Get documents about "STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Document Sample
State of California
County of Marin
County Self-Assessment
2009
Submitted January 26, 2010
Table of Contents
I. Introduction/The C-CFSR Cycle
A. CSA Cover Sheet
1. CSA Contact
2. CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Liaisons
3. CWS Director & Chief Probation Officer
B. County Self-Assessment Team Composition
1. Required Core Representatives
2. Recommended Stakeholders to Consult/Other Consultants
C. Demographic Profile
1. Demographics of the General Population
2. Demographics of Child Education
3. Child Welfare Services Participation Rates
Probation Participation Rates
.
D .Public Agency Characteristics
1. Size and Structure of Agency (CWS & Probation)
a. County Operated Shelter
b. County Licensing
c. County Adoptions
2. County Government Structure
a. Staffing Characteristics (CWS)
Staffing Characteristics (Probation)
.
b Bargaining Units
c. Financial/Material Resources
d. Political Jurisdictions
E. PQCR Summary
F. CWS Outcomes and C-CFSR Data Indicators
1. Safety 1
2. Safety 2
3. Permanency 1
Permanency 2
4. Child Well Being
G. Systemic Factors
1. Relevant Management Information Systems (MIS)
2. Case Review Systems
3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention
4. Quality Assurance System
5. Service Array
6. Staff/Provider Training
7. Agency Collaborations
8. Local Systemic Factors
H. Summary Assessment
1. Discussion of System Strengths and Areas Needing Improvements
2. Strategies for the Future
II. Attachments
Attachment A — County of Solano Organizational Chart
pg. 3
INTRODUCTION
In January 2004, the implementation of Assembly Bill 636 brought a new Child
Welfare Services Outcome and Accountability System to California. This new
Outcomes and Accountability System, also known as the California Child and Family
Services Review (C-CFSR) focuses primarily on measuring outcomes in the areas of
Safety, Permanency and Child and Family Well-Being.
California-Child and Family Services Review (C-CFSR), operates on a philosophy of
continuous quality improvement, interagency partnerships, community involvement
and public reporting of program outcomes. The C-CFSR includes several processes
which together provide a comprehensive picture and solutions for positive
improvement of county child welfare practices. The principle components of the
system include: Quarterly Outcome and Accountability Data Reports published by
the California Department of Social Services (CDSS); County Peer Quality Case
Reviews; County Self- Assessments; County Three-Year System Improvement
Plans and annual Updates; and State Technical Assistance and Monitoring.
County Peer Quality Case Reviews (PQCR)
The goal of the PQCR is to focus on one specific outcome, analyze specific practice
areas, and to identify key patterns of agency strengths and concerns. The process
uses peers from other counties to promote the exchange of best practice ideas
between the host county and peer reviewers. Marin County completed their most
recent Peer Quality Case Review process in June, 2009.
County Self-Assessment (CSA)
The CSA, the next process in the cycle is a comprehensive review of each County’s
Child Welfare Services (CWS), affording opportunity for the quantitative analysis of
the County’s performance on eight critical child welfare outcomes. The process
incorporates input from various child welfare constituents and reviews the full scope
of child welfare and probation services. It includes all key child welfare stakeholders
in the County and a partnership with County prevention and Probation to illuminate
the full range of child welfare programs and needs. Information gathered from of
both the CSA and the PQCR serves as the foundation for the County System
Improvement Plan. The CSA includes a multidisciplinary needs assessment to be
conducted once every three years and requires Board of Supervisor (BOS) approval.
System Improvement Plan (SIP)
Incorporating data collected through the PQCR and the CSA, the final component of
the C-CSFR, the System Improvement Plan, is the operational agreement between
the County and State, targeting each county’s strategies to the improvement of
services that impact the lives of children and their families. The SIP is developed
every three years by the lead agencies in collaboration with their local community
and prevention partners.
pg. 4
California’s Child and Family Services Review
County Self-Assessment Cover Sheet
County: Marin County
Responsible County Department of Health and Human Services - Division of
Child Welfare Agency: Social Services
Period of Assessment: January 2007 – December 2009
Period of Outcome Data: Quarter 1 2009
Date Submitted: January 26, 2010
County Contact Person for County Self-Assessment
Name & title: Paula Robertson, Program Manager
Marin County Children and Family Services
Address: 3250 Kerner Blvd.
San Rafael, CA 94901-4840
Phone: (415) 473-7125
E-mail: PRobertson@co.marin.ca.us
CAPIT Liaison
Name & title: Heather Ravani, Social Services Director
20 North San Pedro Road, Suite 2028
Address:
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 499-7159
E-mail: HRavani@co.marin.ca.us
CBCAP Liaison
Name & title: Heather Ravani, Social Services Director
20 North San Pedro Road, Suite 2028
Address:
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 499-7159
E-mail: HRavani@co.marin.ca.us
County PSSF Liaison
Name & title: Heather Ravani, Social Services Director
20 North San Pedro Road, Suite 2028
Address:
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 499-7159
E-mail: HRavani@co.marin.ca.us
pg. 5
California’s Child and Family Services Review
County Self-Assessment Cover Sheet (continued)
Submitted by each agency for the children under its care
Submitted by: County Child Welfare Agency Director (Lead Agency)
Name: Heather Ravani, Social Services Director
Signature:
Submitted by: County Chief Probation Officer
Name: Michael Daly, Chief Probation Officer
Signature:
In Collaboration with:
County & Community Partners Name(s) Signature
Board of Supervisors Designated Heather Ravani, Social
Public Agency to Administer Services Director
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Funds
Cyndy Doherty, Executive
County Child Abuse Prevention
Director, Marin Advocates
Council
for Children
Parent Representative
As Applicable 1 Name(s)
California Youth Connection
County Adoption Agency (or
CDSS Adoptions District Office)
Local Tribes N/A
Local Education Agency
Board of Supervisors (BOS) Approval
BOS Approval Date:
Name:
Signature:
x Name and affiliation of additional participants are on a separate page with an
indication as to which participants are representing the required core representatives.
1
As applicable, provide the name of a representative from each of these entities as pertinent to relevant outcomes (the adoption
composite would include a representative that was engaged in that portion of the CSA, likewise, IEP measure (5A), IWCA (4E), etc.
No signature is required.
pg. 6
1. Demographics of the General Population
Information for the County Self-Assessment was compiled from a number for
sources. Two meetings were held with county agencies and stakeholders. The first was
a planning committee meeting held on October 29, 2009 where the CAPC liaison was
present and was an active member of the planning team along with Child Protection and
Probation. The larger stakeholder meeting was held on November 12, 2009 and
included many prevention partners as well as agencies, consumers and stakeholders.
Demographics: Marin County is often described as a place of amazing
environmental beauty and incredible financial prosperity. Located just north of San
Francisco and the Golden Gate Bridge, Marin County is a 520 square mile area,
boasting miles of coastline on the Pacific and San Francisco Bay. The coastal
mountains form a natural boundary between the east county population centers and
western rural Marin.
The population of Marin in 2008 was 248,794. 5.4% of the population is under age 5
years and 19% is under 18 years. During the period between 1985-2000, the population
of Marin County increased 10.6%, from 223,400 to 247,289.
The population of Marin has aged significantly since 1980 when the median age was
33.6 years. By 1990 the median age increased to 38.0 years and increased again to
41.3 years in 2000. The total number of children decreased from 24.0% of the
population in 1980 to 20.1% in 1990 and is currently at 19%.
Marin County’s proximity to San Francisco, its agreeable climate and beautiful,
natural environment have long made it a desirable place to live. The decision to
preserve 84% of Marin County from development has contributed to the housing
shortage. The result is one of the highest housing costs in the nation. Both rental and
owned housing are very expensive, with median home prices hovering at $530,000 in
2000. Rents in Marin County have also risen dramatically. From 1996-2001, estimated
average rents increased 60.2% for a two bedroom.
Economy and Poverty: Due to the downturn in the economy Marin County is
experiencing an increase in unemployment. In April of 2008 the unemployment rate for
Marin County was 3.6%, in September of 2009 it was at 8%. 7% of the population lives
below the poverty line while 6% of children living in Marin County live in poverty
compared to 19% statewide. In 2008 1,799 people received CALWorks: 397 adults and
1,402 children. 4,914 families received food stamps.
Education Profile: Excellence in education begins with community commitment. A
strong educational system is a reflection of a community’s overall goals for its children
and its future. Marin County’s educational strengths are due in part to the investment
that members of the community, the businesses, parents and the schools themselves
make in education.
pg. 7
Marin County students continued to score well above the average of other California
counties. Marin County STAR scores show the majority of students at the 50th and 75th
percentile range. Among Marin County students, 55% take the SAT, compared to
California’s 37%. .
Marin is home to 49,937 children, ages 0-17, which is less than 1% of California's
child population. Compared to other counties in the state, Marin ranks as follows:
• 2 out of 58 in the percentage of children with health insurance.
• 1 out of 58 in the percentage of children, ages 3 and 4, enrolled in
preschool.
• 1 out of 58 in the percentage of elementary school students meeting state
targets in English Language Arts.
• 1 out of 58 in the percentage of elementary school students meeting state
targets in Math.
• 4 out of 58 in the percentage of high school students eligible to attend one
of California's public universities.
• 1 out of 58 in the percentage of children in low-income households.
There were 29,616 children enrolled in school in 2008-2009 with 3,722 children
enrolled in special education. School lunch programs serve 10,082 meals per day with
approximately 5,000 being served as part of the free lunch program.
In 2007-2008 160 children in grades 9-12 dropped out of high school. Hispanic
children had the most dropouts with 72. White children had 61 dropouts. African
American children had 15 dropouts and Asian children had 5 dropouts. Parenthood is
the leading cause of school dropout among teen girls. Total enrollment grades 9-12 was
9,017. The dropout rate for Marin County is 1.8% which is well below the State dropout
rate of 3.9%. There are no enrollments in any pregnant/parenting school program in
Marin County.
There are wait lists for early childhood education pre-school and nursery school
programs. A town hall meeting in West Marin in 2008 estimated that the Healthy Start
wait list was over 300 in Marin County and County-wide there were over 800 children
waiting for pre-school or nursery school enrollment. This is currently being addressed by
the community with three new Healthy Start programs being added.
Unmet and Continuing Need: As part of reviewing the the literature on prevention of
probation placements, at the Stakeholders meeting which showed that problems that
surface in early childhood education for children are predictive of later academic failure
and delinquent behavior. The Stakeholders identified the need to have good collaboration
with all community partners and agencies in the pre-schools in Marin County so that
children who begin to have emotional, behavioral and academic problems get help for
themselves and their families very early.
With the median household income in 2007 for Marin County being $83,910, poverty
disproportionately affects minority households. More than 42% of all African American
pg. 8
households, 34% of Latino households, 25% of Asian or Pacific Islander households,
and 37% of households of other races are low to very low income ($24,999 or less). In
contrast, 20% of white households are low or very low income. Although households in
poverty can be found throughout Marin communities, there are significant
concentrations of low income households among Latinos, Blacks and Asians in East
San Rafael, Blacks in Marin City, and Latinos in West Marin and Novato.
A review of available information regarding the number of referrals for suspected child
abuse/neglect reported to Children and Family Services (CFS) in Marin indicates that
the highest referral numbers are centered in the towns of San Rafael, Novato, Marin
City and Fairfax, in that order. For Juvenile Probation 31% of all referrals from 1/1/2006
to the present come from the Novato Police Department. 27% come from the San
Rafael Police Department, 14% from Marin County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO, not all
MCSO referrals are from Marin City) and the remaining 28% are spread out among
other agencies.
Disproportionality-Serving the Hispanic Community: The fastest growing
segment in Marin County population is persons of Hispanic origin (who can be of any
racial group). In 1980 Hispanics represented only 4.2% of the population in Marin. This
increased to 7.8% in 1990 and 11.1% in the year 2000. According to the 1990 Census,
2.8% of Marin County residents over the age of 5 speak a primary language at home
other than English, compared to 8.8% statewide. Non-English speaking Marin residents
are most likely to speak Spanish (1.9%).
Marin County’s 2008 teen birth rate, 12.4 per 1,000, is significantly lower than
California’s rate of 35.2 per 1,000 .In 2008, 15% of teen births in Marin were to teen
moms who had previously had one or more live birth. During 2005-2007, the birth rate
among Hispanic teens, ages 15-17, in Marin, was over twenty times higher than the
birth rate for white teens. Daughters of teen mothers are three times more likely to
become teen mother’s themselves. Children born to teen mothers are 50% more likely
to repeat a grade than children born to older mothers.
During 2004 to 2008, the birth rate among Hispanic teens decreased by over
40%.Since 2006, the birth rate among Hispanic teens has increased slightly.
pg. 9
The percentage of low birth rates in Marin County were the same for the State in
2008. Low birth weight was most prevalent in young and older mothers. The use of
assisted reproductive technology accounts for a disproportionate number of low birth
weight infants in the U.S., attributable to a larger number of multiple gestations as well
as lower birth weight singletons.
