agency partners. Provide a forum for service provider issues and concerns. Services focus on the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect

Provide technical support to vendors, identify service gaps and duplications within the county; review, coordinate, and evaluate the provision of CAPIT PSSF-funded services

Mark Friedlander Social Service Planner Riverside County DPSS Contracts Administration Unit 10281 Kidd St. Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-6973

Quarterly meetings with all CAPIT-PSSF contracted service providers


of 88




Child Death Review Team Name

Forensic review of all child fatalities in Riverside County; facilitate communication among public agencies which deal with child fatalities and other issues relating to child abuse or neglect; ensure siblings and family members of deceased children receive appropriate services

Ensure appropriate investigation, follow-up (criminal, Children’s Services, public health, etc.) and services on cases involving child fatalities in which an autopsy was performed; disseminate information on rollover/co-sleeping deaths and improper car restraints; provide training to team members; collect local data

Laurie Fineman Regional Manager Riverside County DPSS Children’s Services Division 23119 Cottonwood Ave Building B Moreno Valley, CA 92553 (951) 413-5450

Monthly meetings with District Attorney’s office, various law enforcement agencies, CHP, Coroner’s Office, DMH, CHA, Probation, Children’s Services, IRC, EMS, Courts, & Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse & Neglect Meeting

Child Protection Committee

To improve DPSS collaboration between law enforcement, the District Attorney’s Office, and medical services to resolve issues and concerns pertaining to child abuse and neglect intervention services

AB 636; Differential Response; TRAC, CAN (child abuse and neglect medical team)

Jennie Pettet Deputy Director Riverside County DPSS Children’s Services Dvision 10281 Kidd St. 2nd Floor Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-3773

Monthly meetings with staff from RSO, DPSS, DA, various law enforcement agencies

Coachella Valley Narcotics Task Force (CVNTF) Name

To increase public safety by reducing the incidence of street and mid-level narcotics trafficking

Ongoing investigations of street and mid-level narcotics dealers; parole and probation compliance monitoring; assistance to CHP

Fred Fierro Task Force Commander Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Palm Springs P.D., 200 S. Civic Dr. Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760) 323-8134, X8138

One meeting per month with Indio RSO, Riverside County Probation Department, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (BNE), Children’s Services, Indio P.D., Palm Springs P.D., Cathedral City P.D., Desert Hot Springs P.D., Coachella P.D., La Quinta P.D., Rancho Mirage P.D., Thermal P.D., Mecca P.D., and other incorporated and unincorporated parts of the desert area

Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA)

To speak for the best interests of abused, neglected, and abandoned children in the courts of Riverside County

Advocating for the services needed to help each child detained by the Juvenile Court find safe, permanent, nurturing homes, and become healthy and productive adults

Deborah Sutton Executive Director CASA for Riverside County, Inc., P.O. Box 3008 Indio, CA 92202-3008 (760) 863-7425

Monthly in service trainings with all CASA volunteers in Riverside County


of 88




Department of Mental Health (DMH) Children’s Committee

A standing committee to the Mental Health Board. The committee advocates for the needs of children who have been identified as having, or are at -risk of experiencing, emotional/ behavioral challenges

Support Annual Children’s Conference; DMH sponsored Parent -Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT); increase awareness of mental health issues for children

Valeria Edwards Secretary Riverside County DMH Children’s Services 9707 Magnolia Ave. Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-4520

Monthly meetings with representation of public and private agencies, consumers, and parents/ caregivers of youth consumers

Family Preservation Court

To enhance and expand treatment services to achieve positive reunification or avoid out of home placement for as many families as possible by promoting successful recovery from alcohol or drug dependency when alcohol or drug abuse is a contributing factor in child abuse or neglect

Daily mentoring program, weekly provision of assessment, and referral of services to clients who have been accepted into the Family Preservation Court program

Pam Miller Collaborative Justice Coordinator Riverside Superior Court 30755-D Auld Road # 1226 Murrieta, CA 92562 (951) 304-5334

