Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Self-Assessment

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 108

									CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
 CHILDREN & FAMILY
      SERVICES
  SELF ASSESSMENT


       2010
                California’s Child and Family Services Review
                       County Self-Assessment Cover Sheet
County:                     Contra Costa

Responsible County
                            Children & Family Services
Child Welfare Agency:
Period of Assessment:       2007 - 2009

Period of Outcome Data:     July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2008

Date Submitted:

                   County Contact Person for County Self-Assessment
Name & title:               Patrick Harrington, Research and Evaluation Manager

Address:                    2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 200 Martinez, CA 94553

Phone:                      (925)335-7059

Fax:                        (925)335-7013

E-mail:                     harripb@ehsd.cccounty.us

                  CAPIT Liaison / CBCAP Liaison / County PSSF Liaison
Name & title:               Rhonda Smith, Administrative Services Assistant III

Address:                    40 Douglas Drive, Martinez, CA 94553

Phone:                      (925)313-1696

Fax:                        (925)313-1575

E-mail:                     smithr@ehsd.cccounty.us
                 Submitted by each agency for the children under its care
Submitted by:           County Child Welfare Agency Director (Lead Agency)

Name:                   Valerie Earley, MSW

Signature:


Submitted by:           County Chief Probation Officer

Name:                   Lionel Chatman

Signature:
                                        In Collaboration with:
    County & Community                       Name(s)                                Signature
         Partners

Board of Supervisors Designated     Carol Carrillo, MSW
Public Agency to Administer         Executive Director
CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Funds              Child Abuse Prevention Council
                                    of Contra Costa
                                    Carol Carrillo, MSW
County Child Abuse Prevention       Executive Director
Council                             Child Abuse Prevention Council
                                    of Contra Costa
Parent Partner Representative       Judi Knittel
        As Applicable                                                Name(s)
Youth Representatives               Antinette Kelly; Kareena Blackmon
Contra Costa County Health          Michelle Williams, Public Health; Rich Weisgal, Mental Health
Department
Local Tribes                        N/A
Local Education Agency              Catherine Giacolone, Contra Costa County Department of Education


                                Board of Supervisors (BOS) Approval
BOS Approval Date:
Name:
Signature:
                                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.   Introduction                                                            1
B.   County Self Assessment Process and Team                                 1
C.   Demographic Profile                                                     6
D.   Public Agencies Providing Child Welfare Services                       20
E.   Children & Family Services Agency Characteristics                      22
        1.   Size and Structure of Agency                                   22

        2.   Government Structure                                           23
F.   Probation Agency Characteristics                                       28
        1.   Size and Structure of Agency                                   28

        2.   Government Structure                                           29
G.    CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF                                                      31
H.   Participation Rates                                                    33
I.   Federal and State Outcome Measures                                     38
J.   Systemic Outcomes                                                      55
K.   Peer Quality Case Review Summary                                       58
L.   Systemic Factors                                                       63
        1.   Relevant Management Information Systems                        63

        2.   Case Review Systems                                            65

        3.   Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention   68

        4.   Quality Assurance System                                       69

        5.   Service Array                                                  73

        6.   Staff/Provider Training                                        78

        7.   Agency Collaboration                                           80

        8.   Local Systemic Factors                                         83
M.    Summary Assessment and Self Assessment Discussion                     83
        1.   Safety Outcome Indicators                                      83

        2.   Permanency Outcome Indicators
        3.   Well Being Outcome Indicators
        4.   Systemic Outcome Indicators
A.       Introduction

                       The Mission of the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau is:

                               We, in partnership with the community, support families to nurture their children
                               and youth, keep them safe, and enable them to fully realize their potential.
                                  We seek to eliminate abuse and neglect
                                  We strive to provide culturally competent services.
                                  We engage with communities to develop mutual accountability for the
                                   safety of our children and youth.

                       As reflected in the Mission statement, Contra Costa County’s Children and Family
                       Services Bureau continues to support an environment of partnership and collaboration
                       in support of families and children in Contra Costa County. In this spirit, Contra Costa
                       County Children & Family Services convened the tri-annual California Self Assessment
                       process.

                       This Self Assessment is a collaboration with partners Probation, CAPIT (Child Abuse
                       Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Program), CBCAP (Community-Based Child
                       Abuse Prevention Program), and PSSF (Promoting Safe and Stable Families). Many
                       additional partners and stakeholders including parents and former foster youth also
                       participated. The forum presented an opportunity to examine Child Welfare intervention
                       and prevention services in Contra Costa to acknowledge strengths, discuss challenges,
                       and identify gaps in services for children and families in Contra Costa County.

                       This document reflects the efforts of the partnership for continual improvement in
                       services and prevention.




B.       County Self Assessment Process and Team

     Understanding     Passed in fall 2001, Assembly Bill 636, the Child Welfare System Improvement and
                       Accountability Act of 2001, is also known as the California Child And Family Services
            the Self
                       Review (C-CFSR). The legislation directed counties to undergo a process of self-
       Assessment      assessment and system improvement in order to improve performance on key child
                       welfare outcome indicators. Modeled after the Child and Family Services Review
                       process which was designed by the federal government to assess state-level
                       performance on child welfare outcomes, the C-CFSR process consists of three
                       components:

                              Peer Quality Case Review (PQCR)
                               Contra Costa County conducted the PQCR in April of 2009. This collaborative
                               process between Children and Family Services (CFS), Juvenile Probation, Bay
                               Area Academy and California Department of Social Services was designed to
                               highlight a practice area on which CFS and Probation would like to focus to
                               better understand each agency’s performance and to plan how to improve
                               services.



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                               1
                               The outcome indicator CFS chose was “Exits to Permanency for Youth in Care
                               24 Months or Longer.” Probation chose to examine “Aftercare Services for
                               Families Reunifying with Youth.”

                              County Self-Assessment (CSA)
                               The self-assessment process presents an opportunity to learn what is and
                               what is not working in the delivery of child welfare services within that county.
                               Contra Costa County conducted its first self assessment in 2004, another in
                               2006 and the current assessment in December 2009/January 2010. This CSA
                               was the first to mandate integration of prevention-related services in the
                               process. The self-assessment process is conducted by the county with input
                               from stakeholders that include parents, youth, child welfare staff, and partners
                               from other child-serving departments such as probation, education, mental
                               health, public health, and prevention network partners. A complete listing of all
                               participants is included in this report.

                              System Improvement Plan
                               Also known as the “SIP”, this is the plan developed as a result of the self-
                               assessment and PQCR process. Each SIP component looks much like a case
                               plan or an action plan; encompassing an identified area for improvement, an
                               improvement goal, strategies and rationales for each strategy and a list of
                               milestones to be attained in completion of the strategy.
                               The SIP is the county’s agreement with the California Department of Social
                               Services (CDSS) that it will focus its attention and activities on improvements
                               in specific areas utilizing clearly defined outcome indicators. In addition to the
                               indicators themselves, a SIP component can be written about any of the seven
                               systemic factors or can be developed for “any additional areas for
                               improvement at its option”.
                               The summary section of this document looks forward to the SIP process which
                               will be completed between now and April 30, 2010. Once the SIP has been
                               finalized by CFS, it will be submitted for approval to the County Board of
                               Supervisors prior to delivery to CDSS on April 30, 2010.

                      The SIP and PQCR documents can be obtained from the California Department of
                      Social Services at: http://www.childsworld.ca.gov.

                      This three tiered approach to performance improvement has been an important to
                      Contra Costa’s focus on outcomes. The process is in alignment with Contra Costa’s
                      ongoing activities for performance assessment, monitoring and improvement. Since
                      implementation of this PQCR, CSA, and SIP processes, Contra Costa has recognized
                      performance improvement in many areas.

                      Based on the Self Assessment of December 2006, the following Outcome Indicators
                      were identified as areas of focus for performance improvement during the previous SIP
                      period. The table below indicates performance status at the end of the previous SIP
                      period.




                       Outcome                                               Improvement from Baseline of



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                2
                                                                                       Current SIP
                       Recurrence of Maltreatment                                      Improved
                       Rate of Child Abuse/Neglect in Foster Care                     No Change
                       Referrals by Time to Investigation - Immediate                  Improved
                       Referrals by Time to Investigation – 10 Day                    Worsened
                       Timely Social Worker Visits                                    Worsened
                       Multiple Foster Care Placements                                 Improved
                       Length of Time to Reunification                                 Improved
                       Siblings Placed Together                                        Improved
                       High School Degree or GED                                      No Change
                       Exit to Permanency (24 Months in Care)                          Improved
                       Disproportionality of Removals                                  Improved
                       Foster Home Recruitment/Retention                               Improved




       County Self   The following table identifies staff, partners, and stakeholders invited to participate in the
                     Self Assessment process. Former Foster Youth and families were included and their
       Assessment
                     voice was important in the evaluation process. Comments from the process are
          Invitees   included in Section L, Summary Assessment and Self Assessment Discussion.

                     NAME                          AGENCY/DEPT                                  PARTICIPATION
                                                                                                REQUIREMENT

                     Vern Wallace                  Mental Health                                Core requirement
                     Rich Weisgal

                     Michelle Williams             Health Department                            Core requirement

                     Nancy Valencia                Probation Department                         Core requirement
                     Donna Anderson
                     Todd Billechi

                     Valerie Earley                Children & Family Services                   Core requirement

                     Carol Carillo                 Child Abuse Prevention Council,              Core requirement
                                                   Children’s Trust Fund;
                                                   CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Administrator

                     Rhonda Smith                  Prevention/Early Intervention                Core requirement
                                                   CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF Liaison

                     Judi Knittel                  Parent Partner Representative                Core requirement

                     Antoinette Harris             PSSF Collaborative                           Core requirement

                     Antinette Kelly               Youth Representatives                        Core requirement
                     Kareena Blackmon

                     Patrick Harrington            Children & Family Services                   Core requirement




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  3
                     Bryan Balch                  Monument Corridor Community        Recommended
                                                  Partnership

                     Haven Fern                   County AOD                         Recommended

                     Sean Casey                   First Five Contra Costa            Recommended

                     Devorah Levine               Domestic Violence Prevention       Recommended
                                                  Provider

                     Pat Stroh                    Early Childhood Education, Child   Recommended
                                                  Care

                     Stephen Baiter               Economic Development Agency        Recommended

                     Catherine Giacolone          Contra Costa County Office of      Recommended
                                                  Education

                     Pastor Henry                 Faith Based Community              Recommended
                     Perkins

                     Paul Buddenhagen             Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage    Recommended
                                                  Programs

                                                  UC Berkeley School of Social       Recommended
                     Prof. Bart Grossman          Welfare

                     Judge Lois Haight            Juvenile Court Bench Officers      Recommended
                     Commissioner
                     Houghton
                     Judge Stark
                     Judge Becton-Smith

                     Sam Cobb                     First Place for Youth – Service    Recommended
                                                  Provider

                     Ella Liggins                 DSS Regional Center                Recommended

                     Judith Lefler                Regional Training Academy          Recommended
                     Cyndia Cole

                     Charles Mead                 Court Appointed Special            Recommended
                                                  Advocates




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                    4
                     Patricia Perkins                       Division Manager - CFS                         Recommended
                     Richard Bell
                     Gloria Halverson
                     Ray Merrit
                     Neely McElroy
                     Lois Rutten

                     Toni Nestore                           Supervisor - CFS                               Recommended
                     Donna Anderson
                     Holliedayle Hertwick
                     Stefani Thomas
                     Don Graves

                     Carl Nishi                             Social Worker - CFS                            Recommended
                     Christian Hutchings
                     Joann Lofton
                     Leslie Davis
                     Nannette Dupree

                     Cheryl Barrett                         Parent Partner                                 Recommended

                     Brenda Sutherland                      Analysts - CFS                                 Recommended
                     Cynthia Wright
                     Rachel Foster




C.      Demographic Profile

County Population      The total population of Contra Costa County continues to increase and is now well
                       over one million people.

                                                        Total Population of Contra Costa County

                         1,100,000
                                                                                                           1,060,435
                         1,050,000

                         1,000,000

                           950,000
                                       948,816
                           900,000

                           850,000
                                       2000      2001      2002    2003   2004    2005   2006     2007   2008    2009

                       Data          collected          from      the     California      Department        of         Finance
                       (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                  5
                                                                                                                                                                   th
                       The child population for Contra Costa County, accounting for approximately 1/4 of
                       the total population, is approximately the same as it was 10 years ago.