Evidence shows that Child Abuse and Neglect is found in all socioeconomic groups
and cuts across lines of ethnicity, culture and education. Marin County interventions
show the most common risk factor is parental substance abuse, which is estimated to
be a factor in up to 80% of all child abuse/neglect cases in the county.
Marin County Division of Alcohol and Drug Programs:
A review of substance abuse treatment in Marin County in 2003 shows that:
• Marin County serves a lower rate of adolescent clients than that of the state
as a whole. Adolescent admissions (Under 18 years) represented only 2.04%
of Marin County alcohol and drug program clients while statewide adolescent
admissions average 9.1%.
• Looking at young adults, ages 18-25, California programs admitted 17.3% as
compared to 11.02% in Marin County.
• Marin participants between 26-40 years are served fairly proportional to
statewide averages.
• Marin serves a much higher percentage of 41 to 50 year olds than the
statewide average for this population (33.3% vs. 23.7%). The over 50
population represents 13.5% of treatment recipients, almost double that of the
statewide average (7.6%).
Review of the countywide adult treatment system Executive Summary in 2003, showed
alcohol identified by 54% of the of the participants as their drug of choice. When
detoxification participants were excluded the percentage that identified alcohol is
reduced to 31.8% followed by methamphetamines at 22.9% and heroin at 17.6%.
pg. 10
Adolescents and young adults in
treatment identify a slightly different Alcohol Use by Age Cohort
pattern of use. Adolescents not in
treatment strongly identify alcohol as 100%
their primary drug of choice. For 85.37%
80%
those adolescents in treatment, 62.82%
marijuana is most often identified (in 60% 55.02% 71.43%
59.02%
40.17%
combination with alcohol) followed by 40% 41.57%
33.33%
methamphetamines. Young adults 38.17%
(aged 18-25 years) identify alcohol 20% 26.00%
(36.67%), methamphetamines 0%
(22.2%), marijuana and heroin (both <18 18-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 >55
at 13.3%), and cocaine/crack (11.8%).
The study showed that with
Proportion of Age Group Identifiying Primary Drug: Methamphetamine
participants reporting alcohol as their
primary substance of use, their use
35%
increases steadily from adolescence
30% 29.26%
through middle age. For clients older
25% 24.19% 24.40%
than 55 years, alcohol as the primary
20%
substance was reported by 85.37% of 17.86%
15% 14.00% 14.59%
the participants.
10%
8.20%
5% 5.13% 5.24%
Identification of methamphetamine is
0% 0.81%
highest for those in the 26-30 age
<18 18-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 >55
group and declines sharply for age
groups 36-40 and older.
Excluding detoxification, the average number of persons on a wait list for substance
abuse services is 30 with the average number of days spent on a wait list at 74 days. A
need that does not show up clearly in the wait list data is the need for adolescent
treatment services. Residential services for adolescents is limited to those referred by
the Court system (unless a parent/guardian) can pay privately. And publicly funded
outpatient services are limited to those participating in the Juvenile Drug Court or
Phoenix Academy programs. Residential programs, especially Detoxification and one
women’s program showed a considerable wait list.
Child Welfare Demographics:
The ethnicity of children in active Children and Family Services cases were as
follows:
General Marin Population Comparison
• White 41.7% 75.2%
• Hispanic 35.2% 13.7%
pg. 11
• Black 18.5% 3.1%
• Asian/Pacific Islander 3.7% 5.7%
• Native American .9% .6%
In 2008 Marin County received 1918 referrals of Child Abuse and Neglect. The
response rates were as follows:
• Immediate response: 9%
• 10 Day response: 36%
• Evaluate Out response: 55%
257 families received services and the case service components were as follows:
• Family Maintenance 60%
• 55% of family maintenance cases are receiving voluntary/preventative
services
• Family Reunification 9%
• Permanency Planning 31%
38 children entered out of home care and on 7/1/08 there were 57 children in foster
care, 31 boys and 26 girls.
The ages of children in active Children and Family Services cases were as follows:
• 5 years or younger 29%
• 6-10 years 19%
• 11-15 years 24%
• 16 years and up 28%
Juvenile Probation- Case Demographics
The average age of youth coming into Probation is 15.1 years old. 25% of the youth
are girls and 75% are boys.
The ethnicity of youth active in Juvenile Probation cases are as follows:
General Marin Population Comparison
• White 40.3% 75.2%
• Hispanic 35.6% 13.7%
• Black 19.5% 3.1%
• Other 4.6%
However recently the Department has seen an increase in Hispanic children
entering the probation system with 50% of children currently in out of home placement
being of Hispanic origin. Many of these children face language barriers and are
undocumented.
pg. 12
Analysis and Unmet Needs:
Marin County is an affluent County however this affects a disproportionate number
of people of color who fall below the median household income. White children are
underrepresented in the child welfare population, Hispanic children are over
represented and Probation has seen an increase in mono-lingual, sometimes
undocumented, Hispanic children entering the system. Black children are over-
represented and Asian/Pacific Islander are under-represented. With the increase in the
Hispanic population entering child welfare stakeholders discussed a need to better
serve this population. Suggestions included; providing prevention oriented parental
support groups for Hispanic parents who have come to the County from Latin America
and have their children arrive later; as this was identified as a vulnerable group where
family stress is often present. In addition it was noted that there is an unmet need for
Hispanic children that are undocumented to be able to access jobs and other services in
the community to support them in making the transition to successful adulthood.
Other factors identified by the Stakeholder group after looking at the demographics
in concert with the literature reviews for probation placements was an increased need to
partner more closely with schools, early education and community agencies to identify
those children who begin to have education and behavioral problems very early in an
effort to provide services to overcome any deficits, preventing further problems from
arising.
Other factors identified as being of concern for children and families include social
isolation, family disorganization, mental illness, and parental stress. Children under 5
years old are at increased vulnerability due to their age and size and make up the
largest portion of children entering the child welfare system.
In addition the following issues remain a concern for the county:
• Parents of children in foster care often have difficulty quickly accessing
substance abuse treatment, especially residential services and those aimed
at dual-diagnosis treatment.
• There is a lack of adolescent substance abuse treatment, particularly for
Spanish speaking teens and a need for increased women’s programs.
• Although domestic violence services are generally available, the community
needs to look closer at early identification of these victims and providing
extended treatment options for the whole family.
• The high cost of housing continues to be a serious obstacle for low-income
families trying to maintain a safe home for their children.
• Health care and dental access concerns are an ongoing issue due to the low
number of Medi-Cal providers.
pg. 13
C. PUBLIC AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS:
Marin County Children and Family Services is the primary provider of Child
Protection Services for the County of Marin. Children and Family Services is part of the
Services Branch of the Social Service Division of Marin County Health and Human
Services Department.
The management and staff of Children and Family Services have developed a
mission statement to guide their work.” The mission of Children and Family Services, in
partnership with our community, is to ensure the safety, protection and health of
children while strengthening
and empowering families.”
The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services is to “promote and
protect the health, well-being and safety of all residents of Marin County.”
Larry Meredith, Ph.D., is the Director of Health and Human Services who reports
directly to the County’s Board of Supervisors.
The Department is comprised of seven (7) divisions. These Divisions are:
• Aging
• Alcohol, Drug and Tobacco
• Health
• Mental Health
• Social Services
• Administrative Services
• Office of Finance
Each Division is led by a Division Head who reports directly to the Department
Director. The structure of some divisions is further divided into branches, units, and
programs. The Department of Health and Human Services is the largest of the County’s
departments and currently employs over 700 staff in over 165 different job
classifications.
The Division of Social Services is led by the Division Director, Heather Ravani. The
Division of Social Services is comprised of three branches. These branches are:
• Employment & Training Branch
• Public Assistance Branch
• Children and Family Services Branch
Each branch is led by a Program Manager II who reports directly to the Division
Director. The structure of each branch is further divided into units and programs. The
Division of Social Services currently employs over 275 workers in over 58 different
classifications.
pg. 14
The Employment and Training Branch employment services programs
contribute to the County’s mission by providing a unified training system that will
increase the employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and as a result
improve quality and productivity of the workforce, and reduce welfare dependency. This
branch provides one-stop training and employment resource information to the
community through the Marin Employment Connection.
Targeted training funds and services are provided to dislocated adults,
economically disadvantaged adults and at-risk youth. Additionally, the Employment and
Training Branch provides case management and support services to CalWORKs
recipients who are working toward self-sufficiency, and collaborates with Children and
Family Services on the LINKAGES program.
The Public Assistance Branch administers public assistance grants from
federal, state, and local funding sources. Public assistance grants are provided to low-
income Marin residents who meet the applicable criteria regarding income and property
ownership. Grants administered through this branch are General Assistance (GA),
CalWORKs financial assistance, Food Stamps, County Medical Services Program
(CMSP), and Medi-Cal eligibility programs. In addition, eligible recipients may be
required to participate in employment programs.
Children and Family Services (CFS), is the county department responsible for
providing child protection services. In addition, Marin County also internally operates
Adoption Services and Foster Care Licensing. Marin County CFS provides a full range
of services to protect children from abuse and neglect. These services include receiving
reports of suspected child abuse and neglect; investigating allegations of abuse and
neglect; working with families to safely maintain their children in their home whenever
possible; providing reunification services to families unable to safely keep custody of
their children; and working to find permanent homes for those children unable to return
to their parents’ care.
The Children and Family Service Division is divided up into distinct units.
Emergency Response consists of the Intake Unit which is 2 full time Child Welfare
Worker II positions, 1 of which is bilingual Spanish speaking. . This unit is responsible
for receiving and documenting all referrals of suspected Child Abuse or Neglect.
Referrals warranting investigation are assigned to a Child Welfare Worker II in the
Emergency Response Unit. Duty Workers are assigned daily to handle immediate
investigations. The unit is comprised of 8 Child Welfare Worker II’s, 3 of which are
bilingual Spanish speaking. There are two Supervisors and one Program Manager
assigned. In addition, there is a bilingual Mental Health Practitioner assigned to the ER
Unit. Following investigation, and the filing of detention and petition, and jurisdictional
reports in Dependency Court if necessary, cases are then transferred to the Ongoing
Unit. Marin has a Differential Response Program, to offer services and assistance to
families who have been referred to CFS, but whose referrals have been evaluated out
and not assigned for investigation. Marin has allocated a full time Community
Engagement Specialist, at the Sr. Support Service Worker level to assist families in
accessing resources in the community. This position is bilingual Spanish speaking.
pg. 15
Marin has partnered with multiple community based organizations to provide a
variety of resources for children and families.
The Ongoing unit consists of 9 Child Welfare Worker IIs. All staff manages a
caseload of mixed voluntary and court. Caseloads include FR, FM and Permanent Plan
status. Staff complete all court work from Disposition on when there are dependency
related matters and work with children and families throughout their involvement with
the courts and the agency, until the case is dismissed, closed or referred to adoptions.
Three Senior Support Service Workers provide visitation supervision and transportation.
This unit also has assigned 1 FTE Mental Health Practitioner, 2 Supervisors and 1
Program Manger. Additionally Marin County has 1.25 FTE Nursing Staff available to
assist all staff with medical issues, evaluations and referrals.
With the exception of 1 Child Welfare Worker, who is bilingual Spanish speaking
and is located in the rural West Marin Service Center, all children and family staff and
activities are located in the new county Health and Wellness Campus located in Central
pg. 16
San Rafael. The campus space houses a number of HHS agencies, including
Community Mental Health, Women’s Health Clinic, WIC, and Children and Family
Services. In addition the County Community Health Clinic is part of this location, and
additional services are available for the community to access conveniently.
County Operated Shelters: Marin no longer utilizes shelter placement for
children ages 6-12, instead utilizing available foster home placements for emergency
placements for children ages 0-6.
Adoption Services: Marin County provides for adoption assistance to children
and families in the child adoption process, at both the pre-adoption and post-adoption
stages. The primary focus of Adoptions Services is finding permanent homes for those
children who have been declared dependents of the juvenile court. Marin County is
licensed to provide adoption services, and has three (2) full time MSW Adoption
Workers on staff. The unit is under the supervision of 1 FTE Unit Supervisor, and 1
Program Manger who additionally oversees training, technology and clerical services.
Foster Care Licensing: Marin County Licensing Unit provides licensing services
to those who provide foster care in the community. Specifically, those individuals or
families who would like to become foster parents are guided through the licensing
process in order to become licensed foster homes. Foster Care Licensing also conducts
annual reviews of licensed day foster care homes, and receives and investigates
complaints regarding these homes. In addition, these staff are responsible for
completing relative and NREFM initial and annual assessments. Marin County
combines recruitment for foster homes and adoptive homes, and licenses its homes in
accordance to an MOU with CDSS. This unit consists of 2.5 FTE Child Welfare Worker
II’s, one of whom is bilingual.