Monthly meetings with Superior Court judges, private attorneys, Juvenile Defense Panel attorneys, DMH, Children’s Services, CBOs, Sherrif DEC Team, Public Health & DMH Substance Abuse

Differential Response Program

Provide alternative service intervention to families at risk of child abuse and neglect

Countywide DR program for families referred by DPSS

Riverside Areas Candy Curiel, MSW Program Director Family Services Association of Western Riverside County (FSAWRC) (951) 686-1096

Desert Areas Anne Coleman Program Director JFK Foundation (760) 776-1600

Quarterly meeting of Children’s Services, FSAWRC, and JFK to review program operation and service delivery

Drug Endangered Child (DEC) Taskforce

Coordinate public agency response to drug lab arrests which involve toxic substances; ensure drug-endangered children receive appropriate medical treatment and follow-up

Disseminate information and training to law enforcement, public health, and child protective agencies on the health hazards of drug manufacturing to children. As knowledge of this initiative spreads, fewer children are found at drug lab locations

Robert McRae, Detective & John Pulatie, Detective Riverside County Sheriff’s Department Special Investigations Bureau P.O. Box 1267 Riverside, CA 92502 (951) 955-1700

Monthly meetings with DPSS, CHA, District Attorney’s Office, FPC & RSO


of 88




Family Resource Center (FRC) Advisory Boards

There are four family resource centers located in the communities of Rubidoux, Perris, Desert Hot Springs, and Mecca. Each center has its own board. As part of their roles, the advisory boards make recommendations for new services and assist in developing service resources

Advisory board members are nominated by the Board of Supervisors staff and include parent representatives, community leaders, and public agency representatives

Martha Matus FRC Supervisor Riverside County DPSS Children’s Services Division 10281 Kidd St. 2nd Floor Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-7775

Quarterly meetings

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren (GRG) Task Force

To increase accessibility & availability of services to grandparents, and to remove obstacles that might hinder the ability of a relative to care for their kin

Three ongoing committees: 1. Program & Public Relations 2. Legislative & Systems Change 3. MDT Address complex issues for grandparents and relatives

Valerie Wheat Program Specialist II Riverside County Office on Aging 1075 N. State St. Hemet, CA 92543 (951) 791-3573

Quarterly meetings for the Task Force, and monthly meetings for each committee, with Children’s Services, BOS representatives, grandparents, grandparent advocates, Office on Aging, Probation, Probate Court, DMH, FFA’s, CHA, Family Law Court, and Juvenile & Superior Court representatives

Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP)

To provide quality medical care to foster children in Riverside County

Provides Open Access Program (which is a case management program for foster children), and focuses on foster children who require additional medical services, such as diabetes, asthma, teen pregnancy, etc.

Gary Melton M.D. Inland Empire Health Plan P.O. Box 19026 San Bernardino, CA 92423-9026 (909) 890-2040

Quarterly meetings to discuss current issues with IEHP, Children’s Services, & CHA

Inland Regional Center (IRC)

To review cases that CSD and IRC have in common and discuss any issues

Ongoing discussion of cases in common and CSD and IRC programs such as Early Start

Kevin Urtz Program Manager Inland Regional Center 4361 Latham St. Ste. 200 Riverside, CA 92501-1749 (909) 826-2630

Quarterly meetings with IRC and Children’s Services


of 88




Interagency Committee On Placement (ICOP)

To discuss and review issues & policies on the placement of children in Riverside County

Provides a needs assessment for types of group homes needed in Riverside County, support letters for group homes, screening for group homes, and occasional monitoring of group homes

Robert Sanchez Regional Manager Riverside County Children’s Services Division 10281 Kidd St. 2nd Floor Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-6853

Monthly meetings with DMH, Probation & Children’s Services Supervisors, and quarterly meetings with Management Staff

Riverside Child Assessment & Treatment (RCAT)

To review the child abuse and forensic examinations done by the RCRMC Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) team