                                                                Total Child Population (0-17 years)

                         259,000
                         258,000
                         257,000
                         256,000
                         255,000
                         254,000
                         253,000                                                                                                                      253,468
                                              253,093
                         252,000
                         251,000
                         250,000
                                              2000        2001        2002           2003       2004        2005         2006          2007    2008      2009

                       Data collected from the California Department of Finance
                       (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)



  Child Population     The child population by ethnicity shows some interesting changes occurring. Namely,
                       the number of Hispanic/Latino youth is increasing while the number of
      by Ethnicity
                       Caucasian/White and African American/Black youth is decreasing. There has also
                       been a slight increase in Asian/Pacific Islander youth in the last 10 years. For 2009,
                       the percentage of youth by ethnicity is:
                                                    African American/Black – 8.5%
                                                    Asian/Pacific Islander – 11.7%
                                                    Caucasian/White – 42.4%
                                                    Hispanic/Latino – 32.2%
                                                    Native American – 0.3%
                                                    Multiracial – 4.8%

                                                              Child Population by Ethnicity
                                          140,000

                                          120,000

                                          100,000                                                                                         African American/Black
                                                                                                                                          Asian/Pacific Islander
                                           80,000                                                                                         Caucasian/White
                                           60,000                                                                                         Hispanic/Latino
                                                                                                                                          Native American
                                           40,000                                                                                         Multiracial
                                           20,000

                                                 0
                                                      2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005   2006    2007    2008    2009
                            African American/Black 28,397 27,907 27,167 26,362 25,445 24,561 23,729 23,041 22,283 21,661
                            Asian/Pacific Islander   26,906 27,738 27,794 27,910 28,018 28,055 28,323 28,721 29,131 29,583
                            Caucasian/White          123,498 122,313 121,126 119,757 118,108 115,798 113,941 111,941 109,613 107,459
                            Hispanic/Latino          61,077 64,989 67,449 70,083 72,482 74,860 76,718 78,582 80,225 81,711
                            Native American           879     897     874     862     840     825     825     822     805     797
                            Multiracial              12,336 12,938 13,163 13,439 13,603 13,871 13,089 12,808 12,543 12,257


                       Data collected from the California Department of Finance
                       (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                                         6
     Percentage of     The percentage of households with children has dropped to the current rate of
                       36.3%.
   Households with
         Children
                                       Percentage of Households With Children

                         39.50%
                         39.00%
                         38.50%
                         38.00%
                         37.50%
                         37.00%
                         36.50%
                         36.00%
                         35.50%
                         35.00%
                                      2000     2001      2002    2003      2004   2005    2006     2007     2008

                       Data collected from the California Department of Finance
                       (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/)



          Types of     There has been a decline in the number of households reported as married with
                       children, and an increase in the number of households reported as single father with
   Households with
                       children.
         Children

                                                  Types of Households With Children

                         80.0%        74.1%
                         70.0%
                                                                                  70.2%
                         60.0%                                                                   Married Couple with
                                                                                                 Children
                         50.0%
                                                                                                 Single Father with
                         40.0%
                                                                                                 Children
                         30.0%
                                                                                                 Single Mother with
                         20.0%                                                                   Children
                         10.0%                                                     8.0%
                                   3.20%
                           0.0%
                                   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                        7
                       An additional piece of information has to do with the ethnic disparity in Contra Costa
                       households that are either married with children or a single parent with children
                       (especially a single mother). See below for 2007 data.


                        Race/Ethnicity                   Married       Single Father     Single Mother
                        African American/Black           33.8%            12.1%             54.4%
                        Asian                            84.3%             5.4%             10.7%
                        Caucasian/White                  77.5%             5.7%             16.4%
                        Hispanic/Latino                  72.8%             7.5%             19.4%
                        Multiracial                      71.7%            12.4%             15.9%
                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 8
English Learners in    Consistent with Contra Costa’s growing Hispanic/Latino population, the percentage of
                       English Learners in Public Schools is increasing.
      Public School

                                                 English Learners in Public Schools

                          18.00%
                          16.00%
                                                                                                          17.00%
                          14.00%
                          12.00%
                          10.00%
                                     11.00%
                           8.00%
                           6.00%
                           4.00%
                           2.00%
                           0.00%
                                     2000     2001       2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008    2009

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                    9
    Languages for      The table below shows the change in English Learners in Public School by their
                       primary language.
  English Learners


                        English Learners in Public Schools - Top Languages Spoken

                        Language
                        Spoken           2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009

                         Spanish        12,769   14,529   16,764   18,066   19,149   20,239   20,970   21,769   22,584   22,699
                        All Other Non
                        English
                        Languages        2,366    2,650    2,660    2,609    2,527    2,527    2,605    2,672    2,831    2,855

                        Filipino          623      721      753      806      771      734      738      813      852      828

                        Vietnamese        403      428      455      397      370      410      420      416      438      462

                        Punjabi           366      381      414      416      406      417      400      399      394      378

                        Korean            169      201      229      220      196      249      262      310      358      340

                        Arabic            167      190      198      178      172      197      223      287      273      307

                        Mandarin          165      155      164      149      131      140      171      216      266      301

                        Cantonese         264      254      269      243      248      253      274      260      262      279

                        Armenian            4        5        6        6        4        7        6        6        8        8

                        Hmong              14       12       13       11        6        3        1        1        1        3

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




    Median Family      Median family income is just under $100,000 annually (2008). This is significantly
                       higher than the State average. Contra Costa also has one of the highest median
           Income
                       family incomes of any county in the Bay area.




                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                   10
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010   11
Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010   12
     Child Poverty     In spite of the high median family income, the percentage of children living in poverty,
                       and those enrolled in the free meal program at school has risen over the past 9
                       years.


                                                                  Children in Poverty

                                                                                                                 13.2%
                         14.0%

                         12.0%

                         10.0%

                          8.0%
                                   6.2%
                          6.0%

                          4.0%

                          2.0%

                          0.0%
                                   2000      2001        2002      2003       2004      2005    2006   2007       2008

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org



                                             Students Enrolled in Free Meal Program

                          40.00%
                          35.00%
                                                                                                              35.10%
                          30.00%
                                    26.80%
                          25.00%
                          20.00%
                          15.00%
                          10.00%
                           5.00%
                           0.00%
                               2000       2001      2002        2003   2004     2005     2006   2007   2008      2009

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




    Unemployment       The unemployment rate in Contra Costa County has risen significantly in the last
                       three years.
            Rate




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                          13
                                                        Unemployment Rate for Contra Costa

                         10
                                                                                                                           9.5
                          9
                          8
                          7
                          6
                          5
                               3.5
                          4
                          3
                          2
                          1
                          0
                               2000      2001    2002       2003    2004     2005      2006      2007     2008      2009

                       Data obtained from California Employment Development Department. Accessed online
                       at http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName=Labforce
                       (November 2009)




     Median Home       The current recession has had a significant effect upon real estate prices in Contra
                       Costa. The median home price has dropped by over 50% between 2007 and 2009.
            Price

                                                                Median Home Price

                         $700,000
                                                                                         $590,000
                         $600,000

                         $500,000
                                      $345,000
                         $400,000

                         $300,000
                                                                                                         $260,000
                         $200,000

                         $100,000

                              $0
                                       2002      2003        2004     2005      2006          2007      2008        2009

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




         Education     Contra Costa County currently (2008-2009) serves 166,772 students within 258
                       schools, divided into 18 K-12 school districts. There are over 8500 teachers working
       Information
                       in Contra Costa and the average annual salary ($56,590) is approximately $3,000
                       less than the State average. Approximately 10% of the K-12 students are enrolled in
                       private schools. Approximately 12% (19,815) of the enrolled students are receiving
                       Special Education services. The ethnicity of the student population is shown below as
                       is the percentage of students graduating from High School (approximately 83%).

                               Enrollment by Ethnic Group
                               Group                                                Number                       Percentage
                               American Indian                                                826                      0.50%
                               Asian                                                   14,570                          8.70%



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                  14
                               Pacific Islander                                           1,361                      0.80%
                               Filipino                                                   6,795                      4.10%
                               Hispanic                                              46,107                         27.60%
                               African American                                      18,878                         11.30%
                               White                                                 69,157                         41.50%
                               Multi/No Response                                          9,078                      5.40%
                               TOTAL:                                               166,772                          100%


                                                                          12th Grade                      12the Grade
                                                                          Enrollment                        Graduates

                                     County                                   12,864                  10,696 (83%)

                                     State                                   468,281                374,561 (80%)
                       Data obtained from Contra Costa County Department of Education; http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/about/stats


      High School      High School dropout rates have risen in 2007 and 2008 (the latest available data).
                       This is especially true for African America/Black children.
     Dropout Rates

                                                            High School Dropouts


                             20.0%
                             18.0%                                                                          16.2%
                             16.0%
                             14.0%
                             12.0%
                             10.0%     8.7%
                              8.0%
                              6.0%
                              4.0%
                              2.0%
                              0.0%
                                     1999     2000   2001   2002   2003    2004    2005     2006   2007     2008

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                              15
                                                   High School Dropout Rate by Ethnicity

                         40.0%

                         35.0%

                         30.0%
                                                                                           African American/Black
                         25.0%                                                             Native American or Alaska Native
                                                                                           Pacific Islander
                         20.0%                                                             Hispanic/Latino
                                                                                           Filipino
                         15.0%                                                             Caucasian/White
                                                                                           Asian
                         10.0%

                           5.0%

                           0.0%
                                  1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008


                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




 Children with All     The rate of children with all required Immunizations has dropped somewhat in the
                       past 3 years.
         Required
   Immunizations       Kindergarteners with All Required Immunizations
                             2004                2005             2006             2007                       2008
                             95.5%              95.7%            94.8%             93.8%                  93.6%
                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




      Babies Born      The percentage of low-birth weight infants has remained relatively stable over the
                       past 5 years.
        Weighing
     Under 2500 g      Infants Born at Low Birthweight
                             2003                2004             2005             2006                       2007
                             6.4%                7.0%             6.6%             7.0%                       6.6%
                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Child/Youth Death      Child and youth death rates appear to have increased slightly for the period 2005-
                       2007, especially for African American/Black youth.
             Rate




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                               16
                                                    Child/Youth (Age 1-24) Death Rate (Rate per 100,000)

                           39                                                                                                    38.6
                         38.5
                           38
                                  37.4
                         37.5
                           37
                         36.5
                           36
                         35.5
                                 1996-       1997-       1998-      1999-     2000-     2001-    2002-     2003-     2004-       2005-
                                 1998        1999        2000       2001      2002      2003     2004      2005      2006        2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




                                                   Child/Youth (Age 1-24) Death Rate by Age (per 100,000)

                         100
                          90
                          80
                          70                                                                                             1 - 4 years
                          60
                                                                                                                         5 - 14 years
                          50
                                                                                                                         15 - 19 years
                          40
                          30                                                                                             20 - 24 years
                          20
                          10
                           0
                                Age      1996-    1997- 1998-    1999-   2000- 2001-   2002- 2003-   2004- 2005-
                                         1998     1999 2000      2001    2002 2003     2004 2005     2006 2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org

                                                 Child/Youth (Age 1-24) Death Rate by Ethnicity (per 100,000)

                         120

                         100

                          80                                                                                   African American/Black
                                                                                                               Asian/Pacific Islander
                          60
                                                                                                               Caucasian/White
                          40                                                                                   Hispanic/Latino

                          20

                           0
                                1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005-
                                1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org



   Infant Mortality    The infant mortality rate has fallen in the last 10 years. There is, however, an evident
                       disparity for African American/Black infants compared to infants of all other
                       ethnicities.



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                          17
                                                    Infant (Under 1) Mortality Rate (per 1000)

                         6       5.5      5.4     5.3
                         5                                   4.7
                                                                      4.3                           4.1           4.2          4.3
                                                                               3.9        3.9
                         4

                         3

                         2

                         1

                         0
                                1996-    1997-   1998-      1999-    2000-    2001-      2002-     2003-       2004-       2005-
                                1998     1999    2000       2001     2002     2003       2004      2005        2006        2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org



  Health Insurance     Contra Costa County has a relatively low rate of uninsured – at less than 5% (2007),
                       but the uninsured rate for dental care is higher at 17.5% (2007).
          Coverage
                                                         Health Insurance Coverage by Type

                         90.00%
                         80.00%
                                                                                                   Employment Based Insurance
                         70.00%
                         60.00%                                                                    Medi-Cal / Healthy Families /
                         50.00%                                                                    Other Public Insurance
                         40.00%                                                                    Uninsured
                         30.00%
                         20.00%                                                                    Privately Purchased Insurance

                         10.00%
                          0.00%
                                        2001        2003            2005         2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org


  Teen Birth Rates     Overall, the teen birth rate in Contra Costa has gone down in the last 10 years. There
                       is, however, significant ethnic disparity present, with Hispanic/Latina’s having the
                       highest rate of teen births – followed by African American/Black teens.

                        Teen (Age 15-19) Birth Rate, by Race/Ethnicity (Rate per 1,000)
                        Race/Ethnicity      1998   1999   2000   2001    2002   2003                       2004         2005         2006   2007
                        African American/
                        Black                68.3     60   57.3   46.6   43.8    37.4                      35.8         38.8         45.9   42.7
                        Asian/
                        Pacific Islander     13.6     16   15.4   16.1   11.1     6.8                       7.8          7.6          5.3    6.8
                        Caucasian/
                        White                22.1     19   12.9    9.8    9.3     7.7                       6.8           8           7.7    5.8
                        Hispanic/
                        Latina                 59   62.8   63.2   57.8   55.7    55.2                      52.8          56          54.3   50.2
                        Native American
                        /American Indian     LNE    LNE    LNE    LNE    LNE     LNE                       LNE          LNE          LNE    LNE
                        Multiracial
                                                  N/A        N/A    22.6     21.2         27     19.6      18.9         LNE          23.7   30.2
                        Total                    37.1       33.9      30     26.4       25.3     23.5      22.4         23.7         24.1   22.6
                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                              18
     Students with     The rate for students diagnosed with autism or an autism spectrum disorder has
                       been increasing in both the State of California as well as within Contra Costa County
           Autism
                       (currently at slightly over 8/1000). The reason(s) for this are unclear and could
                       include better diagnostic procedures, increased awareness, or other factors.