Juvenile Probation: Marin County Probation Department oversees the Juvenile
Probation Division. This Unit completes investigations of juvenile dependents and wards
alleged to be delinquent, and supervises juvenile wards placed on formal or informal
probation. Juvenile Probation staff has access to Nursing Staff and Mental Health
Practitioners through the Community Mental Health System of Care Program. Juvenile
Probation is located at the Juvenile Services Center, near Juvenile Hall. Juvenile
Probation Officers are located in that building, as well as assigned to various schools
throughout Marin.
pg. 17
Juvenile Probation Structure:
Marin County Juvenile Hall provides four basic services for minors’ detained
awaiting Court disposition.
• Secure physical care that minimizes the damaging effects of
confinement
• Constructive individual and group activities include a school and
physical education program
• Counseling to help minors deal with immediate problems while in
detention
• An in-depth observation period to provide reports to Probation
Officers and the Juvenile Court
Juvenile Probation collaborates with Children and Family Services in many areas in the
community, and participates as a key stakeholder on many committees. Current
collaborations include transitional age youth, and wrap around services.
The Juvenile Probation Department uses a risk assessment tool that evaluates the risk
of recidivism. The current rates of recidivism by risk level are:
Rate of Recidivism at 12 Months
90%
78%
80%
70%
59%
60%
50%
40%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
0%
Very High High Medium Low
pg. 18
The Juvenile Probation Department offers a wide menu of services to children and
families based on risk level.
MENU OF SERVICES
RISK LEVEL PROBATION SERVICES
COPS
Youth Court
CSW
Low • Diversion VORP
YSAP
DUI Prevention Program
YSAP
COPS
VORP
• 654 CSW
Medium • 602 General Supervision ART/TPS
• DEJ Family Connections
Phoenix Academy
DUI Prevention Program
Expanded Services CCS/Phoenix Academy
VORP
ART/TPS
• DEJ Drug Court
• 602 General Supervision PORTAL
High and Very
• 602 ICM CSOC
High
• 602 Placement Seneca Wrap Services
• DJJ (formerly CYA) Family Connections
Phoenix Academy
Expanded Services CCS/Phoenix Academy
As a result of the accuracy of this classification risk instrument, and because of best
practices in the field of community corrections, the Probation Department is shifting
its resources away from low risk cases towards high and very high risk cases. In
2007, there were 64 low risk cases receiving active supervision. Today, there are
less than 10.
County Government Structure:
(Please see attachment A – Marin County Organizational Chart)
Staffing Characteristics/Issues:
There is a total of 18.5 Child Welfare Workers employed by Marin County in a case
carrying capacity within the ER, FR/FM/PP, and Adoptions Unit. Additionally there are
2.5 Licensing Workers, and 2 Child Welfare Worker positions in the Intake Unit. There
are also 4 Senior Support Service Workers, 2 of which are bilingual Spanish speaking
and were recently added to staff as a result of issues surfaced in the 2006 PQCR. One
of these bi-lingual positions is Differential Response.
pg. 19
The Child Protective Services Division management team consists of 1 Program
Manager I who directly manages the service provision and staff in the ER and Ongoing
Units, as well as the 4 supervisors assigned to these units and 2 additional Sr. Child
Welfare Worker positions: Emergency Response (case carrying) and the Court Officer.
These provide additional support and ongoing leadership to staff.
Additionally there is a Program Manager I in charge of Training, Quality
Assurance and Technology, Adoptions and Licensing, as well as clerical support.
Reporting to this Program Manager I are 2 supervisors. One of these oversees
Adoptions and Licensing. The other is in charge of special programs, SDM, 4 clerical
staff, as well as a 3rd Sr. Child Welfare Worker over CWS/CMS, technology and training.
A Program Manager II has oversight of this division and reports directly to the
Social Service Director.
A high percentage of Child Welfare Workers in Marin have a graduate degree.
(approximately 91% of staff). Marin County has had a stable staff for the past two years.
A problematic issue for many staff is the high cost of housing in Marin County. A
recent survey indicates that the majority of HHS and County employees reside outside
of the county. (Approximately ¾ of CFS staff reside out of Marin) Because of this, staff
experiences the additional stress and cost of lengthy and difficult commutes. Marin is
reviewing offering staff more flexible schedules, and additional telecommuting
opportunities.
Child Welfare Workers in Marin are members of SEIU 1021. They adhere to a
contract negotiated schedule which allows them to work “Professional Hours”. This is a
flexible, 40hr. per week schedule which allows them to schedule their time to meet their
clients’ needs; however they are expected to work a 40 hour week. Marin County and
HHS administration are reviewing staffing alternatives and flexible schedules.
Contract negotiations will begin possibly as early as January 2010 for the 07/10
contract year.
Probation:
There are currently two juvenile placement probation officers and one supervisor.
Financial Material Resources:
Marin County Children and Family Services continues to partner with the Marin
Child Abuse Prevention Council in many areas of local service provision. In addition,
close collaborations with community based organizations exist in order to provide child
abuse prevention services to children and families. This work encompasses community
education, training, service provision, and resource development which is vital to Marin
County’s commitment towards child abuse prevention.
pg. 20
Marin has used the opportunities offered by the CAPIT/ CBCAP/ PSSF funding to
continue to engage community partners and provide prevention work in the area of child
abuse and neglect. By expanding on the use of evidenced based programs, and
increasing the development in emerging best practice areas such as Differential
Response, Marin can build on these practices and maximize the number of families it
serves.
Marin County has elected to fund individual community-based programs with its CAPIT
allocation. Contracts were initiated for the State FY 09/10. The funded programs
addressed priorities identified by Marin’s Countywide Self-Assessment. These services
were aimed at the prevention and treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect in Marin
County. The following programs were funded with the CAPIT allocation for FY 09/10:
• Novato Human Needs
A bilingual in-home intensive program to reduce child abuse and strengthen families.
• Canal Community Alliance
A bilingual case management program addressing child abuse/neglect prevention and
intervention.
These grants were all dedicated to the effort to strengthen existing family structure,
collaborate with the Marin County Differential Response Program, and prevent child
abuse. Special attention was paid to serving children and families in their own home
and communities.
CBCAP Allocation:
Marin County continued to use its CBCAP allocation and County birth certificate
revenue to fund Marin Advocates for Children/Child Abuse Prevention Council.
The following were some activities of the Marin Child Abuse Prevention Council:
• Provide mandated reporter trainings county-wide
• Convene quarterly Child Abuse Prevention Council meetings
• Convene forums, trainings, conferences on pertinent topics relating to child
abuse/neglect
• Chair the Child Death Review Team monthly
• Coordinate with appropriate agencies to assist in the implementation of
Differential Response activities in Marin County
• Provide leadership and ongoing collaboration for the Marin County Lifelong
Connections program
PSSF Allocation:
Marin continued to utilize its PSSF Allocation to supplement funding for the Youth
Pilot Program, which serves children who are in placement or at imminent risk of
out-of-home placement and their families. These selected youth may be at risk of
placement in the Mental Health System, Juvenile Probation and/or Social Services.
pg. 21
Through facilitated family-decision making processes, intensive services are
provided to these families in order to safely maintain the children in the least
restrictive, viable level of care.
A minimum of 20% is allocated for each required service category. Funding in this
allocation is directly linked to the Federal Child and Family Service Outcomes.
Marin County Social Service/Children and Family Services maintains contracts with the
following:
• Alternative Family Services- Independent Living Program
• Novato Human Needs (CAPIT)
• Canal Alliance (CAPIT)
• Marin Advocates for Children –Child Abuse Prevention
• Marin Abused Women’s Services
• Center for Restorative Practice-(Youth Pilot Program)
• Children’s Resource Center- (SDM)
Caseload Size:
The State of California completed an in-depth analysis of the Child Welfare
workload several years ago. The results indicated that in order to meet State and
Federal mandates, a significant caseload reduction was needed to Child Welfare staff
across the state. The chart below compares Marin caseloads to the recommended state
standard.
The recommended caseloads shown below are Marin’s caseload size when fully
staffed:
State Standard Marin Average
Emergency Response
Monthly Investigations 13.03 10-13
Family Maintenance* 14.20 15-17
Family Reunification* 15.60 15-17
Permanent Plan* 23.69 16-19
*As noted above- Marin Child Welfare Workers carry a combined caseload of
FM/FR/PP court and voluntary cases. Caseloads average 15-17.
pg. 22
Political Jurisdictions:
The Marin County Office of Education (MCOE) offers programs and services for
students, teachers, and families in Marin County. The Office of Education serves and
supports the nineteen school districts in Marin. The Marin County Board of Education is
a seven member elected body who establishes policy and who holds regular monthly
meetings throughout the school year.
The Marin Office of Education provides direct services to students in three
specialized areas: The Marin County Regional Occupational Program, Special
Education Programs, and Alternative Education Programs.
Some of the specialized programs offered by MCOE include the educational
system at Marin County Juvenile Hall, County Community School and Phoenix
Academy. Additionally the School/Law Enforcement Partnership meets on a regular
basis to address collaboration and coordination between these entities.
There are 13 police jurisdictions in Marin County. The overall crime rate in Marin
for 2000 was 23.6 per 1,000 population with the highest rates in San Rafael (33.7) and
Novato (27.6). The juvenile arrest rate in Marin County fell from 70.2 arrests per 1,000
in 1999 to 58.9 in 2000. In the 2001 Marin Community Health Survey, residents
reported a strong perception of safety and security with 79.9% declaring they felt “very
safe” from crime in their neighborhoods.
Marin County Children and Family Services maintain a positive working
relationship with Law Enforcement in the County. There has been successful
collaboration on many projects, one of the most important being The Jeannette Prandi
Children’s Center, a multi-disciplinary forensic interviewing center for victims of sexual
abuse and childhood trauma. Additionally staff conducts quarterly trainings with law
enforcement through the Children’s Safety Consortium. Marin County has a very low
Native American population. According to 2000 census information only 0.4% of the
population identified themselves as American Indian and Alaska Native.
D. PQCR Summary:
Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, Children and Family Services
(CFS) and Probation’s Juvenile Division partnered in their PQCR process in April 2009
to each review one area of practice for improvement. Children and Family Services
focused on the safety outcome of recurrence of maltreatment and Probation focused on
reducing recidivism and re-entry into placement through family engagement. Findings
may be used to inform improvement recommendations for child welfare practice, service
capacity and training.
Sample Selection
pg. 23
In order to obtain qualitative information about factors important to recurrence of
maltreatment, a sample of referrals and cases that had experienced recurrence of
maltreatment and ones that did not were chosen by Children and Family Services.
Cases were chosen by Juvenile Probation both that had successful reunification and
those that did not. Information was gathered on factors that may affect the focus areas;
such as social work/probation practice, policies, procedures, barriers and challenges.
Children and Family Services
Children and Family Services prioritized their findings as follows:
Broader System Issues
• The Process of offering voluntary family maintenance services needs improvement:
Staff are not always in agreement with the decision to offer voluntary family
maintenance services causing practice to be inconsistent across child welfare
services delivery units.
• There is a need to broaden the consistent use of the Structured Decision Making
(SDM) risk and safety tool to the on-going child welfare units.
Social Work Practice
• Social workers complete thorough assessments through building strong
relationships with families:
• Emergency Response social Workers consistently use their risk and safety tool;
Structured Decision Making (SDM), to assist with their decision making and in
developing recommendations to their supervisors.
• Social Workers are supported by the agency to practice excellent social work.
Children and Family Services prioritized recommendations
• Evaluate the assessment and decision-making process regarding whether families
should be referred to the Juvenile Court or receive voluntary services.
• Increase supervisors’ communication, consistency in decision-making, and ability
to work cooperatively across programs.
• Consider case conferencing with the emergency response social worker and on-
going social worker when transferring a voluntary family maintenance case
between units.
• Improve use of SDM in agency decision-making (hotline decision, case opening
decision, case planning decisions, etc.)
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, JUVENILE DIVISION
Findings and Recommendations
Broader System Issues
• Probation officers use a risk and safety assessment structure/tool to help determine
the appropriate level of intervention with children and youth and to educate the
community on Probation’s criteria for intervention.
pg. 24
• Need for services for parents: Parents need to be engaged in services while their
child is in placement to foster positive family change. Currently there are very few
services for families.
• There is a need to keep expanding a formalized group transition planning process
for when a child returns home. Currently the Department is building this process.
• Wraparound Services are effective in transitioning children home successfully.
Wraparound services are effective in transitioning children home. There is a need to
offer these services in a culturally relevant way so that they connect better with the
children and families that are served. Also, there is a need to expand this program.
• There is a need to engage the Independent Living Skills program for youth. Youth
who return back to the community need to receive consistent Independent Living
Skills.
Probation Officer Practice
• Probation officers are individualized in their approach and successful engage youth
in making positive changes: Probation officers get to know children’s strengths,
interests and abilities and incorporate them into the case plan to foster motivation to
achieving progress and goals. Probation officers use their motivational interviewing
skills with youth.
• There is a need to explore other family and family connections as possible
placements should a child not be able to return home. There is a need to explore
alternative homes for older children who will be turning 18 years old.