Ongoing reviews of all children seen for child abuse at the hospital

Laurie Fineman Regional Manager Riverside County DPSS Children’s Services Division 23119 Cottonwood Ave. Moreno Valley, CA 92553 (951) 413-5450

Monthly meetings with law enforcement, District Attorney’s Office, Victim Witness, Children’s Services, and Hospital Witness, & BOS staff

S.A.R.B. (School Attendance Review Board)

Identify children who have excessive absences from school and the reasons for the absences

Identify family needs for services and refer for services

Pat O’Boyle Assistant Regional Manager Riverside County DPSS Children’s Services Division 10281 Kidd Street 2nd Floor Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-5234

Meetings with school personnel, police, probation, District Attorney’s Office, and Bi-monthly Children’s Services

Wraparound Steering Committee

Provides oversight of Wraparound Program (to allow eligible DMH and Probation children alternatives to group home placement); enrollment of youth in wraparound services, coordination of case reviews, assessments, and development of service plans; and maintenance of youth in their own homes

Provides ongoing review of enrollment, eligibility of youth, strengths and barriers of program, and fiscal oversight

Rosemary Jiron, Regional Manager Riverside County DPSS Children’s Services Division 10769 Hole Ave. Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 358-6926

Monthly meetings with Children’s Services, DMH, CHA, RCOE, Probation and contracted vendor


of 88




United Neighbors Involving Today’s Youth (UNITY)

To educate the community on health, drugs, and violence, provide positive alternatives, raise funds for the district, and network with other agencies

Provide educational material to community on anti-drugs, anti-violence, health issues, and provide positive alternatives such as Battle of the Bands, Safe Night, dances, and art shows for community youth

John Zickefoose Community Liaison City of Corona, Corona Public Library 650 S. Main St. Corona, CA 92882 (951) 279-3689

Monthly meetings with City of Corona, Norco-Corona school districts, CHA, DMH, Children’s Services, RSO, YMCA, and 75 community CBOs

Formal Partnerships

In addition to the aforementioned partnerships, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services has executed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the following public agencies to reduce or eliminate barriers to service for children and families:

Cal State University San Marcos

Consulate of Mexico

Family Preservation Treatment Court

Housing Authority County of Riverside

Inland Empire Health Plan

Riverside Community College

Riverside County Department of Mental Health

Riverside County Department of Public Health, Community Health Agency

Riverside County Department of Probation

Riverside County District Attorney’s Office

Riverside County Office of Education

Riverside County Regional Medical Center

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Superior Court of Riverside County


of 88


Collaboration with Local Consulates

In 2005 Children’s Services Division (CSD) developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Mexican Consulate of San Bernardino. This MOU was developed to:

facilitate communication between consular representative and children who are Mexican nationals held in the custody of Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)

promote bi-cultural sensitivity and understanding on issues relating to child protection and to encourage cooperation for children who are Mexican Nationals

assist the Mexican government to reunite Mexican children with their families in the United States of America (USA), or in Mexico, whichever placement is determined to be in the best interest of the children.

This MOU with the Mexican Consulate has served as the baseline to working and cooperating with consulates from other countries, such as Germany, Indonesia, Thailand and El Salvador.

In addition to this MOU, CSD has developed an International Liaison Unit (ILU) whose function is to serve and assist foreign born children to ensure adherence to international law. The ILU meets bi-weekly with the Mexican Consulate of San Bernardino to work on mutual cases. These meetings are used as a forum to discuss issues pertaining to immigration, improving existing working relationships with the Mexican Consulates, obtaining Mexican Passports or identification cards, visas and the repatriation of foster children.

Collaboration with Local Tribes

Riverside County remains committed to partnering with local Federally and Non-Federally recognized Tribes in an effort to ensure comprehensive, culturally competent services to Native American children and families. Toward this end, Riverside County partners with local tribes as described below in order to facilitate this ongoing collaborative relationship.

Tribal Alliance meetings are held quarterly between the Tribes, Judicial Officers, CSD executives and staff, Department of Mental Health, Riverside County Substance Abuse, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs).

Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings are held on all cases with children and/or families with Native American ancestry. Tribes are notified of all scheduled meetings and tribal representatives, extended family members, and any additional persons the family feels integral to their success are asked to attend.



of 88


Collaboration with Local Tribes (continued)

Tribal STAR training is available to social workers, probation officers, educators, community based agency staff, attorneys/court personnel, Tribal youth service providers, case managers, CASAs, emancipation workers, foster parents and group home staff, and Tribal ICWA workers. The goal of Tribal STAR training is to impact practice and policy in Public Child Welfare, ultimately leading to increased positive outcomes for Tribal foster children and youth by enhancing collaborative efforts between Tribal and non-Tribal entities.

Additional Tribal trainings are sponsored by local tribes in collaboration with DPSS and community agencies.


Despite the progress made in tribal relations, at a special County Self Assessment meeting held on August 11, 2008 with Indian Child and Family Services (ICFS) and Tribal Consortium, tribal representatives continued to cite distrust of government agencies as a major barrier in collaboration. Continued collaborative involvement with Tribes and community agencies will further enhance Riverside County’s ability to provide culturally competent services and foster positive outcomes for the children, youth and families.

of 88

F. Summary Assessment

Introduction The purpose of this section is to provide a brief summary of Riverside County’s

CAPIT/PSSF funding process and County Self Assessment (CSA) process. The summary will provide information on child welfare service delivery strengths, areas needing improvement, and strategies for future exploration during the System Improvement Plan (SIP) process.

Overview of CAPIT/PSSF Funding Process

Riverside County prepared for the SFY 2008-2011 funding cycle by conducting a county-wide needs assessment to examine community service strengths, needs and gaps related to CAPIT/ CBCAP/PSSF programs and child abuse and neglect prevention. The needs assessment provided critical information in order to:

1) Achieve shared child abuse and neglect prevention goals and objectives.

2) Identify needed services, gaps in services and priority needs.

3) Make recommendations for reducing barriers that impede families from receiving prevention services.

The needs assessment planning body reviewed the service needs identified in the needs assessment and designated priority services for the CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF funding. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was released and awards were given to fund those priority services identified by the planning body. The Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), as the fiscal agent, will continue to monitor those agreements and Parents Anonymous, Inc, as the awarded program evaluator, will continue to evaluate the programs to ensure positive outcomes are achieved for children and families.

During the next three (3) years, Riverside County DPSS and Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County (PCARC), the County’s designated Child Abuse Prevention Council, will continue to collaborate together to strengthen the County’s capacity to prevent child abuse and neglect.

Overview of CSA Process

On May 15, 2008, the Children’s Services Division (CSD) in partnership with the Department of Probation and PCARC launched the County Self Assessment process. Over 115 Riverside County community partners and CSD staff joined together to discuss the impact of children and youth re-entering the foster care system has on the community. Immediately following the reentry impact discussion, partners were asked to consider the possible causes of child reentry.

Feedback collected from the initial CSA meeting was used to develop eight (8) focus areas. These focus areas were used to collaboratively examine strengths, resources, gaps, and needs as they relate to child reentry into foster care. Meeting thirteen (13) times throughout the County, CSD staff and community partners spent the month of July working towards comprehensively evaluating Riverside County’s child welfare system.


of 88

F. Summary Assessment, Continued

Overview of CSA Process (continued)

On July 14, 2008, over 75 community partners and CSD staff met to hear presentations on the preliminary findings from each of the eight (8) workgroups. All participants were afforded the opportunity to comment on the findings of each work group, and to present each work group with recommendations for additional group discussion and analysis.

On September 15, 2008, over 70 community partners and CSD staff met to conclude the CSA process and initiate the SIP process. During this meeting, community partners were provided with the final draft of the CSA document and were asked to provide feedback.