                                                         Students With Autism (Rate per 1000)

                         9
                         8
                         7
                         6
                         5                                                                                    Contra Costa
                         4                                                                                    California
                         3
                         2
                         1
                         0
                                 2005             2006             2007           2008             2009

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




    Juvenile Felony    Juvenile felony arrests have shown a decline from 1998 until 2004. The appears to
                       be a slight increase in felony arrests between 2004 and 2007 (latest data = 12.9
             Arrest
                       arrests/1000 youth).

                                                      Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate (per 1000)

                         25


                         20

                         15
                                                                                                   12.9      Contra Costa
                                                                                                             California
                         10


                          5


                          0
                              1998      1999   2000      2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006      2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                              19
    Juvenile Felony    The slight rise in juvenile felony arrests since 2004 appears to have been driven by
                       African American/Black youth (their rate has more than doubled since 2002). Note
        Arrests by
                       the wide disparity between African American/Black youth and youth of any other
         Ethnicity     ethnicity.

                                                 Juvenile Felony Arrest Rate by Ethnicity (per 1000)

                         70

                         60
                                                                                               57.8
                         50
                                                                                                             African American/Black
                         40                                                                                  Caucasian/White
                         30                                                                                  Hispanic/Latino
                                  25.6                                                                       Other
                         20

                         10

                          0
                                2002       2003           2004          2005     2006    2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




    Juvenile Felony    The data on Juvenile felony drug arrest shows a similar pattern to that of all juvenile
                       felony arrests – a decrease until 2004, then a small increase.
      Drug Arrests
                                                Juvenile Felony Drug/Alcohol Arrest Rate (per 1000)

                         1.8
                                1.5
                         1.6
                         1.4
                                                                                                                          1.2
                         1.2
                          1
                         0.8
                         0.6
                         0.4
                         0.2
                          0
                               1998      1999      2000          2001     2002   2003   2004          2005     2006      2007


                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org




    Youth Suicides     The rate of youth (ages 15-24) suicides has declined somewhat over the past 10
                       years.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                       20
                                                  Youth (Age 15-24) Suicide Rate (per 100,000)

                         9
                         8
                         7
                         6
                         5                                                                                           Contra Costa
                         4                                                                                           California
                         3
                         2
                         1
                         0
                                  1996-1998           1999-2001            2002-2004              2005-2007

                       Data obtained from kidsdata.org


 Youth Suicide by      Contrary to the disparity in felony arrests, youth suicide predominantly occurs in
                       White/Caucasian youth.
Ethnicity and Year
                        Number of Youth Suicides, by Race/Ethnicity
                        Race/Ethnicity        1998     1999       2000   2001    2002      2003     2004      2005   2006         2007
                        African American/
                        Black                     1        2        0       5          0     0          3       0         2         1
                        Asian
                                                  2        2        1       1          0     0          2       0         2         3
                        Caucasian/
                        White                     4        6        1       3          6     3          6       7         6         5
                        Hispanic/
                        Latino                    2        2        2       2          1     1          4       2         2         1
                        Native American           0        0        0       0          0     0          0       0         0         0
                        Pacific Islander       N/A       N/A        0       0          0     0          0       0         0         0
                        Multiracial            N/A       N/A        1       0          0     0          1       0         0         0
                        Total                     9       12        5      11          7     4         16       9       12         10


 Native Americans      There are no federally recognized tribes within Contra Costa County.



 CalWORKS Cases        The number of CalWorks recipients has risen in the past 3 years, with the last year
                       seeing a nearly 10% increase.

                                                               Jan2007          Jan2008              Jan2009           Jan2010
                        CalWorks Recipients                       20,154          20,749               22,670             24,890
                       Data obtained from county data pull and from California Department of Social Services -
                       http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/PG277.htm




        Child Care     The California Alternative Payment Program (CAPP) child care program offers child
                       care services to low income, CPS, and at risk families. These families are required to
       Waiting List
                       be placed on the centralized eligibility list (CEL), including families found ineligible to
                       Stage 2. In addition to the CAPP, there are three different stages (different funding
                       streams) in which families can receive CalWORKs subsidized childcare. The CEL
                       data for Quarter 2 2009 (April 1, 2009 – June 30, 2009) shows that Contra Costa
                       County has 2075 families waiting for care – although only 13 of these families fall


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                          21
                       under the reason category of Child Protective Services.
                       Data gathered from the November 2009 Status Report on the Implementation of County Centralized Eligibility
                       Lists (http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/celreports.asp)
                       Stage 1 (administered/funded through the California Department of Social Services)
                       offers child care services to only those families that are CalWORKs aided and
                       participating in the Welfare to Work (WTW) Program. Stage 1 is an entitlement
                       program and eligible families are not required to be placed on the CEL. There is no
                       wait list for stage 1 services.

                       Stage 2 (administered/funded through the California Department of Education) offers
                       child care services to former CalWORKs recipients that have received CalWORKs
                       within the last 24 months of applying for child care. Stage 2 is an entitlement
                       program and eligible families are not required to be placed on the CEL. There is no
                       wait list for stage 2 services.
                       Entry into Stage 3 child care (administered/funded through the California Department
                       of Education) can only be accessed by a former CalWORKs recipient who has come
                       to the end of the 24-month Stage 2 eligibility period (has exhausted their Stage 2
                       benefits). Stage 3 is an entitlement program and eligible families transition from
                       Stage 2 into Stage 3. They are not placed on the CEL. There is no wait list for stage
                       3 services.
                       Data obtained from county data pull




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                              22
D.      Public Agencies Providing Child Welfare Services

                      The following public agencies in Contra Costa County provide services to children
                      and families.

                      Children & Family Services
                      One of four bureaus in the Employment and Human Services Department, the
                      Children Services Bureau has primary responsibility for providing child abuse and
                      neglect intervention and prevention services to children and families. The Bureau is
                      also responsible for foster care benefits eligibility and issuance. The Child Abuse
                      Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT), program, Community Based Child
                      Abuse Prevention Program (CBCAP), and Promoting Safe and Stable Families
                      (PSSF) program are administered by Children & Family Services.

                      Contra Costa County Probation Department
                      Contra Costa County Probation Department, as an integral part of the Criminal
                      Justice System, is to reduce crime and provide for the public’s safety by providing
                      prevention, investigation, supervision services and safe custodial care for juveniles.

                      Contra Costa Health Services
                      There are a variety of child serving agencies under the broad umbrella of Health
                      Services. These include Children’s Mental Health, Public Heath, Developmental
                      Disabilities Council, General Health Services – which includes Emergency Medical
                      Services, Health Centers and Clinics, and Alcohol and Other Drugs.

                      First Five Contra Costa
                      First Five focuses upon early childhood development as a way to help prevent future
                      crisis interventions in the future. In the past 10 years over 75 million dollars have
                      invested to help local children grow up healthy, nurtured, and ready for school.


      Cross Agency    With the county government structure for the agencies providing Child Welfare Services
                      in Contra Costa, the importance of cross agency collaboration is critical to bridge and
      Collaboration
                      unify practice and services. To that end, may forums have been created for a broad
                      range of purposes from information sharing, cross agency program planning, joint case
                      staffing, and sharing resources. A few of these cross agency collaborations are listed
                      below. For further discussion of agency collaboration, also refer to section Systemic
                      Factors, Agency Collaboration in this document.


                      Juvenile Justice Commission. This advisory body meets on a monthly basis and
                      includes representation from child welfare, probation, juvenile court and the community.

                      Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC). Originally charged by the
                      Board of Supervisors in the early 1990’s to investigate Juvenile Hall operations and
                      oversee the design and building of a new facility, the charge of this commission has
                      expanded to address the new challenges for Juvenile Probation in a growing county.


                      Serving as an advisory group to the Board of Supervisors, JSPAC’s membership
                      consists of representatives from all major county departments, representatives from
                      advocate and advisory groups, and several community members. Staffing is provided by

Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                23
                        a member of the County Administrator’s office. Currently, JSPAC is looking at these
                        initiatives:


                               Blended funding strategies
                               Establishment of an in-county juvenile treatment program
                               Examining the placement and service needs of county youth transitioning from
                                high level placements or coming back from outside of the county. (i.e. returning
                                from a placement outside of the county)

                        Family to Family System of Care Advisory Council. Probation is an active member of the
                        council. Probation staff are also active members of the Permanency and Youth
                        Transition workgroup that address operational issues related juvenile justice and child
                        welfare.




            Political   There are no federally recognized tribes located with Contra Costa County. There are 24
                        cities and large areas of land in unincorporated areas of the county. There are 19 school
       Jurisdictions
                        districts in Contra Costa County, serving over 166,000 students.
                        Each of the 24 cities has a police department that works in concert with the Sheriff’s
                        department of Contra Costa County.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                              24
E.      Children & Family Services Agency Characteristics

                      The following provides specific information on the Children & Family Services
                      agency. As previously stated, CFS is one of four bureaus in the Employment and
                      Human Services Department. Children Services has primary responsibility for
                      providing child abuse and neglect intervention and prevention services to children
                      and families. The bureau is also responsible for foster care benefits eligibility and
                      issuance.




     1. Size and Structure of Agency

  Receiving Center    Contra Costa County does not operate a children’s shelter. In 1997, Contra Costa
                      County developed the innovative concept of Receiving Centers, which have
                      subsequently become a model for programs opened by a number of other counties.
                      Previously non-profit agencies were contracted for the operation of three receiving
                      centers, located in each of the county’s geographic districts. Unfortunately, due to
                      funding cutbacks, as of January 2009 the county is now only able to operate one
                      receiving center that is centrally located. Receiving centers are safe, child-friendly
                      environments where children removed from their homes receive health and mental
                      health assessments. They also offer the opportunity for the child to debrief from the
                      trauma of the removal, receive some basic information about what will be happening
                      to them, and get a snack or meal, a shower, and new clothing. Receiving Center
                      staff also interview each child to learn of the child’s preferences in food,
                      entertainment and who the important people might be in the child’s life. This
                      information is passed on to the social worker, who can share these preferences with
                      the first foster parent. Foster parents are then in a better position to help the child
                      feel more comfortable in their placement. Unlike an emergency shelter institution,
                      receiving centers provide care for less than 24 hours in order to better initiate
                      casework and placement services



            County    The County has a Memorandum of Understanding with CDSS to license foster
                      homes. There are approximately 450 currently licensed homes in the county. When
          Licensing
                      concurrent planning was initiated in this county in the early 1990’s, a combined
                      Foster Home Licensing/Adoption homestudy process was developed. Families who
                      are interested in adoption are simultaneously licensed for foster care. This
                      streamlines the process for the family and assures adoptive families are legally
                      ready to take a child prior to termination of parental rights. The Home Finding and
                      Relative Assessment Units conduct a variety of recruitment, training, foster care
                      licensing, adoptive home study, and placement support services. One division
                      manager oversees both the homefinding and relative assessment programs. Each
                      program has one supervisor and five social workers.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 25
           County     The Contra Costa County State Licensed Adoptions Program is dedicated to the
                      protection and welfare of children. The fost-adopt program is based on the practice
         Adoptions
                      of concurrent planning, parallel case management and teamwork.

                      Adoptions staff work to facilitate a healthy transition and adjustment and to maintain
                      support services and supervision for each child until his or her adoption becomes
                      finalized. The child must be newborn to 18 years old and alleged to be the victim of
                      abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and have been voluntarily relinquished or have been
                      made a dependent of the court. The Adoptions Program is funded through Federal,
                      State and County funding allocations.


                      Adoptions Program social workers team with many community agencies in providing
                      services to children, biological families and adoptive families. In calendar year 2008,
                      there were 166 finalized adoptions and there were 105 in 2009. While this is a
                      decrease of 61 adoptions, the number of adoptions social workers also fell from a
                      high of 14 in 2008 to the 7 currently. Thus, the adoptions/FTE has actually risen
                      from 11.9 to 15 (county data pull from CWS/CMS using Business Objects).




    2. Government Structure

                      The responsibility for administering public child welfare pursuant to the Welfare and
                      Institutions Code is placed by the Board of Supervisors with the Children and Family
                      Services Bureau of the Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD). The
                      Bureau Director is Valerie Earley, and she reports to Joe Valentine, the Director of
                      EHSD. Mr. Valentine reports to David Twa, the County Administrator, who, in turn,
                      reports to the County Board of Supervisors.

      Organization
            Chart




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 26
      Staffing and    As can be seen in the graphs below, the social worker staffing in Contra Costa
                      County declined greatly (approximately 32%) in January 2009 due to layoffs. This
   Caseload Trends
                      loss is in addition to losses in clerical staff, and other staff who were in temporary or
                      part-time positions. In order to maintain safety for the children and families of Contra
                      Costa, the majority of positions were lost in the continuing services units and the
                      three regionalized court units were disbanded and the duties of the court units were
                      divided between the emergency response and continuing services units. Although
                      difficult, this change has resulted in one fewer social worker “handoff” for children
                      and families that progress into the system. The change also resulted in higher
                      caseloads – especially for continuing services workers, although the caseloads have
                      begun to drop. See the charts below.