• There is a need to re-tool the transition process of assigning a new probation officer
when a child returns from care. When a new probation officer is assigned at the
time that the child returns home, it can take the new officer some time before they
are able to engage with the family and youth. This does not provide the structure or
relationship that the child needs during transition.
Juvenile Probation Prioritized Recommendations
• Develop a formalized group process for transitioning children from placement
earlier which is inclusive of service providers and the family.
• Develop longer transition periods from out of home care back to the community
so that the child has a way to effectively transition to lower levels of structure.
• Develop a better transition process between probation officers when a child
returns home.
• Develop innovative methods for engaging parents such as; parent support
groups, more parent partners and parenting skills training targeted at children
who are in the Juvenile Justice system.
• Train and develop processes for looking to extended family, family connections
and other housing opportunities when a child returns from care should they be
unable to return home.
• Work on developing stronger relationships and referral processes to the
Independent Living Program for Probation youth.
pg. 25
E. Outcomes
Participation Rates Child Protection:
Marin Interval
JAN1998- JAN1999- JAN2000- JAN2001- JAN2002- JAN2003- JAN2004- JAN2005- JAN2006- JAN2007- JAN2008-
DEC1998 DEC1999 DEC2000 DEC2001 DEC2002 DEC2003 DEC2004 DEC2005 DEC2006 DEC2007 DEC2008
Participation 48,652 49,644 50,538 51,494 51,983 52,301 52,487 53,159 53,540 53,631 53,597
Rates
Referal Rates: 1,610 1,659 1,918 1,747 1,871 1,765 1,779 1,651 1,896 1,945 1,754
Number of
children
Substantiations: 7.7 6.7 7.4 6.7 5.3 5.2 4.1 5.4 4.9 5.5 4.5
Incidence per
1,000 Children
Entry Rates: 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.7
Incidence per
1,000 Children
Entry Rates: 105 80 81 88 71 81 65 64 44 34 35
Number of
children
In-Care Rates: 162 154 143 125 122 121 100 90 77 69 50
Number of
children
It is important to educate and engage our communities so that they may help identify
risk and aid the department in the protection of children. By implementing Differential
Response Services in Marin, it is anticipated that the community will work together to
provide education and services towards a common end. Marin continues to build on the
work being done in the LINKAGES program, and works closely with CalWORKS to
identify families who can benefit from increased services.
Children and Family Services partners with the Marin Child Abuse Prevention
Council to provide community training to any agency who employs mandated reporters.
The training discusses how to identify child abuse and neglect, risk factors leading up to
abuse and neglect, how to make a report to CFS, and what interventions may occur.
The department finds by sharing information and explaining the process of
investigations, the public is more willing to contact the agency.
Prevention Partnerships:
The department collaborates closely with many community agencies to provide
preventive work with families and children. Marin CFS conducts a high percentage of
voluntary casework with families, in order to provide resources early on. Agencies such
as Novato Human Needs, La Familia, Canal Alliance and Family Service Agency are
only a few of the local agencies providing valuable prevention work.
Innovative programs such as the Fatherhood Project in Marin City have had
promising results in furthering the goals of education and prevention. In addition, close
work with the Marin Child Abuse Prevention Council and Marin Advocates for Children
allows for ongoing community education, training, and resource development in the
pg. 26
areas of child abuse.
Future Strategies:
Marin plans to continue to use the opportunities offered by the State Child Welfare
Redesign in order to engage community partners. By working together with local
stakeholders, we can ensure a comprehensive continuum of services is offered to the
children and families in our community. Current projects are looking at innovative ways
to improve communication and service delivery in the community and court systems and
provide the Marin with the opportunity to make significant change in the area of child
welfare.
By expanding the use of successful programs, as well as adding new innovative
programming, Marin can build on its history of best practice and maximize the number
of families who can benefit from these services.
Continuing to find ways to improve communication between agencies is a goal for
this work. By encouraging collaboration and full participation by both public and private
entities, Marin CFS hopes to further enrich the current level of community involvement
and service provision.
Finally, by supporting workers to stay current in their fields, and basing work on
strength based, researched practice, Marin will further its goal of recruiting and retaining
a skilled, culturally aware workforce. By reaching into the community and providing joint
educational and networking opportunities, Marin will build on the strength of its local
partners and will work together to ensure that children are not only safe, but thriving in
our community. The following is a list of innovative/evidenced based practice programs
currently in Marin:
Integrated Services/AB1741
Structured Decision Making
Wraparound Services- SB 163-collaboration with community partners
Family Network/Family Group Conferencing
THP-plus-collaboration with community partner and CFS
SPIN- management coaching
LINKAGES- collaboration with CalWORKs and CFS
Differential Response
In recent years Marin County has focused on supportive prevention efforts as
outlined above, including, the Novato Human Needs program, Canal alliance,
differential response, early wraparound services for children and families, early
substance abuse services for mothers and children utilizing CALWorks funding,
early mental health counseling and offering case management services in the form
of voluntary family maintenance services. These efforts have shown remarkable
pg. 27
results. In the above table referrals rates have remained consistent; however the
number of children coming into care has decreased by 52.2%; or from 105
children entering out of home care in 1998 to 35 children in 2008. Although there
was some important concerns expressed regarding offering so much voluntary
services to children and families at the PQCR in April; when reviewing the outcomes
it is obvious that the agency has been successful in supporting families earlier and
building intrinsic family capacity to protect children from abuse and neglect where
children do not have to come in to out of home care. This is a significant change.
Probation:
AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUTH IN PROBATION
PLACEMENTS 1997 - 2008
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
The average age of youth coming into Juvenile Probation services is 15.1 years
old. 25% of the youth are girls and 75% are boys. Juvenile Probation services
has been focused on evidenced based practices and instituted a standardized
risk and safety tool. This has allowed Juvenile Probation to focus on only serving
the high risk juveniles with out of home placement and to be able to offer
prevention and in-home services to lower risk children. Currently prevention
efforts in probation include wraparound services, the co-location of mental health
practitioners to offer early and easy access to children and families, Functional
Family Therapy, Multidimensional Family Therapy and having probation officers
located in schools to assess delinquency issues early and to work with children
and families to prevent out of home placement.
Unmet Needs:
Many more of the children coming into Juvenile Probation are Spanish speaking
pg. 28
only and undocumented immigrants. This presents obstacles for offering effective
prevention services to children and families. There are very little Drug and
Alcohol services for Spanish speaking youth and their families in Marin County.
Families are afraid of immigration and therefore can fear government service
assistance. This presents a challenge to services. In addition, being able to offer
youth effective independent living services can be difficult as undocumented
youth are not as easily employable and services often do not cover their costs.
Also, there is a need to offer gang prevention and intervention programs. At the
Stakeholder’s meeting it was discussed that many immigrant families have
parents coming to California first, leaving their children in Mexico with family.
Once they establish themselves the children often come and join them. This
presents challenges for the parents in re-established their family and they can be
isolated in this process. The group discussed the need for community supportive
services for these families and that perhaps the group could get together to write
a grant to offer this type of service in the community.
There is a need for more Family Finding service and activity when a family is low
risk and first comes to the attention of Probation. At this point the Department
could be doing more to identify other family members and connections that would
be able and willing to support the family and provide an alternative home should
the parents be unable to supervise and care for the child. Probation officers could
be trained to meet with families at their home to develop and implement
concurrent plans.
There is a need for teenagers to have a place to go after school. There is a need
for a safe place other than Juvenile Hall where teens who are starting to
experience negative peer relationships and family discord to go after school to
gain support and to build positive adult and peer relationships.
In addition the Stakeholder groups reviewed the research and literature of
prevention of Juvenile Probation placement.
Summary of the Literature:
Risk factors that lead to out of home probation placement are complex and
varied and unique to each youth, family and community. However reductions in
risk factors and increase in protective factors that cannot be changed leads to the
best outcomes for reducing the need for out of home placement. Therefore the
greater number of risk factors equals the greater likelihood of early-onset
offending.
Child Risk Factors
School
Children with Low intelligence or who have academic delay
Children with poor academic performance
Children with problem behaviors in pre-school is very predictive of later conduct
pg. 29
disorder and child delinquency
Children with weak bonds at school
Children who have poor school motivation
Children who drop out of school
Children who experience academic failure
Other
Children with difficult temperaments
Children who have delinquent peers
Children who have significant emotional/mental health problems –by
adolescence. 60% of males and 2/3rds of females in Juvenile Probation are
diagnosed with psychiatric disorders
Children who experience early use of alcohol and drugs – by adolescence ½ of
all offenders have drug problem
Children who have poor physical health – undernourishment and frequent illness
Parent Factors
Parental antisocial behavior
Families where there is marital discord
Parents who use harsh and erratic discipline
Poor parent supervision
Female head of households
Community Factors
Poverty
Residence in poor neighborhoods
System Factors
Involvement with the Department of Social Services
Lack of Mental Health Services: All youth are underserved – even more so for
Hispanic and African American children
School
Low education expectations of student
Exclusionary discipline practices
Negative perceptions of the school climate
Negative perceptions of the child’s family
Protective/Mediating Factors
Child
Well-developed social and interpersonal skills
Child can reflect on their behavior rather than being impulsive
Children with high sense of self-esteem, self-efficacy and takes responsibility for
their actions
Children who have positive family/adult relationships
Children who have positive peer relationships
pg. 30
Children who experience academic success
Meaningful involvement in positive activities (pro-social extracurricular activities)
System
Early intervention – even at the pre-school level
Provide early access to community based mental health, education, parenting,
relationship services.
Cognitive behavioral skills training for children
7-9 year olds- The Parent receives education and the children receive behavioral
and social skills training
Parents
Practice positive parenting, consistent structure, parental advocacy in the
schools
Low family conflict and family social problems
Schools
Supportive leadership
Committed staff
Consistent school-wide behavior management
Effective academic instruction
The Stakeholders noted that early childhood education was a current priority for the
County with new Head Start sites being added to the County’s pre-school resources.
The group suggested that child welfare and other service providers partner more closely
with Head Start to identify children experiencing behavioral and academic problems to
be able to work with the family prior to the child developing delinquent behaviors.
Safety 1.1 Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
1 0 0
N o R ecu
O f a l l c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e v ic t im s o f a s u b s
9 5
w h a t p e rc e n t w e re n o t v ic t im s o f a n o t h e r s u
9 0 94
8 5
8 0
7 5
Q 2 - Q 3 - Q 4 - Q 1 - Q 2 - Q 3 - Q 4 - Q 1 - Q 2 - Q 3 - Q 4 - Q 1 - Q 2 - Q 3- Q 4 - Q 1 - Q 2
0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 0 7
pg. 31
M a rin C o
The County has continued to hover around the National Goal of 94.6% for this outcome.
However, due to the desire to continue to focus on front end practices that help children
and families earlier, thereby preventing children from experiencing future abuse and
neglect, Marin focused on this outcome for the PQCR. The PQCR included all
stakeholders, consumers and staff and yielded excellent information on the practices
that were assisting families in building protective and well-being capacity and practices
that could be improved. To this end the county has already instituted changes. These
have included:
1) The Court Officer has become more involved with the social workers in
Emergency Response working with them on what is needed if there is going to be Court
involvement so that they can gather the needed documentation. The County Juvenile
Court takes a lot of time with each case and it is estimated that 95% of the cases that
go to Court are contested. In addition, in the past there have been times when the
Department has sent cases to the Court and they have been refused. This has lead to
the County working with a family several times in voluntary family maintenance services
where the family might not be really engaged with their case plan and services.
However in recent months the Department has been able to influence and change the
standard of filing petitions to some extent allowing petitions to be filed more readily.
2) Communication is better between the emergency response social workers and
supervisors. Supervisors and the Program Manager are looking more closely at what
can and cannot be a voluntary service case. Having the same manager administering
both the emergency response and on-going child welfare service functions has been
helpful. They have been able to evaluate and take in the full continuum of child welfare
services. However due to the narrow parameters of the Court a social worker will not be
able to take a case to Court and often the family is unwilling to work the Department
voluntarily. The social worker will open a voluntary case, just to have it close due to
non-participation by the family. This is considered a “failed” voluntary. The Court
generally wants to see at least one failed voluntary before ordering Court involvement.
3) There has been more of an emphasis on following the standardized risk and
safety Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools between the emergency response
supervisors and social workers.
4) There could still be better understanding, appreciation and teamwork between
emergency response and on-going workers.
As part of the PQCR and Self Assessment Process the Stakeholders reviewed the
literature and research for the outcome areas of prevention and recurrence of
maltreatment.
Recurrence of Maltreatment Literature Review
These factors include:
pg. 32
• The history of maltreatment and number of referrals is the most important factor
associated with recurrence of maltreatment. Children with a history of
maltreatment are six times more likely to have recurrence than children who have
not experienced maltreatment and the risk of recurrence increases after each
maltreatment event.
Type and Severity of Abuse
• Families that experience neglect have a 32 to 53% higher likelihood of
recurrence of maltreatment.