Strengths Since 2004, CSD has worked to increase collaboration with schools, continue

ongoing collaboration with law enforcement and to significantly increase its collaboration with community partners. These efforts have resulted in CSD’s ability to achieve positive results in child safety, permanency and well being outcomes.

Safety:

Overall, Riverside County has maintained its ability to ensure children are safe in their homes and/or in out of home care. This increased focus on safety has resulted in less children entering the child welfare system, a decrease in recurrence of maltreatment (S1.1 – No Recurrence of Maltreatment 94.3%) and continued success in keeping children safe in foster homes (S2.1 – No Maltreatment in Foster Care 99.56%).

The improved results in this outcome area can be attributed to an increase in social worker staffing, the Differential Response program, Family to Family Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings, Pre-Family Preservation Court, and Youth Accountability Boards for pre-delinquency and delinquency prevention.

Permanency:

Riverside County has maintained its ability to ensure that children have permanency and stability in their living situations, while ensuring family relationships and connections are preserved. When children are removed from their homes, CSD has worked to ensure all efforts are made to assist parents with reunifying with their children in a timely manner and to place with relatives while the children are in out of home care. When children cannot be safely returned, Riverside County works to ensure safe permanent relationships are established through adoption.

On average, Riverside County social workers are able to assist families to successfully reunify within seven (7) months of a child’s removal from home. In 2007, 73.1% of children reunified with their parents had been in care less than 12 months, performing above the State average of 64.2%.

While in care, Riverside County makes every effort to place with relatives. Since 2004, the percentage of children placed in relative homes has increased from 13.9% in 2004 to 18.8% in 2007. This can largely be attributed to the development of CSD’s four (4) Relative Assessment Units (RAUs). RAU conducts and completes relative and non-related extended family member (NREFM) background checks and certifications of caregiver homes.


of 88


Strengths (continued)

When reunification is not in the best interest of the child, Riverside County makes efforts to ensure permanency for the child. Since 2004, Riverside County has performed above the State average in finalizing adoptions within 24 months. This can be attributed to CSD’s commitment to concurrent planning by having both prospective foster and adoptive parents go through the same training and home study process. This means that all foster homes now have approved adoption level home studies, preventing delays in permanency when foster parents are able to adopt children placed in their care.

Well Being:

Since 2004, Riverside County has made some significant programmatic improvements to ensure the well being of children and youth in the child welfare system. One significant improvement has been the increase in timely medical visits for children in foster care. As of 10/8/08, Safe Measures compliance data shows that 83.4% of children in an open Family Reunification or Permanency Placement case have a current medical exam. This has been accomplished through collaboration with the HCPCFC Public Health Nurses and Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP).

The implementation of the Family to Family Initiative and Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings have contributed to the County’s improved success in this area. TDM meetings help to ensure that children are placed in the least restrictive, most appropriate setting at the time of initial removal. This has helped to reduce unnecessary placement moves for children. Riverside County has performed better than the State average and the National standard in this area.

In addition to the implementation of TDM meetings, CSD has developed a specialized Independent Living Program (ILP) region to continue its efforts to improve outcomes for foster and probation youth as they transition out of care. This region will work in collaboration with Riverside Community College (RCC) who provides ILP services to emancipating foster youth.

Another effort aimed at ensuring successful emancipation is the implementation of 16 plus emancipation case conferences. CSD conducts emancipation case conferences for all youth ages 16 years and over to ensure that foster youth have transition plans for independent living that are individualized for all youth prior to leaving foster care.