                                                                                     Continuing Services SCS Staff

                                 120

                                 100

                                  80

                                  60

                                  40

                                  20

                                      0
                                            2008/11 2008/12 2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10
                            SCS FTE              114          114         70.6         70.6    70.6   70.6   65.6    65.6       62.6         63.6         64.6   64.6


                      Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
                      sources




                                                                    Continuing Services SCS Staff by Program

                              35

                              30
                                                                                                                                                                 ADOPT
                              25
                                                                                                                                                                 Central
                              20                                                                                                                                 East
                                                                                                                                                                 West
                              15                                                                                                                                 CRPU
                                                                                                                                                                 ILP
                              10
                                                                                                                                                                 SPP
                                  5

                                  0
                                          2008/11 2008/12 2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10

                           ADOPT           11.8        11.8         8            8        8      8     7     7      7       6          6            6
                           Central          26         26           17       17          17     17     16    16     15      14         15           15
                           East            28.9        28.9         18       18          18     18     16    16     16      19         19           19
                           West            29.8        29.8         16       16          16     16     17    17     15      15         15           15
                           CRPU            11.6        11.6         6.6      6.6         6.6    6.6   5.6    5.6    5.6     5.6        5.6          5.6
                           ILP              3.9        3.9          3            3        3      3     2     2      2       2          2            2
                           SPP               2          2           2            2        2      2     2     2      2       2          2            2

                      Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
                      sources



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                                            27
                                                                ER Staffing Levels by District

                               16

                               14

                               12

                               10                                                                                                            Central
                                                                                                                                             East
                                  8
                                                                                                                                             West
                                  6                                                                                                          Summit
                                  4

                                  2

                                  0
                                      2008/11 2008/12 2009/01 2009/02 2009/03 2009/04 2009/05 2009/06 2009/07 2009/08 2009/09 2009/10

                           Central      13      13      11      11      11      11      10      10      10      10      10        10
                           East        13.4    13.4     13      13      12      12      12      12      12      12      12        12
                           West         11      11       8       8       8      8        8      8       8       8       9         9
                           Summit        2       2       1       1       1      1        1      1       1       1       1         1

                      Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
                      sources




                                                 New Referrals for Investigation Per Month Per FTE -
                                                     Actual vs Justified by Funding (15.8/FTE)

                        18.0
                        16.0
                        14.0
                        12.0
                        10.0                                                                                                Referrals/FTE
                         8.0                                                                                                Justified Referrals/FTE
                         6.0                                                                                 7.4

                         4.0
                         2.0
                         0.0
                                1

                                2

                                1

                                2

                                3

                                4

                                5

                                6

                                7

                                8

                                9

                                0
                              /1

                              /1

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /0

                              /1
                            08

                            08

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09

                            09
                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20

                         20




                      Data obtained from county data pulls from CWS/CMS using Business Objects, and other county data
                      sources




            Private   CFS contracts with providers to ensure that services are available and accessible to
                      children and families in their own communities. Contracts are developed with the
        Contractors
                      intent of supporting the System Improvement Plan (SIP) priorities of Safety,
                      Permanence and Well-Being, and are tracked by a CFS Contracts Analyst according
                      to the SIP area with which they are aligned. With the recent budget constraints,
                      Contra Costa has evaluated contracts carefully. Contracts for services offered and
                      available through other funding streams have been reduced.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                        28
Worker Caseload by    The table below shows average caseload sizes compared to State and SB 2030
                      standards for the period 09/01/07 – 10/31/07:
  Service Program

                                        Actual vs Justified (Based Upon State Funding) Continuing Services
                                                           Cases Per FTE - Weighted (SCS)

                         60
                                                                                            54
                         50

                         40
                                                                                                        Actual Cases/FTE includes Crt
                                                                                            31.47832817 (Weighted)
                         30
                                                                                                        Justified
                         20

                         10

                         0
                              2008/11     2009/01    2009/03    2009/05     2009/07   2009/09




                                         Weighted Continuing Services Cases Per FTE by District/Program

                         60

                         50
                                                                                                             ADOPT Wgtd Cases/FTE
                         40                                                                                  Central Wgtd Cases/FTE
                                                                                                             East Wgtd Cases/FTE
                         30                                                                                  West Wgtd Cases/FTE
                                                                                                             CRPU Wgtd Cases/FTE
                         20                                                                                  ILP Wgtd Cases/FTE
                                                                                                             SPP Wgtd Cases/FTE
                         10

                         0
                              2008/11      2009/01    2009/03     2009/05      2009/07    2009/09




        Bargaining    CFS social workers and supervisors are represented by the American Federation of
                      State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). In order to foster open
              Unit
                      communication between AFSCME and Management, monthly Labor/Management
            Issues    meetings are held. In these meetings, staff members and/or union representatives
                      have the opportunity to raise issues and express concerns directly to CFS
                      Managers. This forum allows for open discussion to take place and expedites
                      Management’s ability to address issues.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                         29
         Financial/   NEED MORE BASIC BUDGET DATA:CFS is funded by a wide variety of allocations
                      and revenue streams and has a total budget of over 20 million dollars. Income
          Material
                      includes the allocations for Adoptions; AFDC Foster Care; Child Abuse Prevention,
         Resources    Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT); Child Welfare Services; Foster Home
                      Recruitment and Licensing; Independent Living Skills Program; Kinship Support
                      Services; Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF); Realignment; Targeted Case
                      Management; Work Force Investment Act and Wrap Around Services (SB163). The
                      complete CFS budget is on file with the California Department of Social Services.

                      In addition to the required County match in the CFS program, Contra Costa County
                      makes a contribution of County funds. These County funds are used to the fullest
                      extent possible to draw down Federal Title IV-E funds.

                      The Agency also receives funds from the following grants:
                         1. Federal Comprehensive Family Engagement
                         2. Hedge Funds


                        Funding Source                                        Amount
                        SFP                                                       $1,054,013
                        KSSP                                                         $215,600
                        PSSF                                                         $712,411
                        Hedge Funds                                                   $40,000
                        County Child Care Affordability/Child Care Council           $250,000
                        CAPIT                                                        $294,484
                        CBCAP                                                         $98,796
                        Ann Adler                                                     $60,000
                        Birth Certificates Community                                 $201,000
                        License Plates                                                $32,270
                                                                      Total       $2,958,574




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                           30
F.      Probation Agency Characteristics

                      The mission of the Contra Costa County Probation Department, as an integral part
                      of the Criminal Justice System, is to reduce crime and provide for the public’s safety
                      by providing prevention, investigation, supervision services and safe custodial care
                      for juveniles. The Department is committed to restoring losses to victims of crime,
                      holding offenders accountable and developing opportunities for offenders through
                      innovative programs of supervision.




     1. Size and Structure of Agency

                      Probation currently has 24 wards placed in residential treatment settings funded with
                      Title IV-E – as gathered through a Business Objects report. Impressively, this
                      number is down significantly from the 300+ such placements during the 1970’s when
                      the county child population was much smaller. In addition to placing in group homes
                      and residential treatment centers, Probation has these additional placement settings
                      for probation-involved youth:

                              The Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility was established by the Contra
                               Costa County Board of Supervisors, under the direction of the County
                               Probation Officer, as a treatment center for adolescent delinquent
                               youngsters. The first unit of The Ranch, which had a capacity of 21 wards,
                               opened in March 1960. The newest dormitory was added in 1999 bringing
                               the total capacity to 100 residents. Residents are limited to male youth who
                               have been committed by the Juvenile Court. This program serves to
                               improve treatment at the local level rather than at the state level.

                              The John A. Davis Juvenile Hall opened in June 2005. It is a 290-bed,
                               maximum-security detention facility, for juvenile offenders up to age 18.
                               Residents are classified and assigned to housing units based on gender,
                               age, offense, and special needs. In addition to ten housing units, the facility
                               maintains a large kitchen, laundry area and has complete education and
                               medical wings. Medical and mental health services are provided to the
                               minors through Contra Costa County Health Services.

                              Other options include placement with relatives or,

                              The Home Supervision Unit consists of Juvenile Electronic Monitoring
                               (JEM), supervising two levels of minors; 1) Pre-Disposition = minors not yet
                               sentenced and considered to be "in the custody" of Juvenile Hall, and 2)
                               Post-Disposition = minors currently on probation and placed on HS for a
                               specific amount of time. Both programs offer minors an opportunity to reside
                               at home, in lieu of secure detention. Home Supervision staff will supervise
                               Pre-Disposition minors. They will report to the court on the compliance of
                               the minor and parents/legal guardians. Probation Officers will continue
                               to supervise the Post-Disposition minors. They also report to the court on
                               the compliance of the minors and parents/legal guardians.



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  31
                              The Chris Adams Center, which housed 20 beds for females and was
                               developed through interagency efforts involving blended funding streams,
                               was closed in 2009 because of budget restrictions.




    2. Government Structure

Organization Chart




     Probation/CFS    The Juvenile Probation Department and the Children & Family Services Bureau
                      have an on-going collaborative relationship that includes joint case staffings, serving
      Collaboration
                      on commissions, and sharing resources. Examples of this relationship are shown in
                      the Public Agencies Providing Child Welfare Services section and include Juvenile
                      Justice Commission, Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC),
                      Systems of Care Advisory Council, and Dual Jurisdiction Committee.

                      The Dual Jurisdiction has been operational for over 9 years. In December 2003, the
                      existing Memorandum of Understanding between Probation, Juvenile Court and
                      Children and Family Services Bureau was revised to establish an interagency joint
                      assessment protocol per Welfare and Institutions Code 241.1. The MOU charges the
                      Committee with joint assessments of all child cases where there is the possibility of both
                      W&I 300 and 601/602 involvement. The purpose of the joint assessment “is to determine
                      whether dependency or delinquency serves the best interests of the child and the
                      protection of the community.”


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 32
                      In addition to the above formal committees, an Intake and a field child welfare
                      eligibility specialist have a primary assignment of Probation cases. These staff can
                      assist Probation with form completion and filing regarding all placement cases. This
                      helps to assure that eligibility for federal and state foster care is correctly
                      determined, funding is maximized, and caregiver receipt of funds is timely.



  Dual Jurisdiction   Dual jurisdiction benefits both Probation and the Bureau. When a 300 dependent
                      offends and is made a 602 ward, the 300 dependency must be vacated and
                      dismissed. However, a child can be a 602 non-ward for up to 6 months and detained
                      in Juvenile Hall during the delinquency proceedings. The dependent child can
                      remain in Juvenile Hall pending residential placement by the social worker. The
                      social worker must report back to the Court every 15 days at the W&I 737 Hearing
                      on their progress in placing the child in a suitable placement and the anticipated
                      removal date from Juvenile Hall.

                      Treatment and placement success often results when a youth moves from the highly
                      restrictive environment of Juvenile Hall to a less restrictive setting of a residential
                      placement. During the youth’s stay in the Hall, Individual Educational Plans are
                      completed, psychological and medication assessments performed, and the
                      necessary package of assessments and information is compiled to assist in making
                      an optimal placement.

                      Making a child a 602 non-ward is a process that is unique to Contra Costa County.
                      The Bureau, Probation Department, Juvenile Court and the youth and his or her
                      family come to agreement on conditions of probation (attending school, keeping
                      grade point average up, attending substance abuse treatment, etc). When
                      placement is with the youth’s family or a relative, the Bureau becomes the lead
                      agency, Probation does not receive any payment, and placement costs are reduced.

                      The work of the Dual Jurisdiction Committee has resulted in greater numbers of
                      placements in the least restrictive setting, assuring that 602 non-wards receive the
                      mental health and educational assessments they need, and planning for transitions
                      of youth from higher to lower levels of placement.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 33
G.      CAPIT/CBCAP/PSSF

            CAPIT     Assembly Bill 1733 (Chapter 1398, Statutes of 1982) provided funds for child abuse
                      and neglect prevention projects. The Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention and
                      Treatment (CAPIT) program is to encourage prevention and intervention programs
                      by funding agencies addressing needs of children at high risk of abuse or neglect
                      and their families.

                      Funding is 100% State General Fund and can be used to supplement, but not
                      supplant, child welfare services. Projects are selected by competitive bid process
                      and must demonstrate broad-based community support.

                      In Contra Costa, the nearly $300,000 of CAPIT monies is used to help fund
                      prevention services through several contractors: These include Aspiranet, Child
                      Abuse Prevention Council, Contra Costa ARC/CARE Parent Network, and a
                      program partnered with the Mount Diablo Unified School District.




            CBCAP     The Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Program (CBCAP) was established
                      by Title II of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
                      amendments of 1996. The purpose of the program is to support community based
                      efforts aimed at the prevention of child abuse and neglect. CBCAP is federally
                      funded and allocated annually to counties. The Office of Child Abuse Prevention
                      (OCAP), an office within CDSS, is responsible for the oversight of these funds.

                      In Contra Costa, the nearly $100,000 of CBCAP monies is spent with Community
                      Violence Solutions (assisting with treatment of families involved in domestic
                      violence) and Ujima Family Recovery Services – which focuses on treating women
                      with substance use disorders and CFS involvement who are pregnant or have just
                      given birth.