• Families that experience multiple types of abuse have a higher likelihood of
recurrence of maltreatment.
• The more severe the abuse the more likely there will be recurrence.
Child Factors that Contribute
• Age: younger children, age 0 to 5 years, are more likely to experience recurrence
while children 12 to 17 years old are less likely.
• Children with developmental disabilities are more likely to experience recurrence,
including children with learning disabilities.
Parent Factors that Contribute
• Families where substance abuse was a presenting problem, particularly alcohol,
were more likely to experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• In families where domestic violence was a presenting problem the families were
1.5 times more likely to experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• In families that presented where the parent(s) had a history of mental health
problems the families were more likely to experience recurrence maltreatment. In
families where the caretaker was emotionally disturbed the families were 11.7
times more likely to experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• The more children in the family the higher the likelihood of maltreatment.
• Single parent’s families were more likely to experience recurrence of
maltreatment.
• Families with a stepparent who has never been married and has no history of
maltreatment as a child were more likely to experience recurrence of
maltreatment.
Family/Environment Factors that Contribute
• Families that have had a child previously placed with child welfare in out of home
care were more likely to experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• Children living in rural and/or economically depressed areas were more likely to
experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• Families who had a lack of social support and high family stress were more likely
to experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• If families were unable to engage in agency services in previous maltreatment
events they were more likely to experience recurrence of maltreatment.
• The longer that families engaged in services previously was associated with less
pg. 33
recurrence of maltreatment.
• Families experiencing poverty were positively associated with recurrence of
maltreatment.
Agency Factors
• Agencies often have data reporting issues when collecting information on
recurrence of maltreatment. A review of how an agency collects data often
impacts their outcomes in this area.
• The use of accurate, reliable risk and safety assessments that have been well
implemented throughout the agency decreases recurrence of maltreatment by
28%.
• The use of a diversified response system decreases recurrence of maltreatment.
• Family involvement in service planning increased family engagement which
decreases the likelihood of recurrence.
• When agencies do multi-factor and prioritized assessments that identify
interventions specifically targeted at risk and safety factors recurrence of
maltreatment decreases.
Safety 2.1 No Maltreatment in Foster Care
pg. 34
Due to the small numbers of children in foster care and the emphasis on local county
foster homes, Marin County has not experienced any maltreatment in foster care. The
County is at 100.3% of the National Goal in this area. In order to keep up this outcome,
the County will be mindful of making changes to the foster care system that might move
them away from the personal connection and oversight that their system now affords.
C.1 Family Reunification Composite
Baseline
performance
related to
Reunification Baseline Baseline Baseline nat'l std/goal
Composite numerator denominator performance
1
(%)2
Reunification
C1 Composite N.A. N.A. 122.0 99.2
Reunification
Within 12 Months
C1.1 (Exit Cohort) 21 28 75.0 99.7
Median Time To
Reunification (Exit
C1.2 Cohort) N.A. 28 3.2 months 168.8
Reunification
Within 12 Months
C1.3 (Entry Cohort) 5 7 71.4 147.6
Reentry Following
Reunification (Exit
C1.4 Cohort) 4 18 22.2 44.6
Marin County is meeting or just about meeting the National Goal in three of the
measures that make up the reunification composite. For the overall composite the
County is performing at just under (.8) of the National Goal. In C1.4: Re-entry following
reunification, the County is currently at 44%. It must be noted that Marin County is
very small and has decreased the number of children coming in to out of home
care in the past 5 years by half, therefore they have very few children in this
category. Also the children who now come in to out of home care may be very difficult
cases with multi-system problems which make them more difficult to treat. One child in
this category affects the performance indicator by 25% up or down for Marin
County. However the County is still very focused on improving in this area.
Unmet and Continued Need:
Upon analysis of the children who re-entered out of home care, 9 over a two year period
were returned prior to six months. Of these 4 were returned in the first month and one
within two months. The leading reason to reunify was that there was at least one parent
with a substance abuse issue and the parent entered treatment where the child could
be placed with them. When the parent(s) left treatment early or relapsed the child had to
return to out of home care. The second reason most cited was that the Court returned
the children early to the parent(s). Substance abuse was the most cited issue
pg. 35
associated with re-entry cases.
The Stakeholder’s group discussed that at times a child could be returned to the mother
too early due to requirements of the in-patient drug treatment program and due to
CALWorks requirements for funding. However, the focus of the Agency on prevention,
early intervention and excellent reunification rates has meant that many more children
have successfully reunified in recent years.
For Probation, half the youth currently in placement are Hispanic and there are no group
homes located in Marin County. All children have to be placed out of the county and this
makes it difficult for the parents to visit, stay connected and attend treatment. Children
can do well in placement and build skill, making positive changes however when they
return home the parents have not been able to participate and are therefore not
prepared to have the children home. In addition many of the youth are not U.S. citizens.
When they return to the community it is hard to access employment and other services
that would create healthy transitions to adulthood. Other challenges cited for returning
youth successfully back to the community was the need for more positive collaboration
with the schools and assistance with children who have gang affiliations.
Stakeholder’s Discussion of Probation:
Prevention Unmet Need-The County is currently expanding its Head Start Program in
San Rafael. It was suggested that County child welfare agencies partner with the Head
State program to offer support for early identification of behavior and education
challenges for children with support and early intervention services for families so that
children are fully supported to have successful education experiences. It was also
suggested that the County child welfare agencies partner to offer education to pre-
schools to understand the research on Probation youth and work with them on how to
involve parents in the pre-school experience and how to provide for any behavior and/or
mental health needs.
Other ideas included
• Offering a $500.00 tax break to parents who take a parenting skills training
course and/or making it a requirement of obtaining Medi-Cal benefits.
• Working with the schools to offer early identification of children in need of
educational, psychological and behavioral needs. School psychologists are
spread very thin between schools due to budget cuts and do not have time to do
early assessments and interventions.
• Working with the foster care liaison to help identify children that are high needs
early and provide intervention to support their academic and school experience
success.
• Begin a charter school for children who need extra support to be successful in
school.
• Collaborate with foster family agencies to provide added educational, mental
health and behavioral support to children and families in need.
• The evidenced based Triple P parenting skills training course is beginning in
Marin County. Have collaboration between all community agencies and
pg. 36
stakeholders to assist with getting families in the program. Make sure that there
are incentives to getting parents to participate like food and childcare.
• Look for ways to keep Probation children in the community so that parents and
children have access to services.
• Ask the Court to intervene and/or offer incentives to promote parent participation
such as giving them less fines and lowering placement costs if they participate in
parenting skills and mental health services.
• Probation officers need to engage with the parents early on and identify relatives
for support and placement. They need to engage with the whole family. Have the
parent and the youth involved in case review every time.
• Offer in-home services to low risk children and families.
During the Stakeholder meeting participants, reviewed the available research literature
that affects reunification/re-entry into foster care to identify those factors that contribute
to and obstruct the likelihood that a child will experience re-entry into foster care.
Family Reunification – Re-Entry into Foster Care Literature Review
These factors include:
Risk Factors:
Child characteristics that are related to re-entry into foster care:
Health issues
Mental health issues
Behavioral problems
Being of African American Race
Infant or pre-teen/teen agers have higher rates of re-entry into foster care
Family characteristics that are related to re-entry into foster care:
Poverty
Parental substance abuse
Parental ambivalence about the parenting role
Lack of parenting skills on the part of the parent
Lack of social support for the family
Parental mental health issues
Child Welfare Service Attributes that are related to re-entry into foster care:
Short initial stay in foster care
More foster care placements of a child the more likely they are to re-enter
Placement in group care
Unmet needs or unresolved problems of the parents and/or child
Prior child welfare involvement
Prior unsuccessful attempts at reunification
Resiliency Factors – Factors that mediate risk of re-entry into foster care:
Teens
Regular home visits prior to returning home for teens with behavior
pg. 37
problems
Teens receive special education services
Younger Children
No more than one prior out of home placement
Returning home with siblings
Having a well planned exit from care with in-home transition
services offered
Continuous child welfare staffing – Having the same social worker
stay with the case
Maintaining child-parent involvement through the CWS case
Effective enforcement/accountability of conditions that had been set
for reunification so that real change and family capacity building
occurs
General
Longer stays in care where the parent/child relationship is
maintained
Kinship Care has better outcomes than non-related cares
Child and family having high self-esteem and self-efficacy
Child and family having effective coping skills
Child and family having an average level of intelligence
Child and family being connected to spirituality
Child and family having optimism
Child having an easygoing and likable temperament
Child having a positive African American racial identity
Child and family having intact Hispanic cultural ties
C.2 Adoption Composite
Comparison
performance
related. to
Measure Measure Comparison Comparison Comparison nat'l std/goal
number description numerator denominator performance1 (%)2
Adoption
C2 Composite N.A. N.A. 126.2 135.1
Adoption
Within 24
Months (Exit
C2.1 Cohort) 9 12 75.0 204.9
Median Time
To Adoption
C2.2 (Exit Cohort) N.A. 12 23.1 118.2
Adoption
Within 12
Months (17
Months In
C2.3 Care) 5 27 18.5 81.6
pg. 38
Legally Free
Within 6
Months (17
Months In
C2.4 Care) 0 20 0.0 N.A.
Adoption
Within 12
Months
C2.5 (Legally Free) 5 8 62.5 116.4
Marin County completes their own adoptions and has very good outcomes in this area.
All of the outcomes in this area are above the National Goal except: Adoption within 12
months (17 months in care) which is at 81.6% of the national standard. The
Stakeholders in reviewing this outcome saw this outcome as being similar to the long-
term care outcome as it highlighted the children who were headed for long-term care.
The group wished to review this outcome further in analyzing ways to create early
permanency for all children in the child welfare system.
Unmet and Continuing Needs:
Upon further analysis of the child and family characteristics of the children indentified in
outcome measure C2.3 over a two year period, 14 of the children are in guardianship
with non relatives and another 6 are placed with relatives who are utilizing child welfare
services.
As part of the Stakeholder’s meetings participants reviewed the literature and research
on timely adoptions and timely finalizations. A summary is below.
Adoption Literature Review
These factors include:
Timely Adoption Placement
Child Characteristics
The older the child the less likely they are to reach adoption placement timely.
Children under the age of 2 years are four times more likely than children ages
12 years or older at first removal to achieve timely adoption.
A child having emotional, behavioral and/or medical issues negatively affects
timely adoption placement.
Types of Abuse
Sexual abuse cases move slower toward adoption placement. Physical abuse
and parent alcohol use/abuse also move slower.
Placement History
pg. 39
A child that has had multiple placements is half as likely to achieve timely
permanency.
Biological Family Characteristics
If a parent relinquishes parental rights the child is three times more likely to
achieve timely adoptive placement.
Children from single parent biological families have higher levels of timelier
adoptions.
Caseworker Characteristics/Beliefs
Social work practice that embraces non-traditional family structures such as:
single- parents, gay/lesbian, different ethnicity and/or out of State placements
provides more opportunities for timelier adoptive placements
Married, heterosexual couples are more accepted as suitable adoptive
placements by social workers.
Timely Adoptive Finalization
Child Characteristics
Boys less likely to move toward finalization quickly.
Types of Abuse
If children have experienced Sexual abuse, foster parents have inconsistent
parental commitment to the child which slows down finalization.
Placement History
A child having multiple placements leads to timely finalization once they have
found a family that is committed to them.
Single family head of household adoptive families move slower toward
finalization.
Characteristics/Beliefs of the Caseworker
Less educated social workers have been shown to have more negative biases
toward non-traditional adoptive families.
Social workers having higher caseloads makes it more difficult to support
adoptive families and do the work necessary to move children to adoption timely.
pg. 40
Social workers who have negative attitudes about the adoptability of children
leads to less likelihood of timely adoption finalization.
System Level Factors
Federally eligible funded children are two times more likely to reach timely
adoption and adoption finalization.
Children who are over the age of 12 years at the time of their removal and who
live with Hispanic or multi-racial unmarried foster parent were the most likely to
remain in foster care and not achieve timely adoption.
Best Practices that support timely adoption:
Effective concurrent planning.
Supervisors working with caseworkers beliefs/concerns about children and adoptive
families. Social workers in general work harder for younger children to find them an
adoptive home.
Improve recruitment for adoptive homes. Particularly for older and special needs
children.
Institute practices and supports for open adoptions that allows children to still have
some form of family contact.
Trans-racial adoptions cultural issues of A.A. children minimized for children being
adopted.
Providing in-home child focused effective post – adoptive placement Services.
Particularly for children with pre-natal drug exposure and sexual abuse.
Expediting approval of homes within the child welfare system.
Increase funding for families and services.