Areas Needing Improvement

Although the County has many strengths, the CSA process revealed some areas needing improvement. The Children’s Services Division (CSD) has experienced a decrease in performance on measure C1.4 – Reentry within 12 Months of Reunification and the Probation Department has fallen below the State average and National standard on measures C1.1 and C1.3 – Reunification within 12 Months. Over time, the CSD’s rate of child reentry into foster care has increased from 13.4% in 2004 to 14.6% in quarter 3 of 2007. The Probation Department’s rate of reunification within 12 months has decreased from 33.6% in report period 04/05-03/06 to 25.2% in report period 04/07-03/08. In order to ensure successful reunification for children and youth involved in Riverside County’s child welfare and probation systems, several areas of improvement have been identified.


of 88


Areas Needing Improvement (continued)

Structured Decision Making (SDM) assessment tools are utilized by CSD social workers to help them in assessing current and potential risk and safety issues impacting families brought to the attention of the child welfare system. Despite the standardized use of these tools by all workers, staff need additional training on the appropriate use of the tools and the timelines in which the tools are to be completed. Coupled with additional training on SDM is the need to continuously track and monitor the appropriate use of these tools through relevant management information systems such as Safe Measures.

With the initiation of TDM meetings CSD has improved collaboration with both community partners and service providers. There is a need, however, to expand the Family to Family Initiative and TDM meetings. TDM meetings should be expanded for all child entering placement and for placement changes. The implementation of Ice Breaker meetings will increase collaboration between foster parents and biological parents and enhance discussions about child likes, dislikes and needs. These collaborative efforts will help to resolve issues that arise when children transition from foster care back into their parental home, where parenting styles and household rules may differ. TDM meetings help to ensure that services identified by safety planning for both children and parents are available and accessible.

Increased services through Wraparound, Family Preservation Court and Differential Response are all needed to further assist Riverside County in meeting its goals. Riverside will need to expand its collaborative efforts with community partners, service providers and families to assure that services are available and accessible to those in need, especially in remote areas of the County. While service accessibility and availability is important, the quality of those services is equally important for success. The need to expand quality assurance, tracking and monitoring of services to persons receiving them and the results of the services require improving and expanding management information systems and quality assurance programs.

The transition of children between schools and school districts is a significant challenge that needs to be addressed in the reunification planning process to stabilize children and families. To ease educational transitions and assure that children continue to receive needed Individualized Education Program (IEP) services, counseling and other supportive services offered through the Student Assistance Program (SAP), CSD must increase collaboration with the local school districts. Increased collaboration will result in further enhancing transition and reunification processes. CSD will need to track and measure the results through expanded quality assurance and management information systems such as the Foster Youth Services Information Systems (FYSIS).


of 88


Areas Needing Improvement (continued)

Increased collaboration and communication with the Courts will assist Riverside County to better develop and obtain support for successful reunification and to communicate appropriate transition plans for clients. Reunification transition plans will need to encompass a graduated approach to the return of large sibling sets so that parents are not overwhelmed with renewed parenting responsibilities. This will ensure that children and parents each have an opportunity to reestablish their relationship with each other. In order to ensure that transition plans are thorough, they should include the services and resources needed to sustain success and include input from foster parents through collaborative meetings and the JV-290 Caregiver Information Form, regarding children placed in their care.

Additionally, increased collaborative efforts will need to be undertaken so that staff are adequately trained on effective court report writing and that youth are provided opportunities to express their needs and wants in court. Community partners and service providers must participate in the transition planning process to ensure service provision will take place and the Court must be informed of the transition plan. Further the transition process will need to be tracked through management information and quality assurance systems to measure the effect on familial stability.

Cultural competence, in conjunction with the needs identified above, must be improved. Fostering increased collaboration with faith based organizations and local tribes is needed to augment the number of Native American and African American foster homes in Riverside County. CSD must work harder to maintain cultural and community connections for children in order to better address the cultural needs of Tribal children and the disproportionality of African American children in foster care.

Staff should be trained to accurately track and monitor the provision of culturally relevant services and the quality and accuracy of data inputted into management information systems, such as CWS/CMS. In particular staff must be trained to accurately and consistently enter into the CWS/CMS system demographic information such as Native American heritage and primary language(s) spoken.