              PSSF    Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) supports programs to prevent the
                      unnecessary separation of children from families, improve quality of care and
                      services to families and children, and to ensure permanency for children through
                      reunification or other permanent placement.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                            34
                      In Contra Costa, the approximately $700,000 of monies is used for a wide variety of
                      prevention-related activities. These include:

                        Contract                                 Prevention Activity
                        Adoption mediation                      stable adoptions
                        Adoption Promotion/Support Fund         stable adoptions
                        Bay Point (Ambrose)                     differential response
                        Brighter Beginnings                     differential response
                        Coronado (YMCA)                         family/child support
                        Differential Response                   differential response
                        Kinship (FF)                            kin family services
                        Neighborhood House/Helms                family/child support
                        North Richmond (CHD)                    differential response
                        Parent Partners                         family stability/reunification
                        Post Adopt Education.                   stable adoptions
                        Post Adopt Support Groups               stable adoptions
                        Stand                                   domestic violence treatment




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                             35
H.      Participation Rates

       Child Abuse     The incidence rate of child abuse allegations has gone down in the past 10 years in
                       Contra Costa.
        Allegations

                                                           Incidence Rate of
                                                   Child Abuse Allegations (per 1000)

                         60
                         50
                         40       46.8
                                                                                                    41.9              California
                         30
                                                                                                                      Contra Costa
                         20
                         10
                           0
                             98

                                    99

                                           00

                                                  01

                                                         02

                                                                03

                                                                       04

                                                                              05

                                                                                     06

                                                                                            07

                                                                                                   08
                           19

                                  19

                                         20

                                                20

                                                       20

                                                              20

                                                                     20

                                                                            20

                                                                                   20

                                                                                          20

                                                                                                 20
                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




     Substantiated     The incidence rate of substantiated allegations has gone down in both California
                       and Contra Costa County – with a significant drop between 2007 and 2008.
      Child Abuse
       Allegations
                                                          Incidence Rate of
                                                Child Abuse Substantiations (per 1000)

                         14
                         12
                                  9.2
                         10
                          8                                                                                           California
                          6                                                                                           Contra Costa
                                                                                                        6.9
                          4
                          2
                          0
                             98

                                    99

                                           00

                                                  01

                                                         02

                                                                03

                                                                       04

                                                                              05

                                                                                     06

                                                                                            07

                                                                                                   08
                           19

                                  19

                                         20

                                                20

                                                       20

                                                              20

                                                                     20

                                                                            20

                                                                                   20

                                                                                          20

                                                                                                 20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               36
    Substantiation     The percentage of substantiated allegations has remained relatively constant over
                       the past 10 years except for the drop in 2008 – from just over 20% to 17%.
       Percentage

                                             Substantiation Percent From Total Allegations

                                     30
                                     25
                           Percent   20
                                                                                                                      California
                                     15
                                                                                                                      Contra Costa
                                     10
                                      5
                                      0
                                       98

                                       99

                                       00

                                       01

                                       02

                                       03

                                       04

                                       05

                                       06

                                       07

                                       08
                                     19

                                     19

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20
                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




 Entry Into Foster     The incidence rate of entries into foster care for Contra Costa has declined by 39%
                       since 1998. The degree of decline for Contra Costa is greater than that for the State
             Care
                       overall, although the State has seen significant declines as well.


                                                           Incidence Rate of Entries
                                                          Into Foster Care (per 1000)

                          5
                          4
                                     4.1
                          3                                                                                           California
                          2                                                                                           Contra Costa
                                                                                                           2.5
                          1
                          0
                           98

                                       99

                                              00

                                                     01

                                                            02

                                                                   03

                                                                          04

                                                                                 05

                                                                                        06

                                                                                               07

                                                                                                      08
                         19

                                     19

                                            20

                                                   20

                                                          20

                                                                 20

                                                                        20

                                                                               20

                                                                                      20

                                                                                             20

                                                                                                    20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               37
       Children in     The number of children in Foster care has been dropping over the past 10 years.
                       Contra Costa County cases have declined approximately 44% while the State has
       Foster Care
                       declined approximately 42%.




                                                         Number of Children in Foster Care - Statewide

                         120,000

                         100,000

                           80,000

                           60,000                                                                                                                                         California

                           40,000

                           20,000

                                  0
                                         Jul 1,1998 Jul 1,1999 Jul 1,2000 Jul 1,2001 Jul 1,2002 Jul 1,2003 Jul 1,2004 Jul 1,2005 Jul 1,2006 Jul 1,2007 Jul 1,2008

                            California    105,955     107,250   101,310    93,311     88,463     83,822      79,079      76,649    74,259       72,283      65,406


                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




                                             Number of Children in Foster Care - Contra Costa County

                               2,500

                               2,000

                               1,500
                                                                                                                                                                     Contra Costa
                               1,000

                                 500

                                      0        Jul       Jul       Jul       Jul       Jul       Jul        Jul      Jul        Jul      Jul         Jul
                                             1,1998    1,1999    1,2000    1,2001    1,2002    1,2003     1,2004   1,2005     1,2006   1,2007      1,2008

                            Contra Costa      2,185     2,304     2,191     2,228     2,120     1,980     1,851       1,797   1,647     1,491       1,337


                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                                                        38
  Rate of Children     The prevalence rate for children who have been removed from home and are in
                       foster care has been steadily declining for the past 9 years to the current low of
   in Foster Care
                       5.3/1000 children in Contra Costa.


                                                          Prevalence Rate for
                                                   Children in Foster Care (per 1000)

                                    14
                                    12
                                    10
                                     8                                                                                California
                                         8.9
                                     6
                                                                                                                      Contra Costa
                                     4                                                                5.3
                                     2
                                     0
                                l1 8

                                l1 9

                                l1 0

                                l1 1

                                l1 2

                                l1 3

                                l1 4

                                l1 5

                                l1 6

                                l1 7

                                       8
                              Ju 99

                              Ju 99

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                              Ju 00

                                    00
                                  ,1

                                  ,1

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2

                                  ,2
                                l1
                          Ju




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




      Entries as a     The overall trend for entries as a percentage of substantiations is down for the past
                       10 years although there was an increase in 2003, followed steady declines and then
     Percentage of
                       a slight increase for calendar year 2008.
   Substantiations

                                                  Entries As a Percentage of Substantiations

                                    50   44.5
                                    45
                                                                                                            35.7
                                    40
                                    35
                          Percent




                                    30                                                                                       California
                                    25
                                    20                                                                                       Contra Costa
                                    15
                                    10
                                     5
                                     0
                                        98

                                        99

                                        00

                                        01

                                        02

                                        03

                                        04

                                        05

                                        06

                                        07

                                        08
                                     19

                                     19

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20

                                     20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               39
    Allegations of     The mapping of allegation incidence rate has supported decisions for program
                       implementation as well as office placement.
  Maltreatment by
         Zip Code




    Allegations of     The incidence rate of entries into foster care matches the allegation map except in a
                       few areas. We use this information for planning purposes throughout our system –
  Maltreatment by
                       from prevention program implementation to aftercare service delivery.
         Zip Code




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                40
I.      Federal and State Outcome Measures

                       The graphs below provide performance outcomes for each data indicator as well as
                       trend analysis and comparison to state averages and federal goals. Discussion and
                       analysis as well as Self Assessment meeting discussions are further documented in
                       the Summary Self Assessment section of this document.




            S1.1       Contra Costa has shown an increase in the percentage of children who do not have
                       a recurrence of maltreatment and the percentage is currently above the national
 No Recurrence of
                       goal.
    Maltreatment

                                           No Recurrence of Maltreatment Within 6 Months
                                                 (April - September of Year Listed)

                                    96                                                         95.3
                                    95
                                    94
                                    93                                                                             California
                          Percent




                                    92
                                                                                                                   Contra Costa
                                    91
                                    90                                                                             National Goal
                                         90.2
                                    89
                                    88
                                    87
                                       98

                                       99

                                       00
                                       01

                                       02
                                       03

                                       04

                                       05
                                       06

                                       07

                                       08
                                    19

                                    19

                                    20
                                    20

                                    20
                                    20

                                    20

                                    20
                                    20

                                    20

                                    20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               41
              S2.1     While the county is currently slightly below the national goal for the percent of
                       children not maltreated while in foster care, the difference is approximately 0.2% -
 No Maltreatment
                       which equates to approximately 3 children.
    in Foster Care

                                                          Percent of Children Not Maltreated
                                                                While in Foster Care

                                      100.0
                                       99.9
                                       99.8
                                       99.7
                                       99.6
                         Percent




                                                   99.6                                                               California
                                       99.5
                                                                                                           99.4       Contra Costa
                                       99.4
                                       99.3                                                                           National Goal
                                       99.2
                                       99.1
                                       99.0
                                       98.9
                                              APR2004- APR2005- APR2006- APR2007- APR2008-
                                              MAR2005 MAR2006 MAR2007 MAR2008 MAR2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




                2B     The percentage of timely investigations for immediate referrals has remained above
                       the state goal of 90% although there was a bit of a decline in 2009 – which coincides
      Timeliness of
                       with the large number of staff that were laid off in Children and Family Services in
        Immediate      January of 2009.
         Referrals
                                                     Percentage of Timely Investigations
                                                           for Immediate Referrals
                                                         (January - March Sampling)

                                      100
                                                                                                           93.3
                                       90
                         Percentage




                                                                                                                       California
                                       80                                                                              Contra Costa
                                               74.4                                                                    State Goal
                                       70

                                       60
                                         98

                                               99

                                                      00

                                                            01

                                                                  02

                                                                        03

                                                                              04

                                                                                    05

                                                                                          06

                                                                                                07

                                                                                                      08

                                                                                                            09
                                       19

                                              19

                                                    20

                                                           20

                                                                 20

                                                                       20

                                                                             20

                                                                                   20

                                                                                         20

                                                                                               20

                                                                                                     20

                                                                                                           20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               42
               2B      While the percentage of timely investigations for 10-day referrals has increased in
                       the past 6 years, we are still falling below the state goal of 90%. The county had
     Timeliness of
                       reached and surpassed the state goal at one point, but there was a significant drop
  10-Day Referrals     in compliance after the layoffs in January of 2009. Examining the past 12 months
                       worth of compliance data it is clear that while the layoffs started in January of 2009,
                       the month prior saw a big decline in compliance compared to the November rate of
                       95%. Since the low in February of 2009, the rate has been increasing.


                                                             Percentage of Timely Investigations
                                                                    for 10-Day Referrals
                                                                 (January - March Sampling)

                                     100
                                      90
                                      80
                          Percent




                                                                                                                                      California
                                      70                                                                               73.4
                                                                                                                                      Contra Costa
                                      60
                                      50                                                                                              State Goal
                                      40
                                           43.5
                                      30
                                       98

                                             99

                                                      00

                                                               01

                                                                      02

                                                                              03

                                                                                     04

                                                                                            05

                                                                                                   06

                                                                                                           07

                                                                                                                  08

                                                                                                                         09
                                      19

                                            19

                                                    20

                                                             20

                                                                     20

                                                                            20

                                                                                   20

                                                                                          20

                                                                                                 20

                                                                                                        20

                                                                                                               20

                                                                                                                       20
                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




                                                    Timeliness of 10-Day Referrals - Past 12 Months

                                     100
                                            95
                                      95
                                      90
                                                                                                                             89.3
                           Percent




                                      85
                                                                                                                                      Contra Costa
                                      80
                                                                                                                                      State Goal
                                      75
                                                      73.8
                                      70
                                      65
                                      60
                                            11-08
                                                     12-08
                                                              1-09
                                                                     2-09
                                                                            3-09
                                                                                   4-09
                                                                                          5-09
                                                                                                 6-09
                                                                                                        7-09
                                                                                                               8-09
                                                                                                                      9-09
                                                                                                                              10-09




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                      43
                2C     The timeliness of social worker contacts shows a somewhat similar pattern to that of
                       the 10-day referrals. There was a decline in January of 2009 after the loss of dozens
      Timeliness of
                       of staff, but unlike the 10-day referrals, the past 12 months of data do not show a
     Social Worker     significant increase.
          Contacts

                                                            Timeliness of Social Worker Contacts
                                                                     (March Sampling)

                                      100

                                       80
                                                                                                                              77.9
                            Percent




                                       60                                                                                                   California
                                                                                                                                            Contra Costa
                                       40 32.3                                                                                              State Goal
                                       20

                                           0
                                           98
                                                       99
                                                                00
                                                                     01
                                                                               02
                                                                                       03
                                                                                            04
                                                                                                      05
                                                                                                           06
                                                                                                                 07
                                                                                                                        08
                                                                                                                               09
                                       19
                                                19
                                                         20
                                                                 20
                                                                        20
                                                                                20
                                                                                        20
                                                                                               20
                                                                                                       20
                                                                                                              20
                                                                                                                     20
                                                                                                                            20
                        Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                        K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                        Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                        Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




                                                       Timeliness of Social Worker Contacts
                                                              Past 12 Months Detail

                                      95
                                      90
                           Percent




                                      85
                                                83.8                                                                                       Contra Costa
                                      80
                                                                                                                                   78.7    State Goal
                                      75                         75.8
                                      70
                                      65
                                                                 1-09
                                                                        2-09
                                                                                3-09
                                                                                        4-09
                                                                                               5-09
                                                                                                       6-09
                                                                                                              7-09
                                                                                                                     8-09
                                                                                                                            9-09
                                               11-08
                                                        12-08




                                                                                                                                   10-09




                        Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                        K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                        Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                        Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare

                       Data obtained from county data pull




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                            44
C1.1 Reunification     Overall, there has not been much change in this particular measure of reunification
                       except for a recent downturn and an upswing in 2003-2004. The rate of timely
Within 12 Months
                       reunification is significantly below the national goal.
     (Exit Cohort)