Offering cultural competent services.
pg. 41
C.3 Long Term Care Composite
Comparison
performance
Long-Term related to
Care Measure Comparison Comparison Comparison nat'l std/goal
1
Composite description numerator denominator performance (%)2
Long Term Care
C3 Composite N.A. N.A. 91.5 57.9
Exits To
Permanency (24
C3.1 Months In Care) 5 27 18.5 63.6
Exits To
Permanency
(Legally Free At
C3.2 Exit) 12 12 100.0 102.0
In Care 3 Years
Or Longer
(Emancipated/Age
C3.3 18) 8 11 72.7 51.6
▪ In this composite Marin County is currently performing at 60% of the National Goal
overall. In the Exits to Permanency 24 months in Care outcome (definition: Of all
children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year, what
percent were discharged to a permanent home by the end of the year and prior to
turning 18?) current performance is at 64% of the National Goal. For the Exits to
Permanency Legally Free at Exit, the county is at 102% of the goal and for the In
Care Three Years or Longer (and reached permanency within the next 12 months)
the level of performance is at 51%. Upon further analysis of the children counted in
C3.1 and C3.3 over a two year period, it was noted that 1 child was recently
adopted, 14 children are in non-relative guardianship, 6 were placed with relatives
and utilizing child welfare support services, 4 children were in Long-term Foster care
and 1 child remained in care due to immigration issues. So although many of these
children did not meet the outcome definition for Permanency the majority of them
were placed in long-term, stable family homes which are considered a permanent
connection.
Unmet and Continuing Need:
One insight discussed by the Stakeholder group is that the County does have very low
percentages of children placed with relatives and if this practice was improved, it might
have a very positive effect on this outcome. Ideas for improvement included:
• Increase use of SDM by on-going services
• More intense and earlier use of Family Finding
pg. 42
• Review early concurrent planning practices to target improvement
• The County has intense visitation practices that sometimes rule out kin because
of the high demands on reunification services. This may be affecting the County’s
permanency outcomes.
• It was noted that non-relative guardian cases often need services provided by the
agency and so do not want to close their cases.
• Children that are under age 16 will not qualify for college and other services if
they are not in foster care at age 16 yrs. and this is a disincentive to dismissing
cases.
• Institute ice breaker meetings to assist with facilitating the relationship between
parents and foster parents
• Get Probation involved in recruitment for foster homes.
• Develop foster homes that can take sibling sets
• Change the training and recruitment philosophy from one of being strictly foster
(temporary) care to one of developing resource families who can support a
variety of permanency options for children.
• Offer higher levels of payment and respite to foster parents that take teenagers.
• Recruit limit setting foster parents and offer enhanced support to foster and kin
placements that have teenagers.
• Develop a kinship support program for Child Protection and Probation. Explore
ways to partner with other Counties in this endeavor.
Probation discussion regarding unmet needs for Long term care- Due to real estate
being so cost prohibitive, there are currently no group homes in the County. This makes
it difficult to treat the family with the child in making positive changes that would result in
the family building better capacity to support the child/parent relationship and to support
the child not falling back into delinquent behaviors. There is a need for foster homes in
the County that are willing to take probation youth, both so that youth do not have to
travel to far away group homes but also to act as a bridge or step-down back to the
community where both the parents and child could be offered services to build family
capacity providing successful permanency for children. It was also discussed that
Probation could do more in finding extended family and connections early on that would
be willing to take the child should the parents not be able to when the child returns
home.
Exits to Permanency – Literature Review
These factors include:
Assessment
• Early initial assessments of children, parents and their needs lead to better
placement matching and services delivered that support well-being and lead to
permanency.
pg. 43
• Thorough assessments of children and parents including: mental
health/behavior, education, development and substance use/abuse lead to
better service delivery that support healthy families and lead to permanency.
Placement
• Older children when placed in foster care are more likely to stay in foster care
(age 12 years and up).
• Children who are placed in kin care are more likely to achieve permanency
and less placement moves.
• Children in long-term foster care often have emotional, educational,
behavioral, health and social problems.
• The longer a child is in long-term foster care and the more times that a child
moves make it less likely that they will achieve permanency.
• Every time a child moves placements it increases the likelihood that they will
move again.
• Children and youth do better in all child well-being outcomes if they are
placed in a home like environment (group care has the poorest outcome for
permanency)
• The sooner a child has permanency the more likely that they will be able to
sustain it.
Care Planning and Concurrent Planning
• If families are involved and engaged in case planning they are more likely to
succeed.
• Working with strengths increases family engagement.
• Children who have a range of permanency options from the beginning are
more likely to have permanency.
• The more concurrent planning is built into every aspect of the case the more
likely the child is to find permanency.
• Exploring options for permanency early and often leads to success.
• With older adolescents exploring family members again is often successful
(revisiting reunification).
• With older adolescents exploring their often conflicting feelings about
permanency supports success.
• Exploring caregiver concerns and conflicting feelings about permanency
leads to success.
• Practicing the concept of “shared parenting” between all caregivers and family
members for a child leads to success.
Connections
• Youth who age out of foster care have the best outcomes if they stay
connected with foster families.
• Youth who maintain relationships with their sibling have better outcomes in
early adulthood.
• The less school moves the better youth do academically.
pg. 44
Caregivers
The better trained and prepared the caregiver is the more likely the child will
have placement stability.
The more caregivers understand the behavioral issues before placement the
better the odds of placement stability.
The more families understand trauma and why a child misbehaves the more
likely they are to be able to work with the behavior.
Most placement disruptions happen in the first 6 months (70%). Early services
and contact with the social worker helps maintain stability.
Children have more placement stability when placed with relatives and have
better outcomes on all markers (educational, emotional, social, and behavioral).
Having caregivers meet each other and share information leads to better
outcomes and continuity of care
Two parent married foster parents are more likely to adopt foster children.
Social Worker Characteristics
The more social workers stay employed, serving the same children and families
the better the outcomes for permanency.
The more social worker contact there is with a child the more likely that there will
be placement stability leading to permanency.
Probation Long-term Care Effective Permanency Services – Literature Review
Prior to Placement
• Completing a comprehensive assessment of the parent’s and child’s
strengths, problems, needs and resiliency traits supported the development of
a targeted case plan that supported sustainable permanency.
• Involving the family in the assessment, decision-making and planning when
the child first becomes involved with Probation was associated with successful
permanency.
• Assessment of the youth’s future goals and keeping those at the forefront of
the work with the youth was associated with early permanency.
During Placement -Planning for Transition Home
• The earlier that planning for transition from out of home placement happens
the better the outcome for the youth.
• When a “team” approach was used to engage the youth to promote positive
behavior change outcome was improved.
• When a “team” approach was used that involved all providers, staff, family,
youth and stakeholders to develop a targeted aftercare plan the outcome
was positive.
• The development of a positive relationship between the youth and the
probation officer and the family and the probation officer, where the probation
pg. 45
officer could stay with the youth through the transition period of returning
home, was associated with successful outcomes.
Aftercare – Returning Home
• Having services that addressed the special needs of the youth once they
return from care was associated with positive outcomes.
• Having consistency of planned services with many adults involved, once a
youth returns home was associated with positive outcomes.
• Having immediate consistency of structure and rules, with immediate
consequences for non-compliance was associated with positive outcomes.
• Holding youth accountable for their behavior and consequences of their
behavior was associated with positive outcomes.
C.4 Placement Stability Composite
Comparison
performance
relative to
Measure Measure Comparison Comparison Comparison nat'l std/goal
1
number description numerator denominator performance (%)2
Placement
Stability
C4 Composite N.A. N.A. 106.0 108.7
Placement
Stability (8 Days
To 12 Months In
C4.1 Care) 52 55 94.5 109.9
Placement
Stability (12 To 24
C4.2 Months In Care) 8 14 57.1 87.4
Placement
Stability (At Least
24 Months In
C4.3 Care) 14 30 46.7 111.6
The county is performing above the National Goal overall in the placement stability
composite. Children are placed in local foster homes. The County does good
assessments of their foster homes and the children’s needs and makes good matches.
The county has more control over this having county foster homes where they have
developed good relationships over time. These outcomes match the Adoption and
Long-term care outcomes where the County is performing well. The County
understands the importance of permanency for children and has good practice in this
area.
pg. 46
2.B Timely Response
Measure Measure Comparison Comparison Comparison
1
number description numerator denominator performance
Timely
Response
(Immediate
Response
2B Compliance) 65 67 97.0
Timely
Response
(10-Day
Response
2B Compliance) 161 199 80.9
The county is achieving the State goal of at least 90% with timely response to
immediate referrals. The County is currently performing at 97%. The County’s
performance in timely 10-day response was a little lower at 81%. The Safe Measures
data was reviewed and it was noted that the County has been at the 90% for 10 day
referrals for every period except quarter 1 of 2009.
Analysis:
It was discussed by the planning committee that the County during the last quarterly
review period had a large unexpected increase in referrals. Also three people went on
vacation and two people ended up being out sick. There were unforeseen one time
circumstances that affected this outcome. Since that time the County has instituted a
cross-training back up protocol for when issues such as these come up, where other
units are able to fill in behind each other. In addition there is a new protocol for limiting
the number of people that can be out on vacation at any one time and there is better
communication between the units so that the overall continuum of service is being taken
into consideration. This should prevent this situation from reoccurring in the future.
Placement Stability – Literature Review
As part of the assessment the outcome area for placement stability; the stakeholders
reviewed the current research literature on placement stability and permanency
planning to identify those factors that contribute to and obstruct the likelihood that a
child will move out of substitute care into a permanent family home as quickly as
possible.
These factors include:
• Youth who experience minimized placement changes were more likely to
experience fewer school changes, less trauma and distress, less mental health
and behavioral problems. They also had increased probabilities for academic
success and to experience a lasting positive relationship with an adult.
pg. 47
Child Factors that Contribute:
• Children with behavior problems is the strongest predictor of placement
instability.
• The more placements a child has the more engrained behavior problems
become.
• With every year a child ages the likelihood that they will find a permanent family
homes goes down by 22%.
• African American children are more stable in kinship care.
• The lack of access to mental health services for children impacts placement
stability particularly for African American children who are less likely to receive
mental health services.
• Toddlers have less coping skills for stress therefore experience higher levels of
distress when their home environment changes.
Home Factors that Contribute:
• Children who are placed with kin experience much less placement instability.
They have fewer behavior problems and better resiliency skills.
• Foster parents who have training on trauma informed parenting and are mature
in their approach; meaning they do not take the child’s behavior personally and
are able to understand a child’s behavior, and are more able to parent foster
children long-term.
• When foster parents have strong support systems and extended family they are
more able to provide stability for foster children.
• When foster parents have biological children under the age of 5 years old in the
home they are less likely to be able to parent a foster child long-term.
• When there are other children of the same age in the foster home a foster child is
more likely to disrupt from placement.
Agency Characteristics:
• When concurrent planning is done well system-wide children experience early
permanency and placement stability.
• When children are provided with early mental health assessments and quality
mental health services they are more likely to experience placement stability.
• Children often experience more placement disruptions in the first six months of
placement and this leads to an on-going pattern of disruption.
• The more placements that a child has the more placement disruptions they are
likely to have going forward.
• When there are high rates of turnover of social work staff children experience
more placement disruptions.
pg. 48
2.C Timely Social Work Visits
Measure Measure Comparison Comparison Comparison
1
number description numerator denominator performance
Timely Social
Worker Visits with
2C** Child (Month 1)** 98 111 88.3
Timely Social
Worker Visits with
2C** Child (Month 2)** 96 104 92.3
Timely Social
Worker Visits with
2C** Child (Month 3)** 103 114 90.4
The County achieved the State goal of 90% for timely social work visits in all months
except January 2009 for the reasons cited above in the “Timely Response” analysis.
When the Safe Measures data was reviewed it revealed that the County is consistently
meeting the State goal in this area (the red line in the above summary data chart).
pg. 49
4.A Siblings – How many children who get placed in out of home placement do so
with all or some of their siblings?
Measure Measure Comparison Comparison Comparison
number description numerator denominator performance1
4A Siblings (All) 22 31 71.0
Siblings
4A (Some or All) 26 31 83.9
The County is seeing 71% of children placed with all of their siblings and 84% being
placed with some or all of their siblings.
Unmet and Continuing Need:
The Stakeholder discussed that there is a desire improvement in this area. The County
has low placements in Kincare (12% for first entries and 17.5% for point in time entries).
The research shows that kin are more apt to take sibling sets. Therefore improving
practice in this area might include supporting practices that target more kin placements.
It was also noted that even though there are very positive things associated with having
local county foster homes it might also be a barrier to placing siblings together as
County licenses do not include many homes that can take large sibling sets. It was
expressed that there might be a need to develop more FFA home placements so that
siblings could be placed more readily together.
4.B Least Restrictive Placement
Measure
description: Comparison
Measure Least Restrictive Comparison Comparison performance
number Placement numerator denominator %
1st placement
4B Relative 6 49 12.2
First Placement
4B Foster Home 38 49 77.6
First Placement
Foster Family
4B Agency 2 49 4.1
First Placement:
4B Group/Shelter 2 49 4.1
First Placement:
4B Other 1 49 2.0
Point in Time
Placement:
4B Relative 11 63 17.5
pg. 50
Point in Time
Placement:
4B Foster Home 32 63 50.8
Point in Time
Placement:
Foster Family
4B Agency 4 63 6.3
Point in Time
Placement:
4B Group/Shelter 1 63 1.6
Point in Time
Placement:
4B Other 15 63 23.8
It was noted earlier that the County has local foster homes where the majority of
children are placed (77.6% of first time placements and 50.8% of point in time
placements) that support good placement stability (see above placement stability
outcome statistics). However placement in Kincare is relatively low (12.2% first time
placement and 17.5% point in time placement). This may be because of a high demand
for frequent reunification services like visitation. It might also be due to current
concurrent planning practices.