Staff and provider training, improved quality assurance and management information systems, expanded foster parent recruitment and increased agency collaborations cannot be achieved unless adequate levels of funding are available to sustain programs and services in Riverside County. Recent budget cuts and the uncertainty of the economic future has re-emphasized the need to expand collaborations with community providers. Increased staff and provider training on funding sources and the availability of funding will help to assure services in Riverside County are sustained. Streamlining and improving current management information systems will help foster parents, staff and providers become more aware of services throughout the County and how to access those services. Simultaneously, the County has a responsibility to track and monitor services and funding through its management systems to ensure quality and accessibility. Finally, the County must gauge not only overall performance on child welfare indicators, but also measure performance as it relates to the success of each individual family.

Currently children, families and services provided are tracked through the CWS/CMS System and Safe Measures. The need to expand monitoring beyond supervisors was identified and the use of the Safe Measures application is being expanded to include social workers so that each worker has the opportunity to track and monitor their own caseload.


of 88


Strategies for the Future

Through data analysis, the PQCR and CSA processes and partner feedback, five (5) major areas of strategic improvement were identified that are needed to promote the successful reunification of children and families in Riverside County.

1) Improving relevant management information systems (MIS) will assist in the reduction of reentry through the development of comprehensive, integrated data systems that track client outcomes through services provided. MIS must be improved to track the efficiency and effectiveness of TDMs, services delivered, the accuracy of demographic information, the transition of children between schools and school districts, and the appropriate use of funding streams.

2) Improving foster/relative caregiver training will help reduce reentry by encouraging mentoring relationships between caregivers and biological parents through Ice Breaker and TDM meetings. Training will also facilitate a better understanding of family needs and local resources.

Improving foster/relative caregiver recruitment and retention will help reduce reentry by having foster parents who are familiar with local resources, willing to facilitate visitation and who are willing to support biological parent and child relationships after dependency has been terminated. Improved recruitment efforts are also needed to expand the number of homes to meet the needs of Native American and African American children and to keep children in their communities of origin.

3) Improving quality assurance systems is a fundamental need in order to measure both quantitatively and qualitatively the effectiveness of programs and services. The accuracy and appropriate use of SDM tools, outcomes of TDM meetings, effectiveness of reunification transition plans and the appropriate use of available funding can all be measured through enhanced quality assurance systems.

4) Improving staff and provider training will reduce reentry by ensuring consistent training of staff/providers thereby providing consistency in service delivery across the County and in the Courts. Staff/provider training must be expanded so that all available tools, such as SDM, Safe Measures, court reports, the Family to Family Initiative, JV-290 Caregiver Information Forms are used to their fullest capacity. Providing staff training will increase cultural competence, awareness of services available, improve court report writing and transition planning.

5) Improving agency collaboration will reduce reentry by creating better communication which will assist clients by reducing barriers and providing more appropriate services in a timely manner. Agency collaboration will also help to ensure the success of TDM meetings, increase services in remote areas, improve the development of transition plans for families, enhance culturally competent service delivery, enhance communication with local schools and the Juvenile Court, and improve sustainability through shared funding.


of 88


Conclusion Riverside County prepared for the County Self Assessment process by conducting a

countywide needs assessment and undergoing the Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR) process. The Children’s Services Division (CSD) and the County Probation Department collaborated with more then 115 community partners and stakeholders to assist in assessing the County’s strengths, areas of need, and to identify strategies and prevention activities that will improve the County’s child welfare and probation systems.

Meetings with community partners and stakeholders have assisted Riverside County in building relationships that will continue to develop strengths in child welfare service delivery. This increased communication with community partners has helped Riverside County to identify areas of need, such as:

relevant management information systems

foster parent/relative caretaker training, recruitment and retention

quality assurance systems

staff/provider training, and

agency collaborations.

The CSA process has helped to secure the commitment of partners and stakeholders in sharing in the responsibility for achieving successful outcomes for children and families in Riverside County.

During the next three (3) years, Riverside County DPSS, the Probation Department, Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County (PCARC), community partners and stakeholders will continue to collaborate together to strengthen the County’s capacity to ensure child safety, permanency and well being.

California Child and Family Services Review

Documents

Transcript of California Child and Family Services Review