                                          Reunification Within 12 Months (Exit Cohort)
                                                      July - June Sampling

                           80                                                                                     75.2

                           70
                           60
                                                                                                                   59
                           50                                                                                                   California
                        % 40                                                                                                    Contra Costa
                           30                                                                                                   National Goal
                           20
                           10
                             0
                                  1998-   1999-   2000-   2001-   2002-   2003-   2004-   2005-   2006-   2007-   2008-
                                  1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




              C1.2     Contra Costa’s median time to reunification is longer than the national goal and has
                       recently taken a turn for the worse.
  Median Time to
Reunification (Exit
           Cohort)                                  Median Time To Reunification (Exit Cohort)
                                                              July -June Sampling

                                 14

                                 12

                                 10                                                                                9.4
                                                                                                                                  California
                                  8
                        Months                                                                                                    Contra Costa
                                  6                                                                                               National Goal
                                                                                                                          5.4
                                  4

                                  2

                                  0
                                      1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
                                      1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                   45
C1.3 Reunification     The trend shows that Contra Costa has improved in this measure and has been
                       equal to or above the national goal for the last two reporting periods.
Within 12 Months
   (Entry Cohort)
                                               Percent of Children Reunified in Less Than 12 Months
                                                               (Jan-Jun entry cohort)

                        60

                                                                                                                   48.4
                        50
                                                                                                                   47.9
                        40
                                                                                                                           California
                        30                                                                                                 Contra Costa
                                                                                                                           National Goal
                        20

                        10

                         0
                              1998    1999      2000     2001     2002   2003   2004   2005     2006     2007    2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




             C1.4      Contra Costa is performing slightly worse than the national goal but has shown
                       improvement over the past 10 years.
Reentry Following
    Reunification
                                             Percent Reentering in Less Than 12 Months Jul-Jun exit cohort)

                        16

                        14
                                                                                                                  12.3
                        12
                                                                                                                  11.4
                        10
                                                                                                                  9.9      California
                         8                                                                                                 Contra Costa
                                                                                                                           National Goal
                         6

                         4

                         2

                         0
                              1998-    1999-     2000-    2001-     2002-   2003-   2004-     2005-    2006-    2007-
                              1999     2000      2001     2002      2003    2004    2005      2006     2007     2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               46
             C2.1      The performance in this area has shown significant improvement and is currently
                       above the national goal.
  Adoption Within
       24 Months
                                                                Adoption Within 24 Months
     (Exit Cohort)                                            (Jul-Jun Sampling; Exit Cohort)

                        50
                                                                                                         47.5
                        45
                        40                                                                                    36.6
                        35
                        30                                                                                                California
                        25                                                                                                Contra Costa
                        20                                                                                                National Goal

                        15
                        10
                         5
                         0
                              1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
                              1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




            C2.2       There has been some improvement in this measure and Contra Costa is currently
                       performing slightly better than the national goal.
   Median Time to
        Adoption
                                                                Median Time To Adoption
    (Exit Cohort)                                            (Jul-Jun Sampling; Exit Cohort)

                                  45
                                  40
                                  35
                                  30                                                                            27.3
                                                                                                                          California
                                  25
                         Months                                                                              25.8         Contra Costa
                                  20
                                                                                                                          National Goal
                                  15
                                  10
                                   5
                                   0
                                       1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
                                       1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               47
            C2.3       Contra Costa is not doing as well in this adoption measure as in he two previous
                       areas. Although there has been improvement over the past 10 years, further
  Adoption Within
                       improvement will need to be made in order to meet the national goal.
       12 Months
    (17 Months in                                               Adoption Within 12 Months
            Care)                                          (17 Months In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)

                             25
                                                                                                              22.7

                             20


                             15                                                                                           California
                         %                                                                                                Contra Costa
                                                                                                         11.3
                             10                                                                                           National Goal


                              5


                              0
                                  1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
                                  1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




            C2.4       Contra Costa is not performing particularly well in this measure. This is likely due to
                       the fact that Contra Costa does not terminate parental rights until the point of
     Legally Free
                       adoption – as a policy.
 Within 6 Months
   (17 Months in                                               Legally Free Within 6 Months
            Care)                                         (17 Months In Care; Jul-Dec Sampling)

                             12
                                                                                                                10.9

                             10


                             8
                                                                                                                           California
                        % 6                                                                                                Contra Costa
                                                                                                                           National Goal
                             4

                                                                                                                3.3
                             2


                             0
                                  1998   1999   2000    2001   2002    2003    2004   2005    2006    2007   2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               48
             C2.5      Contra Costa is performing above the national goal in this measure.
  Adoption Within
       12 Months                          Adoption Within 12 Months (Legally Free; Jul-Jun Sampling)
    (Legally Free)           80
                                                                                                             72.9
                             70

                             60

                             50
                                                                                                                53.7       California
                        % 40                                                                                               Contra Costa
                                                                                                                           National Goal
                             30

                             20

                             10

                              0
                                  1998-   1999-   2000-   2001-      2002-   2003-   2004-   2005-   2006-     2007-
                                  1999    2000    2001    2002       2003    2004    2005    2006    2007      2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




            C3.1       Contra Costa has recognized that this particular are represents an area of
                       weakness. This is the area that was chosen as the focus for our PQCR. The 10-year
          Exits to
                       trend does show improvement.
      Permanency
    (24 Months in
                                     Percent Exiting to Permanency by the End of the Year and Before
            Care)                             Age 18 (24 Months in Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)

                        35
                                                                                                              29.1
                        30

                        25

                        20                                                                                                California
                                                                                                                          Contra Costa
                        15                                                                                                National Goal
                                                                                                               14.2
                        10

                         5

                         0
                              1998- 1999-    2000- 2001-     2002-    2003- 2004-    2005- 2006-     2007- 2008-
                              1999 2000      2001 2002       2003     2004 2005      2006 2007       2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               49
              C3.2     Contra Costa is performing near the national goal on this particular measure.
           Exits to
      Permanency                         Exits To Permanency (Legally Free At Exit; Jul-Jun Sampling)

   (Legally Free at     100
                                                                                                               98
             Exit)
                                                                                                             96.7


                         90
                                                                                                                         California
                                                                                                                         Contra Costa
                                                                                                                         National Goal
                         80




                         70
                                  1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
                                  1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




              C3.3     Contra Costa is not performing as well as the national goal in this area and has not
 In Care 3 years or    shown much improvement in the last 7 years.
            Longer
  (Emancipated or                                             In Care 3 Years Or Longer
                                                   (Emancipated Or Age 18 In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
   Age 18 in Care)
                            90

                            80
                                                                                                            70.3
                            70

                            60

                            50                                                                                          California
                        %                                                                                    37.5       Contra Costa
                            40                                                                                          National Goal
                            30

                            20

                            10

                              0
                                   1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008-
                                   1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               50
            C4.1       Contra Costa has been performing above the national goal for the past 3 years in
                       this area. The excellent performance in the measure will continue to be monitored
       Placement
                       since there appears to be a slight downward trend over the past 3 years.
        Stability
    (8 Days to 24
  Months in Care)                                                            Placement Stability
                                                               (8 Days To 12 Months In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)

                          Percent With 2 or Fewer Moves
                                                               92
                                                               90
                                                               88                                                                                     86.5
                                                               86
                                                               84                                                                                     86          California
                                                               82                                                                                                 Contra Costa
                                                               80
                                                                                                                                                                  National Goal
                                                               78
                                                               76
                                                               74
                                                               72
                                                                    99

                                                                         00

                                                                                01

                                                                                       02

                                                                                              03

                                                                                                        04

                                                                                                               05

                                                                                                                         06

                                                                                                                                07

                                                                                                                                          08

                                                                                                                                                 09
                                                                  9

                                                                         0

                                                                                 0

                                                                                        0

                                                                                               0

                                                                                                      0

                                                                                                                0

                                                                                                                       0

                                                                                                                                 0

                                                                                                                                        0

                                                                                                                                                0
                                                               -1

                                                                      -2

                                                                              -2

                                                                                     -2

                                                                                            -2

                                                                                                   -2

                                                                                                             -2

                                                                                                                    -2

                                                                                                                              -2

                                                                                                                                     -2

                                                                                                                                             -2
                                                           98

                                                                    99

                                                                          00

                                                                                 01

                                                                                        02

                                                                                               03

                                                                                                        04

                                                                                                                05

                                                                                                                         06

                                                                                                                                 07

                                                                                                                                          08
                                                          19

                                                                19

                                                                         20

                                                                               20

                                                                                      20

                                                                                             20

                                                                                                     20

                                                                                                              20

                                                                                                                     20

                                                                                                                               20

                                                                                                                                      20
                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare



             C4.2      Contra Costa is also performing above the national goal in this measure of
                       placement stability.
        Placement
          Stability
 (12 to 24 Months                                                                 Placement Stability
          in Care)                                                    (12 To 24 Months In Care; Jul-Jun Sampling)
                          Percent With 2 or Fewer Moves




                                                               80
                                                                                                                                                 71.2
                                                               70
                                                                                                                                                           65.4
                                                               60
                                                               50                                                                                                 California
                                                               40                                                                                                 Contra Costa
                                                               30                                                                                                 National Goal
                                                               20
                                                               10
                                                                0
                                                                 99

                                                                         00

                                                                                01

                                                                                       02

                                                                                              03

                                                                                                        04

                                                                                                                05

                                                                                                                         06

                                                                                                                                 07

                                                                                                                                          08

                                                                                                                                                 09
                                                                  9

                                                                         0

                                                                                 0

                                                                                        0

                                                                                               0

                                                                                                       0

                                                                                                                0

                                                                                                                        0

                                                                                                                                 0

                                                                                                                                         0

                                                                                                                                                  0
                                                               -1

                                                                      -2

                                                                              -2

                                                                                     -2

                                                                                            -2

                                                                                                    -2

                                                                                                             -2

                                                                                                                     -2

                                                                                                                              -2

                                                                                                                                      -2

                                                                                                                                               -2
                                                           98

                                                                    99

                                                                          00

                                                                                 01

                                                                                        02

                                                                                                   03

                                                                                                          04

                                                                                                                    05

                                                                                                                           06

                                                                                                                                     07

                                                                                                                                            08
                                                          19

                                                                19

                                                                         20

                                                                               20

                                                                                      20

                                                                                              20

                                                                                                        20

                                                                                                               20

                                                                                                                         20

                                                                                                                                20

                                                                                                                                          20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                                                   51
            C4.3       Contra Costa does not perform as well in this measure of placement stability – which
                       examines placement moves for children who have been in care at least 2 years.
       Placement
         Stability
     (At Least 24                                              Placement Stability (At Least 24 Months In Care;
  Months in Care)                                                           Jul-Jun Sampling)


                          Percent With 2 or Fewer Moves
                                                               90
                                                               80
                                                               70
                                                               60
                                                                                                                                                         California
                                                               50                                                                            41.8        Contra Costa
                                                               40
                                                               30                                                                                        National Goal
                                                                                                                                            29.4
                                                               20
                                                               10
                                                                0
                                                                 99

                                                                         00

                                                                               01

                                                                                      02

                                                                                             03

                                                                                                    04

                                                                                                           05

                                                                                                                  06

                                                                                                                         07

                                                                                                                                08

                                                                                                                                        09
                                                                  9

                                                                         0

                                                                                0

                                                                                       0

                                                                                              0

                                                                                                     0

                                                                                                            0

                                                                                                                   0

                                                                                                                          0

                                                                                                                                 0

                                                                                                                                        0
                                                               -1

                                                                      -2

                                                                             -2

                                                                                    -2

                                                                                           -2

                                                                                                  -2

                                                                                                         -2

                                                                                                                -2

                                                                                                                       -2

                                                                                                                              -2

                                                                                                                                     -2
                                                           98

                                                                    99

                                                                         00

                                                                                01

                                                                                       02

                                                                                              03

                                                                                                     04

                                                                                                            05

                                                                                                                   06

                                                                                                                          07

                                                                                                                                 08
                                                          19

                                                                19

                                                                       20

                                                                              20

                                                                                     20

                                                                                            20

                                                                                                   20

                                                                                                          20

                                                                                                                 20

                                                                                                                        20

                                                                                                                               20
                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




               4A      Contra Costa has shown relative stability on this measure over the past 10 years
                       and is performing under the State average.
   Siblings Placed
         Together
                                                                                    Siblings in Foster Care - Percent Placed Together
                                                                                        Using Point-in-Tim e Data (1 July Sam pling)


                         80
                                                                                                                                     72.4
                         70
                                                                                                                                      60.1
                         60
                                                                                                                                 52.6
                                                                                                                                                    CCC-With All Sibs
                         50
                                                                                                                                     42.2           CCC-With All or Some Sibs
                         40
                                                                                                                                                    CA-With All Sibs
                         30
                                                                                                                                                    CA-With All or Some Sibs
                         20
                         10
                                 0
                                                          1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                                                 52
                4B     Contra Costa has decreased the use of group homes as an initial placement for
                       children experiencing their first removal.
  Least Restrictive
    Entries – First
 Placement: Group                                        Percentage of First Entries
            Homes                                     Initially Placed in Group Homes