Stakeholder Discussion: Ideas for improvement in this area include:
• Explore the feasibility of a 23 hour shelter facility that would allow social workers
the time to approve relatives for placement.
• Expand the practice of locating out of county relatives and connections for
children at detention.
• Support out of county relative placements and create ways to continue to provide
excellent family reunification services.
• Offer more support for relatives such as money from the family emergency fund,
waivers for restrictions and transportation assistance.
4.E ICWA Outcomes
The County has no data in this outcome area. However it was discussed by the
planning committee that when ICWA is present in a case it can be a barrier that counsel
brings up court which can slow down and complicate proceedings.
5.B – Health and Dental Exams
Percent Counts Total
In Out of In Out of
Compliance Compliance Compliance Compliance
Medical 92.3 7.7 36 3 39
Dental 72.7 27.3 24 9 33
pg. 51
The county is performing well with health exams. They are up to date in 92% of the
cases due to excellent work by the in-house public health nurses. The dental exam rate
is at 73% compliance which is very high for dental exams, particularly in an affluent
county where Medi-Cal providers can be more difficult to find.
5.F Psychotropic Medication
County Total Foster Total Auth %Auth Psych
Care Psych Meds Meds
Marin 61 5 8.2
In Quarter 1, 2009, there were 5 children out of a possible 61 who have approved
psychotropic medication orders.
6.B IEPs
State/County Total # in # with IEP % with
Foster Care an IEP
Marin 52 4 7.7
For Quarter 1, 2009 4 children out of a possible 52 have noted IEP’s in their education
plans which is consistent with the State average.
8.A Youth Outcome Data
There is no data for these outcomes.
G. SYSTEMIC FACTORS:
1. Relevant Management Information Systems:
Marin continues to utilize CWS/CMS to its fullest capacity. By assigning a full-
time Sr. Child Welfare Worker to oversee the training and ongoing implementation
issues surrounding this system, Marin has worked to coordinate and streamline an often
large and cumbersome program.
There are many strengths in Marin regarding the use of CWS/CMS and its
pg. 52
integration into the culture of Child Welfare Services. This system is the primary tool for
referral and case documentation in Marin. Staff is interested in using the system to its
fullest, asking for new forms to be put into CWS/CMS for their use. Marin provides
excellent support and individualized training, and has endeavored to have unit
supervisors become expert users to provide additional assistance to staff.
Additionally there are a number of areas identified in which Marin could improve
its CWS/CMS usage. The area of portability continues to be problematic for staff, and
access from home via laptop computers has been implemented. Many staff continue to
duplicate their work, by documenting on paper and then re-documenting in the
computer. This affects the timely entering of contact notes. Marin needs to continue to
improve its proper documentation of contact exceptions in the case plan area, and in
addition, improve its timely approval of Case Plans. Additional areas of workload
improvement include the investigation of electronic court discovery options, and ongoing
quality assurance activities aimed at timely approval of case plans and case closures.
Increased utilization of the Education notebook and Health and Education Passports,
while in progress, needs to be further addressed. Marin must also continue to address
the “work arounds” which appear to effect data results from CWS/CMS.
In order to provide the necessary monitoring for compliance of CAPIT and
CBCAP plans, annual site visits to the involved contracted programs occur. In addition,
contract monitoring includes:
• Reviews to determine the extent to which the scope of work activities identified are
completed by the approved program(s) pursuant to the approved County Plan
• Monitoring of the accuracy and appropriateness of the services
• Review and evaluation of accuracy of reported statistical data. Outcome measures
are verified to insure program and agency records support data reported, and are
consistent with prevention priorities.
• Identification of immediate, short-term and long-term fiscal expenditures: All claims
for reimbursement are monitored as being allowable under the programs. Long-term
outcomes are presented by the programs and reviews of plans and services must
indicate they are directly related to the priority funding areas, the County System
Improvement Plan and the Federal Outcome Indicators. These areas are monitored
for accuracy and appropriateness.
2. Case Review System:
Court Structure/Relationship:
The Juvenile Court in Marin County is convened by the Superior Court. This Court
oversees the Juvenile Court process for both dependency and probation cases.
Dependency matters are heard in the Marin County Civic Center Courthouse located at
3501 Civic Center Drive in San Rafael. Probation matters are heard in the same place
on different days.
pg. 53
There is one Juvenile Court Commissioner assigned to cover these courts. This
Commissioner reports to the Presiding Judge. Dependency Court Calendars are heard
once a week on Tuesdays. The Commissioner then follows the family through the
system, handling contested hearings, review hearings, and any other matters pertaining
to the case. In addition, the Commissioner hears matters pertaining to 602 wardship.
Court hearings occur three times per week, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday
afternoons.
Parents involved in Dependency Court, whose lack of financial means prevent them
from hiring their own attorney, are represented by the Public Defender, or in the case of
conflict, Legal Aid, Family Law or a conflict attorney. Each child is appointed council.
Counsel remains appointed until dependency is dismissed. Marin County has an active
CASA program and CASA volunteers are appointed on most every case at Jurisdiction.
Children and Family Services are represented by Marin County Counsel.
CFS has a social worker assigned full time in the role of Court Officer. The Court
Officer appears in Court on behalf of the case-carrying social worker. The Court Officer
also acts as a liaison to the Court, and tracks ICWA and Interstate Compact (ICPC)
cases.
Children and Family Services arranges the court calendar, utilizing a clerk to cover
the court desk. All notices, reports, continuances, etc. are covered by this position.
There is a well established and involved CASA program serving both Dependency and
Juvenile Court.
Many people involved in Marin’s Juvenile Court system cite the size of the county as
being both a strength and a weakness for the system. The strength is that it is a small
and manageable system. The Commissioner becomes familiar with the staff and
attorneys involved, as well as the families. Despite the adversarial nature of any type of
court situation, those working in the court system in Marin County work hard to
collaborate closely on cases, and attempt to mediate differences through a variety of
channels. CFS utilizes the Court Officer position, to serve as a liaison to the courts and
attorneys, which has greatly improved communication and collaboration with the Courts.
The Juvenile Court Task Force Meeting was initiated to support and improve the
working relationships among all parties regularly working with the Juvenile Courts. This
meeting provides a venue for training and discussion on topics of mutual interest and
concern. Members include the Juvenile Court Commissioner, CFS supervisors and
managers, attorneys, CASA and Probation supervisors. Workgroups are routinely
developed to address specific situations and report back to the group for solutions.
, Marin does attempt to work with families on a voluntary basis whenever
possible, and staff carry a number of voluntary cases. Additionally, Marin County does
not experience high levels of Juvenile Crime, and has extremely low incidents of violent
crimes. Marin utilizes a local protocol for 241.1 referrals. CFS staff work closely with
Juvenile Probation to determine the best plan and system for providing services.
pg. 54
The Juvenile Court grants continuances for cause. CFS social workers strive to
produce their court reports one week in advance of Jurisdictional/Dispositional
Hearings, and two weeks in advance of Review Hearings. When reports are produced
in a timely manner, the need for continuances is greatly reduced.
Those involved in the Court system would like to see earlier intervention by CFS
and more resources for families, in hopes of avoiding court intervention all together.
Timely Notification of Hearings:
Marin County Children and Family Services maintain responsibility for noticing all
parties with interest in the Marin County Dependency Court System. Notices of Reviews
are sent to all parties by the Children and Family Services Court Clerk, who also
maintains the Court Calendar and tracks upcoming reviews and notification dates.
As required by law, the foster parents and relative/non-related extended family
member caregivers also receive the Notice of Review. In addition, prior to court
hearings, Foster Parents and Care Providers are sent requests to supply any additional
information in writing, should they be unable to attend. CASA reports are also filed with
the Court.
Marin County adheres to state law and regulation requirements for determining
whether children have American Indian heritage to ensure compliance with the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Noticing of ICWA cases continues to be a tremendous
burden on the system. The number of notices and cost in sending them out, prior to
recognition by the tribe adds a tremendous workload. The county adheres to direction
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a specific tribe regarding placement of children with
an Indian family, using expert witness testimony as needed.
Parent-child- youth participation in case planning:
Family engagement is a critical element of the Child Welfare Services Redesign.
Marin County has long had a practice of strength-based, family-centered practice.
Marin currently utilizes many of the best practice approaches identified throughout the
State.
The “Family Network” program is an approach to family group decision making in
which a facilitated team is made up of those identified by the family as critical supports.
The team meets in order to determine goals, identify services, and monitor progress.
Marin believes that an interactive process with the family is critical to developing
relationships for working together. In working together with CalWORKS, Marin
LINKAGES program strives for congruent case plans for shared clients.
pg. 55
Marin County CFS focus on the case plan is on the welfare of the child. When the
needs of the caregiver are affecting the care of the child, then these needs are
addressed in the case plan. Additionally the Department maintains a Children Services
Fund to purchase the resource needs identified or court ordered. Other funds, such as
the Kinship Emergency Fund, are utilized when appropriate to provide necessary
resources.
General Case Planning and Review:
Case plans are documents generated by CFS social work staff and are designed to
identify family problems that are placing children at risk. Case plans are due within 30
days of the beginning of a case and must be updated at least once every six months
thereafter.
Marin County has implemented the Structured Decision Making Tool (SDM) for use
by all social work staff when conducting assessments of risk to children and developing
the case plan. The tool provides specific guidelines for assessing level of risk in order to
minimize the influence of subjective conclusions and social work bias. The “Strengths
and Needs Assessment” portion of the tool guides the case planning process to
promote greater consistency in case planning. Marin utilizes Safe Measures to provide
quality improvement review for documentation and case plans.
Concurrent planning is a principle of child welfare social work practice that is a legal
requirement for all dependent children living in out-of-home care. This is a process of
identification of, and early placement into, a placement that can become a permanent
living situation for children should reunification fail. Marin County CFS utilizes a
placement review committee for regular review and communication regarding these
placements. Marin County CFS policy requires social workers to begin the process of
concurrent planning from the time the child is removed from the home, and continue an
active process until a plan is finalized.
All court reports must contain an identification of the concurrent plan and the steps
needed to finalize the plan. Marin County is fortunate in that Adoption staff is on site and
work closely with child welfare workers throughout this process.
Permanency Hearings must be held within 12 months of the child entering foster
care, and at least every six months thereafter. The CFS Adoptions social workers
assess the “adoptability” of each child where a recommendation for ending reunification
will or has been made. If adoption is the likely plan, the child will be assigned to the
Adoptions social worker who completes the assessment. This early assignment to an
Adoptions worker reduces the time needed for finalization of the adoption.
3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment and Retention:
General licensing, recruitment and retention:
pg. 56
The Licensing Unit in Marin County Children and Family Services provides
recruitment, training, licensing, and support to Foster Parents in Marin. Recruitment is a
significant challenge for the agency, and it is difficult to maintain sufficient foster homes
to meet the wide variety of needs of children requiring out-of-home care. There is
always a need for additional foster homes to care for teenagers and sibling groups.
As with many communities, recruiting foster parents continues to be a challenge
in Marin. High housing costs may contribute to this challenge, as dual income couples
struggle to afford housing in the county. Marin collaborates with the local community
college, College of Marin to provide initial and ongoing licensing training. The Licensing
and Adoptions units share combined foster care/adoption orientation sessions.
Marin County is licensed by the State Department of Social Service to licensed
foster family homes. Foster family homes must meet State health and safety
requirements in order to be licensed. Potential foster parents are screened and
evaluated for suitability. Licensing staff make home visits and investigate complaints
against facilities. Annual inspections are conducted as part of the annual licensing
process. The average monthly number of licensed homes in Marin is approximately 60-
65.
Marin County has implemented a formal process for conducting relative home
approvals. The procedure details guidelines for placing children, and protocols for
conducting home approvals. Staff has received trainings on conducting relative home
approvals, including what must be done before a child is placed. In this way, the
Department can ensure that all aspects of relative and non-relative placements are
completed in a concise and timely manner.
Placement Resources:
Marin utilizes a select number of foster parents for emergency placement for all
children. Marin maintains approximately 60-65 licensed foster homes at any one time.
Children and Family Services use a variety of placement resources to meets
children’s placement needs. The largest placement resources are licensed foster homes
and relative/nonrelative extended family member homes. A very small number of
dependents are placed in group homes.
Marin would like to increase its foster home availability for teens, Probation youth
and those children who need specialized care. Current activities to increase recruitment
for these populations are underway. Coordination with Community Mental Health and
Juvenile Probation is occurring to investigate Multi-Disciplinary Foster Treatment
options, and to expand our wrap-around services with SB163 funding.