                            14.0
                            12.0          12.2
                            10.0                                                             8.1
                             8.0                                                                           CA Group Home %
                             6.0                                                             7.8
                                      5.7                                                                  CCC Group Home %
                             4.0
                             2.0
                             0.0
                             99 99
                             00 00
                             01 01
                             02 02
                             03 03
                             04 04
                             05 05
                             06 06
                             07 07
                             08 08

                                     9
                                   00
                           19 - 19
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                           20 - 20
                                -2
                             98
                         19




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




                4B     After a decline in the use of kin as an initial placement, the use has shown an
                       increase in the past 4 years. The use of a kin home as an initial placement is
  Least Restrictive
                       significantly higher than the State average.
    Entries – First
        Placement:
                                                            Percentage of First Entries
       Kin Homes
                                                             Initially Placed With Kin

                          35.0      29.9
                          30.0                                                                            28.1
                          25.0     26.6
                          20.0                                                                                            CA Kin %
                          15.0                                                                         18.3
                                                                                                                          CCC Kin %
                          10.0
                           5.0
                           0.0
                         19 999

                         20 000

                         20 001

                         20 002

                         20 003


                            04 4
                         20 005

                         20 006

                         20 007

                         20 008

                                   9
                         20 00




                                 00
                              -1

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2

                              -2
                            98

                            99

                            00

                            01

                            02

                            03




                            05

                            06

                            07

                            08
                         19




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               53
                4B     The trend for use of foster homes as an initial placement has been decreasing in the
                       past 4 years after a period of gradual increase. The use of foster homes is
  Least Restrictive
                       significantly higher than the State average.
    Entries – First
 Placement: Foster
            Homes                                    Percentage of First Entries
                                                  Initially Placed in Foster Homes

                           70.0
                           60.0
                           50.0
                                     49.9
                           40.0                                                                             CA Foster Home %
                                                                                            42.2
                           30.0                                                                             CCC Foster Home %
                                    30.3
                           20.0
                                                                                            21.4
                           10.0
                            0.0
                             99 99
                             00 00
                             01 01
                             02 02
                             03 03
                             04 04
                             05 05
                             06 06
                             07 07
                             08 08

                                     9
                                   00
                           19 -19
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                           20 -20
                                -2
                             98
                         19




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




                4B     The use of FFA’s as an initial placement has shown an increase but is far lower than
                       the State average.
  Least Restrictive
    Entries – First
 Placement: FFA’s                                          Percentage of First Entries
                                                            Initially Placed in FFA's
                           50.0
                                                                                                     45.6
                           45.0
                           40.0
                           35.0
                           30.0
                           25.0                                                                                        CA FFA %
                           20.0      18.0
                                                                                                                       CCC FFA %
                           15.0
                                                                                                       17.8
                           10.0
                                    5.1
                            5.0
                            0.0
                            99 99

                            00 0

                            01 01

                            02 2

                            03 03

                            04 04

                            05 5

                            06 06

                            07 7

                            08 08

                                   9
                         20 200



                         20 200




                         20 200



                         20 200



                                 00
                         19 19



                         20 20



                         20 20

                         20 20



                         20 20



                         20 20
                              -2
                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -

                              -
                            98
                         19




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               54
       Foster care     Over the past 12 months, relative home placements are down 2% while group home
                       placements are up 2%.
  Placements Over
       the Past 12
          Months




                       Children’s Research Center SafeMeasures Data Contra Costa County, Out of Home Placements.
                       Retrieved from Children’s Research Center website. URL: [https://www.safemeasures.org.ca/safemeasures.aspx]




              5B       Compared to baseline in 2003, the percentage of timely medical exams has
                       increased.
   Timely Medical
           Exams
                                      Percent Compliance For Timely Medical Exams For
                                                      Foster Children

                          90
                                                                                                     87.1
                          85
                                                81.5
                          80                                                                        80
                          75
                                               71.3                                                                                CA
                          70
                                                                                                                                   CCC
                          65
                          60
                          55
                          50
                                           Baseline (2003)                            Current (Q2 2009)

                        Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                        K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                        Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                        Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




              5B       There has been a significant increase in timely medical exams since baseline –
                       although there continues to be a lot of room for improvement.
    Timely Dental

Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                                55
            Exams
                                           Percent Timely Dental Exams For Foster Children

                         100
                          90
                          80
                          70                                                                                                    CA
                          60                                                                       62.5                         CCC
                                              57.4                                                 57.2
                          50
                          40                    42
                          30
                                            Baseline (2003)                           Current (Q2 2009)

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




               5F      The recorded percentage of children in care who are authorized for psychotropic
                       medication has seen a large increase. Much of the increase can be attributed to
    Authorized for
                       recording and measurement factors, so, any real trend analysis will need o be
     Psychotropic      conducted in the future.
     Medications
                                     Percentage of Children in Foster Care Authorized for
                                                 Psychotropic Medications

                         15
                                                                                                  13

                         10                                                                                        California
                                                                                                    7
                           5                                                                                       Contra Costa

                           0
                             98
                             99
                             00
                             01
                             02
                             03
                             04
                             05
                             06
                             07
                             08
                             09
                          19
                          19
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20
                          20




                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




              8A       Starting with the fourth quarter of calendar year 2008, there are new reporting
                                                                                                nd
                       requirements for emancipated youth. There is data available through the 2 quarter
      Independent

Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               56
   Living Program      of 2009, so there is 3 quarters worth of data available for analysis. This data can be
                       considered as a baseline since these measures have not previously been collected
                       using this methodology.

                                             Completed High School or Equivalency          Obtained Employment Have Housing
                                             Received ILP Services              Have Permanency Connection
                        California           58.2%                38.1%                91.5%           75.0%          89.6%
                        Contra Costa         48.0%                32.0%                90.0%           80.0%          92.0%
                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               57
J.      Systemic Outcomes

                       The graphs below provide performance outcomes for each data indicators as well as
                       trend analysis and comparison to state averages and federal goals. Discussion and
                       analysis as well as Self Assessment meeting discussions are further documented in
                       the Summary Self Assessment of this document.



Disproportionality     As can be seen in the graph below, African American/Black youth are
                       disproportionally represented in Foster Care compared to their percentage in the
 and Disparity in
                       population.
      Foster Care

                                                             Foster Care Disproportionality

                          60.0
                                    47.8
                          50.0                              43.1
                          40.0                                               31.5
                                                     27.9                                                                  Foster care%
                          30.0
                                                                      20.0                                                 Population%
                          20.0                                                                11.4
                                           8.8
                          10.0                                                          3.3              1.1 0.3
                           0.0
                                     Black            White          Hispanic           Asian           Native
                                                                                                       American

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




      Allegations -    There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
                       to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are 3-4 times more likely
      Disparity by
                       to have an allegation of abuse or neglect – and the disparity is showing an increase.
         Ethnicity

                                                               Allegation Incidence Rate

                         140.0
                                                                                                          129.7
                         120.0
                         100.0                                                                                                 Black
                          80.0                                                                                                 White
                          60.0                                                                                                 Hispanic
                          40.0                                                                                                 Asian
                          20.0
                           0.0
                                  1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               58
     Substantiated     There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
                       to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are approximately 5
      Allegations -
                       times more likely to have an substantiated allegation of abuse or neglect.
      Disparity by
         Ethnicity
                                               Substantiated Allegation Incidence Rate by Ethnicity

                         30.0
                                                                                                               25.1
                         25.0

                         20.0                                                                                                 Black
                                                                                                                              White
                         15.0
                                                                                                                              Hispanic
                         10.0
                                                                                                                              Asian
                           5.0

                           0.0
                                  1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Entries Into Foster    There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
                       to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are approximately 5
 Care - Disparity
                       times more likely to enter foster care.
      by Ethnicity
                                                      Incidence Rate of Entries into Foster Care

                         15
                                                                                                                11.4            Black
                         10                                                                                                     White

                           5                                                                                                    Hispanic
                                                                                                                                Asian
                           0
                                 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002              2003 2004 2005 2006             2007    2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               59
Children in Foster     There is a significant disparity between African American/Black children compared
                       to children of any other ethnicity. African American children are approximately 8
 Care - Disparity
                       times more likely to be in foster care at a given point in time – although the rate is
     by Ethnicity      decreasing.

                                                           Children in Foster Care Incidence Rate

                         50.0
                                 37.7                                                                                          Black
                         40.0
                         30.0                                                                                                  White
                                                                                                                28.7
                         20.0                                                                                                  Hispanic
                         10.0   5.87
                                                                                                                   3.4         Asian
                          0.0
                                1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006    2007    2008

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




  Ethnic Disparity     Compared to White/Caucasian children, African American/Black children show no
                       differences in the outcome areas of: 1) recurrence of maltreatment, 2) reunification
  in Child Welfare
                       within 12 months, 3) reentry following reunification, and 4) placement stability.
        Outcomes
                       Compared to White/Caucasian children, African American/Black children show
                       poorer outcomes in the outcome areas of: 1) adoptions within 12 months, and 2)
                       exits to permanency if in care for at least 24 months.

                       Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Glasser, T., Williams, D., Zimmerman,
                       K., Simon, V., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Lou, C., Peng, C., Holmes, A. & Moore, M. (2010).
                       Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved, from University of California at Berkeley
                       Center for Social Services Research website. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                                               60
K.      Peer Quality Case Review Summary

                      Contra Costa County conducted its Peer Quality Case Review in April 2009. This
                      collaborative process between Children and Family Services (CFS), Juvenile
                      Probation, Bay Area Academy and California Department of Social Services is
                      designed to reflect on a practice area that CFS and Probation would like to focus on
                      to better understand where the agency is succeeding and how to improve services.
                      To further enhance the learning, Contra Costa County invited Alameda, Orange,
                      Riverside and San Joaquin Counties to participate as peer reviewers because they
                      are doing better in the focus areas chosen for this PQCR. Probation also chose to
                      have Community Partners participate. This fostered a dynamic county exchange of
                      information and practices to further assist continuous improvement efforts.


                      The area of focus chosen by CFS was the outcome indicator, measure C3.1; exits to
                      permanency: if in care at least 24 months; more specifically, for children who have
                      been in out of home care for over 2 years what percentage achieved permanency
                      within the next 12 months and prior to turning18 years old. This focus was chosen
                      as the county is performing below the State average and below the National
                      Standard of 29.1%. In addition, this outcome is consistent with Children and Family
                      Service’s mission: “When children cannot be cared for by their families due to safety
                      issues, we place them with families that can make a lifelong commitment to them.”

                      Juvenile Probation selected the outcome indicator of reentry into care, aftercare
                      services focusing on family engagement. This area of focus was chosen so that
                      work practices and its impact on children and families could be assessed and
                      collaboration encouraged. This area of focus parallels the county’s System
                      Improvement Plan which will help guide the county’s improvement efforts.

                      The PQCR process occurred from April 27 -30, 2009. Two full days were set aside
                      for interviews. Nine interviews occurred per day for a total of 18 interviews.
                      Additional cases were identified for purposes of backup. A total of twelve social
                      workers and three probation officers were interviewed. The probation officers were
                      interviewed twice. In addition Contra Costa conducted 6 focus groups with foster
                      parents, supervisors, social workers, young teens in Specialize Placement, older
                      teens in the Independent Living Skills Program and with birth parents.

                      Rich information was gained from the PQCR process which was ultimately crafted
                      into detailed observations (please see section IV of the report: Final Summary and
                      Next Steps). The system’s strengths were identified and recorded. Strengths of
                      both agencies were included (please see section III of the report: Summary of
                      Practice).

                      One of the objectives of the PQCR process is to gain practice information to guide
                      areas to be furthered assessed in the self-assessment process. The PQCR process
                      uncovered challenges that social workers, probation officers, supervisors, youth,
                      parents, service providers and caregivers see regarding the focus areas. This
                      process uncovered observations regarding practice, system, training and areas to
                      be addressed at the state level.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                               61
                      These observations will be further prioritized and assessed in the self-assessment
                      process which is to be completed by December 2009. The information gathered
                      from the self-assessment process will explore observations made at the PQCR and
                      subsequent observations, which will drive the three-year System Improvement Plan
                      that Contra Costa will develop by March 2010.

                      Contra Costa County values the rich information obtained from this process and
                      thanks go out to all who participated. The Contra Costa County self assessment
                      process will be clustered around the observations made in the PQCR report so that
                      the most effective system improvement plan is developed to improve timely
                      reunification for families in Contra Costa County.



  Prioritized areas   The following areas have been identified for further consideration and discussion by
                      Children & Family Services:
        for further
  consideration for           Agency-wide assessment and training focusing on valuing permanency and
               CFS             the practice of concurrent planning throughout the agency; extended for all
                               children.

                              Assess and integrate the Adoptions workers into the regular child welfare
                               continuum of practice from the beginning.

                              Consider offering social workers support around grief and loss associated
                               with recent layoffs and movement of staff positions.

                              Offer relative caregivers resources and support with successfully completing
                               the relative assessment process.



  Prioritized areas   The following areas have been identified for further consideration and discussion by
                      Children & Family Services:
        for further
  consideration for           Develop probation officers skills in developing relationships with the children
Juvenile Probation
                              Develop a formalized group process for transitioning children from
                               placement which is inclusive of service providers and the family.

                              Develop more local after care resources such as wrap-around, pro-social
                               activities and in-home supportive services.

                              Consider having the placement officer keep case the for 90 days through
                               the transition out of placement.