4. Quality Assurance System
Existing Quality Assurance System:
pg. 57
Marin County Child Protective Services addresses quality assurance issues through a
variety of means, including:
• Case review:
The Department conducts internal case reviews including:
Supervisor review: At various key decision points during a case, the supervisors review
the case at the close of the investigation and prior to transfer. The Ongoing unit
supervisor reviews the case upon transfer, and at each periodic 6-month review and
also when the Court report/case plan update is due. In weekly supervision the social
worker and the supervisor discuss specific cases and responsibilities on that caseload.
In addition, the Program Manager is available to discuss and review cases as
warranted.
Multidisciplinary team meetings/placement review meetings: On a weekly basis,
social workers may schedule a case review by the case consultation review team. In
addition to staff and supervisors, this team includes mental health practitioners and
public health nurses. Additional members may be brought in to discuss the specifics of
a particular case. By accessing the expertise of the team members, information is
shared and a variety of options for case planning are discussed. New staff attend as a
learning/training option.
The Interagency Case Management System meets monthly and includes
members from Juvenile Probation, CASA, Mental Health, Public Health, CPS,
CalWORKS, Parent Partnerships, Education and Community Organizations. Issues are
discussed here that cross system lines, and involve many complex barriers. The group
can call an emergency case review if there is a situation that warrants immediate
attention.
• Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS)/Safe
Measures and Business Objects:
Marin County Child Protective Services uses CWS/CMS throughout its practice. In
addition, Marin utilizes the Safe Measures program to regularly review cases and
conduct internal quality improvement projects. Marin County Social Services added 2
full time analyst positions that will be assisting with policy development and program
integration as well as monitoring.
• Structured Decision Making (SDM)
Marin County has implemented SDM into its daily work. The use of SDM has been
proven to create improved consistency in decision making due to providing staff with
simple, objective, and reliable tools with which to make the best possible decisions. In
addition, managers and supervisors are provided with necessary information for
improved case planning, evaluation, and resource allocation.
pg. 58
5. Service Array:
Marin County social workers assess the causes of risk to children and families and
coordinate services to assist those children to remain safely in their home or return to
their families. Services are provided by both public agency staff and private non-profit
agencies or community based organizations. There is extensive collaboration between
agencies to ensure that the goal of maintaining children safely in their homes is met
whenever possible. Marin County utilizes a funding source within its Child Welfare
budget to assist with reunification and purchase services for children and families as
needed.
Ongoing collaboration with Drug and Alcohol providers, Community Mental Health
providers, private therapists, CalWORKS staff, and a wide variety of health providers,
occurs on a regular basis. CFS has a list of local psychologists that are used for
completing psychological evaluations for children and parents, and uses in house
Mental Health Practitioners to complete early evaluations.
Independent Living Program (ILP) services are provided through a contract with
Alternative Family Services, a local community based organization. The program serves
youth 16 to 21. Two ILP coordinators provide individual support services, as well as
ongoing workshops, classes, and team building activities.
Children and Family Services works collaboratively with Law Enforcement to assure the
safety of children in our community. The Jeannette Prandi Center is a collaborative
between CFS, the District Attorney’s Office, local Law Enforcement, and Family Service
Agency to coordinate forensic interviews and ongoing investigations of sexual abuse
and childhood trauma. In addition, CFS staff collaborate on a regular basis with Juvenile
Probation and attend joint placement review meetings.
Services can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and families served
by the agency. While many services are available in both Spanish and English, staff
continues to cite needs for additional Spanish speaking services within the community.
These services continue to be limited, especially for substance abuse treatment and
counseling.
Marin utilizes its Youth Pilot Program for many families, and has had significant success
in providing services necessary to maintain children in their homes or lower level
placements.
While it is clear that families in Marin have access to a strong array of services to
access their needs, promote child safety and facilitate reunification efforts, there is need
for improvement in some areas. Recent reviews in Marin’s PQCR process have
identified the following:
pg. 59
• Parents of children in foster care often have difficulty quickly accessing
substance abuse treatment, especially residential services and those aimed at
dual-diagnosis treatment.
• Although domestic violence services are generally available, the community
needs to look closer at early identification of these victims and providing
extended treatment options for the whole family.
• The high cost of housing continues to be a serious obstacle for low-income
families trying to maintain a safe home for their children.
• Health care and dental access concerns are an ongoing issue due to the low
number of Medi-Cal providers.
6. Staff/ Provider Training:
It is Marin County’s goal to provide up to date evidenced based training opportunities
to staff in order for them to have the opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills for
delivering services in a manner that respects the cultures of families and communities
within the county. Health and Human Services provides a new employee orientation
training for all new staff beginning their employment here. This includes an overview of
the mission and values of HHS and introduction to county policies. New staff are
provided with a “tool kit” which assists them in locating resources in the county, as well
as an introduction to HHS by the Directors.
Children and Family Services training includes a structured 6 week training program
for new staff, utilizing group and one-on-one sessions. The program consists of one-on-
one and on-the-job training, as well as a CWS/CMS component. Cultural Awareness,
Strength Based and Best Practice issues are incorporated into all segments of the
internal training. In addition all new Child Welfare staff attend the Bay Area Academy
Core Training for Child Welfare workers. The Training Manager works closely with
supervisors and managers to coordinate and individually tailor trainings to an
employee’s needs.
Regular ongoing training is available to all staff through a variety of in-house and
contracted trainings. The department also utilizes the two Regional Training Academies,
Bay Area Academy and UC Davis to provide additional introductory and ongoing staff
trainings. Needs assessments and an annual training plan are completed by the
Program Manager. Staff is regularly surveyed in order to identify additional training
needs.
Provider training consists of pre-licensure training for families who wish to become
licensed foster care providers. In addition, regular trainings are conducted in a variety of
topics in order to assist care providers in having the most up to date information and
resources. The department also provides ongoing training and support for care
providers.
7. Agency Collaborations
pg. 60
Collaboration with public and private agencies:
Marin County has long believed that collaboration is an effective means of coordinating
service delivery and promoting positive outcomes for children and families. Marin
County CFS is involved in many interagency efforts in order to improve coordination and
integration of services to shared clients.
• Marin CFS utilizes Mental Health Practitioners and Public Health Nurses on its
staff. These staff have proven invaluable in promoting system change within the
agencies, and providing ongoing, collaborative work between the disciplines.
• Children’s System of Care is one example of the collaborative work between
Mental Health, CFS, and Juvenile Probation.
• CFS staff regularly attends the School Attendance Review Boards (SARB) held
by the local educational districts. This group includes probation and community
based counseling centers who work directly with education and families to
provide resources and services to hi-risk youth.
• The Juvenile Court Task Force is vital in bringing together all of those involved in
the court process in order to address ongoing court issues.
• The Interagency Case Management group meets regularly and is made up of
public and private agency mid-management. They are able to address issues
pertaining to system change and improvement.
• The Criminal Justice Behavioral Health Advisory Board is chaired by a member
of the Board of Supervisors, and addresses long range programmatic and policy
issues in Marin. Representation includes Drug and Alcohol, District Attorney,
Public Defender, Mental Health, Law Enforcement, Probation, Social Services,
and private stakeholders.
• The Child Death Review Team is convened by the local Child Abuse Prevention
Council and attended by CFS management staff, Law Enforcement, District
Attorneys, CMH, local Public and Private health providers, and Emergency
Response Personnel who work together to review the causes and identify
possible ways of preventing deaths of children in the county.
• CFS provides a liaison to the Domestic Violence Prevention Task Force in order
to develop mutual policies and procedures, and increase collaboration between
agencies, law enforcement and the courts.
• CFS provides a liaison to the quarterly Education Foster Youth task force.
• Youth Pilot Program collaborates with Juvenile Probation, CPS, and Community
Mental Health in order to maintain children in their homes and communities.
There is a wide array of private service providers collaborating on the work in this
program.
• CalWORKS and CPS collaborate on a regular basis in the development of
LINKAGES and maintain ongoing communication and training between staff.
These are just some of the many collaborative efforts made and encouraged by Marin
County Health and Human Services. CFS strives to inform and engage community
pg. 61
partners in all major child welfare program planning efforts, as well as individual case
planning efforts.
8. Local Systemic Factors
Marin County CFS continues to involve its staff at all levels of decision making.
Recent work groups have identified areas for change, and have assisted in creating a
more efficient and effective workplace. Regular unit meetings and All Staff meetings
are held for Children’s Staff, and attended by supervisors, managers, and upper
management.
H. Summary Assessment
County Profile
Marin County is a place of amazing environmental beauty and incredible financial
prosperity. A 520 square mile area, boasting miles of coastline on the Pacific and San
Francisco Bay, Marin’s population of approximately 250,000 enjoy mild weather and
countless opportunities for outdoor recreation. The quality of life is further enhanced by
a low crime rate, and highly educated, involved citizenry who promote health and
environmental issues and protect their landscape from uncontrolled growth.
Marin enjoys one of the highest standards of living however the most significant
trends for child welfare are a rapidly growing Hispanic population, one of the highest
housing costs in the nation, and the fact that poverty disproportionately affects minority
households in Marin.
Marin is a small county and collaboration among the service providers allows
many opportunities for both government agencies and community partners to develop
and implement innovative programs. The Child Welfare Outcome and Accountability
system has allowed Marin County Children and Family Services to examine the critical
issues facing the most vulnerable populations in our community.
Marin has very good outcome data across most all of the areas. It does vary at
times due to the small numbers of children, particularly in out of home placement where
often the difference of one child can affect the percentages up or down by 25%. Marin
however embraces the opportunity to study its practices and demographics to continue
to provide the best possible service to the children and families in the community.
Safety and Prevention
As part of the Self-Assessment process the County reviewed the demographics in
relation to providing excellent practice to minority households, particularly Hispanic
children and families where there has been an increase in the numbers of children
pg. 62
entering the child welfare system. The focus is to increase collaboration with early
childhood education and community family support systems to assist children and
families with support and intervention before problems become deep-rooted leading to
child risk of abuse, academic failure and/or delinquency.
Permanency and Well Being
Another key aspect highlighted is to improve practice around engaging kinship
placements for children, offering supportive services to kin, homes for sibling sets, local
placement options for children in Probation, supportive services for parents and a
change in philosophy around recruiting strategies for county foster parents as well as
perhaps building added partnerships and resources with foster family agencies.
Conclusion:
Marin County Children and Family Services views the County Self-Assessment
process as another step in improving on the community goal of provide ongoing and
preventative services that will protect children from abuse and neglect. The strong
collaborative foundation which already exists in Marin has been expanded, and as a
community we are continuing to move forward towards the ongoing improvement of
outcomes for all of our children. The Self-Assessment, and the System Improvement
Plan will offer a blueprint for Marin to achieve these goals, and with the support of our
community based providers, educators, and community foundations we will partner
together to develop a strong future for our children.
pg. 63
Attachment A – Marin County Organizational Chart
Residents of Marin County
Judges
Elected County Officials Board of Supervisors
Marin County Superior Court
Assessor-Recorder Administrator's Office Marin County Superior Court
Joan C. Thayer, Assessor- Matthew H. Hymel, County Administrator Kim Turner, Court Executive
Recorder Officer
Agricultural Weights and Measures
Coroner Stacy K. Carlsen, Ag. Commissioner
Kenneth Holmes, Coroner
Child Support Services
County Clerk Keith Pepper, Director
Michael Smith, County Clerk
Community Development Agency
District Attorney Brian Crawford , Director
Edward S. Berberian, District Other Marin Agencies
Attorney County Counsel
Patrick Faulkner, County Counsel
Registrar of Voters
Elaine Ginnold, Registrar of Voters Cultural Services Civil Grand Jury
James Farley Judy H. Chapman, Foreperson
Sheriff's Office
Robert T. Doyle, Sheriff Department of Finance
Housing Authority
Mark J. Walsh, Director
Dan Nackerman, Exec. Director
Emergency Services
Chris Godley, Emergency Farm Advisor/U.C. Coop Extension Local Agency Formation
Services Manager David Lewis, Director Commission
Treasurer-Tax Collector Peter Banning, Executive Officer
Fire Department
Michael Smith,
Ken Massucco, Fire Chief Marin Humane Society Animal
Treasurer-Tax Collector ,
Services
Health and Human Services
Public Administrator Larry Meredith Ph.D., Director Schools
Michael Smith,
Mary Jane Burke, Chief
Treasurer-Tax Collector Human Resources Administrator
Mona Miyasato, Director
Information Services and Technology
Dave Hill, Director
Marin County Free Library
Gail Haar, County Librarian
Parks and Open Space
Clarissa Daniel, Director and General
Manager
Probation Department
Michael Daly, Chief Probation Officer
Public Defender
Joseph Spaeth, Public Defender
Public Works
Farhad Mansourian, Director
pg. 64
Retirement
Charnel Benner, Retirement Administrator
pg. 65