        Overall       The following list identifies recommendations from the Peer Quality Review for
                      Children & Family Services:
Recommendations
        for CFS


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  62
                              Agency-wide assessment and training focusing on valuing permanency and
                               the practice of concurrent planning throughout the agency; extended for all
                               children.
                                    o Helping social workers have difficult conversations.
                                    o Helping social workers work with ambivalence with foster parents,
                                       relatives and birth parents.
                                    o Managers and supervisors supporting permanency efforts and
                                       working through ambivalence within the agency.
                                    o Business processes that support continual concurrent planning and
                                       permanency
                                    o Make “Adoption” the goal for all children in long-term foster care.
                                    o Consistent permanency meetings for all children detailed in the
                                       case plans and court reports.

                              Assess and integrate the Adoptions workers into the regular child welfare
                               continuum of practice from the beginning
                                   o Consider a teaming process between the case carrying social
                                       worker and the adoption’s social worker.
                                   o Adoptions workers provide information and counsel on all
                                       permanency options to birth parents and caregivers, working
                                       through questions and concerns.
                                   o Social workers work with youth’s common ambivalence around
                                       adoption and guardianship.

                              Consider offering social workers support around grief and loss associated
                               with recent layoffs and movement of staff positions
                                   o Consider ways to streamline the workload so that social workers are
                                       not experiencing strain.

                              Offer relative caregivers resources and support with successfully completing
                               the relative assessment process
                                   o Work with relatives on the effects of trauma on child development
                                        and their expectations and strategies for parenting in their home.
                                   o Consider reviewing other county’s relative assessment and
                                        supportive practices to get ideas for resources and support.
                                   o Offer Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) consistently throughout the
                                        child welfare continuum of practice. Implement participatory case
                                        planning with parents and children

                              Examine the group home system and effective ways for moving children
                               toward family care and permanency
                                  o Spot check group homes for quality of care.

                              Consider offering a brief risk and safety tool that supports social worker
                               decision making and consistency of practice.




Identified Training   Training needs have been identified as follows:
             Needs
                              Advanced concurrent planning training for all levels of staff.

                              Training on searching for relatives and family friends throughout the life of


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                63
                               the case and keep a living record.

                              Training on the effects of trauma on child development and effective
                               parenting techniques for staff, foster parents and relatives/Non-Relative
                               Extended Family Members.

                              Strengths based engagement training for social workers to increase
                               consistency of practice.

                              Refresher training on Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) for staff.

                              Training for staff new to positions on job tasks and performance (particularly
                               initial family assessments).



          Overall     Recommendations for Probation are as follows:
Recommendations
                              Probation officers should have time and skills to really develop a relationship
    for Probation              with the children
                                   o Consider offering probation officers a 4/10 schedule so that they
                                        have time to engage with families and children.

                              Implement group transition meetings. Have more adults involved including
                               mental health, relatives, community partners, schools, staff, family,
                               community etc.
                                   o Develop CASA’s.

                              Develop more local after care resources such as wrap-around, pro-social
                               activities and in-home supportive services

                              Consider having the placement officer keep case the for 90 days through
                               the transition to stabilize the family.
                                    o If there has to be an immediate transfer of a child to a new
                                       probation officer when they return home, the new officer should see
                                       the child and family immediately and often.

                              Consider having the placement order suspended instead of dismissed

                              Provide laptops for probation officer

                              Develop more understanding of local community resources and how to
                               engage them

                              Consider having new probation officer shadow seasoned probation officers
                               before moving on to a new assignment


                              Utilize dual jurisdiction as a placement strategy for children

                              Develop a smoother process between Children and Family Services and
                               Probation for dual jurisdiction

                              Consider developing a specialized foster care program for stepping down


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  64
                               probation youth

                              Consider developing one or two out of state placements for gang affiliated
                               kid

                              Create incentives for parents to engage (e.g. waive fines if they participate)

                              Engaging with the family could start in investigations



Identified Training    Identified training needs are:
             Needs
                              Provide Family Finding training

                              Provide engagement training to probation officer

                              Relative and Non-Relative Extended Family Member training

                              Concurrent planning training: Developing alternative relative placements



    Identified State   State technical assistance will be needed to provide access to CWS/CMS for
                       juvenile probation staff.
          Technical
        Assistance




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 65
L.      Systemic Factors

     1. Relevant Management Information Systems

      Systems Used    The statewide Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) is the
                      primary system used in Contra Costa for tracking referrals, cases, placements, court
                      activity and clients. Since implementation of CWS/CMS in Contra Costa, there have
                      been efforts to assure accurate, timely data and full utilization of the system.
                      Monitoring performance outcomes, reporting on timeliness of input, providing
                      supports for staff training and utilization, and focusing on areas requiring
                      improvement have created an environment where Contra Costa has confidence that
                      data is generally reliable.

                      When it becomes evident that there are issues requiring attention, plans for
                      improvement are implemented. For example, in reviewing the Siblings Placed
                      Together outcome, it became apparent that work was required on the Relationship
                      Table. plans have been activated to support correction of existing information and
                      accurate entry of new information. Work continues in this area.

                      The CalWIN system is used in Contra Costa for eligibility determination and benefit
                      issuance for Foster Care and Adoptive Parents.

                      In addition to CWS/CMS and CalWIN, there are several related systems with
                      functions that supplement and enhance the information in CWS/CMS. These
                      include:

                              Differential Response – Service Provider case management system for
                               tracking prevention services for families at risk of Child Welfare services.
                              Emergency Shelter – supplements the CWS/CMS system in tracking current
                               placement vacancies
                              Trust Fund Management – Tracks account balances of Trust Funds for
                               children in placement to control expenditures and maintain accounts below
                               property limits
                              Safe Measures – Dynamic reporting systems used by staff at all levels to
                               manage work and monitor compliance and performance
                              Relative Assessment Database – Tracks relatives identified for assessment
                               for potential relative placement of children
                              Placement Overpayment – Tracks placement changes for foster care
                               eligibility purposes; used to evaluate training and support needs for prompt
                               notification and action for changes in placement
                              Receiving Center Database – Traffic and services tracking system used by
                               providers and Public Health for children in Receiving Centers


                      To track activities for CAPIT, CBCAP, PSSF, several of the databases listed above are
                      used (i.e., Differential Response, CWS/CMS) in addition to stand alone databases and
                      spreadsheets used to track services quality assurance procedures, and
                      funding/contractual issues..




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                               66
                      Additional systems used for tracking Probation activities include a legacy system
                      developed and serviced through the “DOIT,” which is a branch of Contra Costa County
                      Information Technology Services. Probation is also a part of the phase II counties who
                      will be using CWS/CMS for all youth under delinquency court jurisdiction who is placed
                      in an AFDC-FC eligible foster care setting (foster home, group home, relative caregiver)
                      and any youth who meets the definition of a IV-E candidate for foster care.

                      There are a variety of support staff and procedures in place to sustain accurate and
                      timely entry of data to the various systems. The following describes these support
                      features.



            ATM’s     ATM’s – Application Trainers Mentors provide training and systems support for staff
                      using CWS/CMS, related systems and various computer software programs.

                      With the budget decreases in the past two years, there have been reductions in
                      number of ATM’s but the value of the function was recognized and some staff in this
                      position were sustained through cuts.

                      The ATM’s are closely connected to the department’s Information Technology
                      Application Support and Networking staff regularly meeting to share ideas, issues,
                      and target areas for improvement to assure county wide consistency.



         Research &   Contra Costa’s integration of Research and Evaluation into workload, policy and practice
         Evaluation   management became formalized in December of 2009 with the hiring of a Research and
                      Evaluation Manager. The Research and Evaluation Manager participates at the
                      Administrative Team level and is responsive to all Bureau needs for data and analysis
                      and evaluation of data. With increased use of data in policy and practice decisions, the
                      quality of our data has increased as has the awareness of the importance of data usage
                      as an integral part of the continuous quality improvement process. The Research and
                      Evaluation Manager assists is trainings and is responsive to both staff and administrative
                      concerns and requests for data.



           Training   Contra Costa has one Staff Development Specialist who specializes in training to
                      CWS/CMS and related systems. In addition, other training needs are met through a
                      variety of outside sources. ATM’s provide one on one training and support for staff
                      as needed at the district line level and also support classroom training for CWS/CMS
                      and various applications.



 Case Read Protocol   In 2006, the department implemented an innovative training segment for Child
                      Welfare Services new social worker training to accentuate the importance of good
                      record keeping, to re-enforce use of CWS/CMS and help informed practice. The
                      training, called the Case Read Protocol, poses a research question to the new
                      workers. The Lead Research Evaluator presents background demographic and
                      outcomes measurement information related to the topic. Each worker is given a list
                      of cases and asked to research CWS/CMS to complete questions that are not easily
                      retrieved from CWS/CMS data fields.



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                              67
                       For example, the current training class will be reviewing children under 13 with more
                       than 3 placements in a year to determine reasons for multiple placements. The
                       outcomes of this training session for new workers is:
                            More thorough understanding of navigating CWS/CMS
                            A chance to review cases with both good and poor documentation
                            An understanding of what needs to be recorded to understand the case
                              history
                            How practice is informed by what is completed on a case

                       In addition, practice issues can also be addressed as they arise in the process. The
                       added benefit to administration is research in areas being assessed for systems
                       and/or practice changes.



      Safe Measures    Safe Measures – Implemented in 2004, Safe Measures is not integrated at all
                       staffing levels.   Social Workers review caseload specific case management
                       information, supervisors and managers review for tracking performance and
                       compliance, Research and Evaluation uses reports and data for outcome
                       measurement and trend analysis. Use of this tool has been a significant factor in
                       improving outcomes in compliance related areas such as timely referral response
                       and social worker visits.



    Clerical Support   Clerical staff continue to support CWS social workers in entry of data. Data entry
                       forms that mimic CWS/CMS screens are provided and can be utilized by Social
                       Workers and handed to clerical staff for entry.      Social Workers maintain the
                       responsibility to assure entries are accurate




    2. Case Review Systems

   Court Structure/    The Superior Court of Contra Costa County includes a Juvenile Court section
      Relationship     consisting of judges and commissioners. These six judicial officers hear all child
                       welfare and delinquency matters in the county. There are Juvenile Court facilities in
                       Richmond for families from the western part of the county and in Martinez for
                       families in the central and eastern sections of the county.

                       All children involved in dependency court are referred for legal representation to the
                       public bar. Legal resources include the Public Defender, Alternate Defender and a
                       conflicts panel of private attorneys. Some families not eligible for services from the
                       public bar hire private representation from the local legal community. County
                       Counsel provides representation for the Bureau. Children are also served by a
                       strong Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteer program within the
                       county.
                       In past years, Contra Costa had Social Workers assigned to a Court Unit who
                       prepared petitions and juris dispos. With staff reductions in the past year, court
                       responsibilities were disseminated to all levels and programs of Social Work staff.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 68
                        Each district office has a court representative – a supervisor-level position that
                        represents the interests of the Bureau at Court and assists workers in most
                        proceedings. This helps to reduce the time that workers need to be at Court.

                        The Juvenile Court legal environment tends to be litigious in Contra Costa County.
                        This results in a large number of contests and continuances, often impacting the
                        time to disposition, reunification and adoption.

                        There are a large number of appeals by parents’ attorneys, even after termination of
                        parental rights. The Bureau is making ongoing efforts to decrease contested
                        hearings. A formal mediation process is also available to the parties, especially at
                        jurisdiction, to decrease the frequency of contested jurisdictional hearings. There is
                        concern that this process is not being effectively used.

                        There are several regular meetings for Bureau staff, court and legal personnel to
                        work on issues of communication and to improve working relationships:

                               Social Work Attorney Training Team (SWATT): Court representatives and
                                court unit staff meet regularly with attorneys (public defenders and alternate
                                defense) to discuss issues and concerns, problem-solve and improve
                                working relationships.

                               Judge’s Meetings: The Bureau director and division managers, meet bi-
                                monthly with the judges and commissioners, CASA, public and private
                                attorneys representing the Juvenile Bar and court administrative staff.

                               All Agency Court meetings: This is a forum where administrators from
                                Probation, Mental Health and Children and Family Services meet with the
                                Juvenile Bench on a bi-monthly basis.



 Timely Notification    The emergency response social worker provides notice of the detention hearing to
        of Hearings     all parties and documents that notice in the report provided at detention. The petition
                        itself includes on its face the date of the first Jurisdictional Hearing. In addition, the
                        Superior Court Clerk sends out notices to all parties after the detention hearing. The
                        Bureau sends out a notice in the form of the court report for all hearings which
                        require a report. When it is believed that an address may not be accurate, the
                        worker also notifies parties by telephone. There is a section in every court report
                        documenting how each party was noticed. For continued hearings and contests set
                        after the initial court hearing, the social worker provides notice to the parents.

                        The Bureau continues to seek improvement in the notice and feedback process for
                        substitute care providers. County policy indicates that a form is to be sent to the
                        substitute care provider prior to each hearing advising them that the hearing is set
                        and seeking input on the course of the case. These forms are available in the
                        district offices, but the rate at which they are being used is unknown.



 Parent-Child/Youth     Family Engagement and participation of families in Case Planning has been and
Participation in Case   continues to be a focus for Contra Costa. Contra Costa was awarded a
                        Comprehensive Family Assessment federal grant in 2008 to strengthen performance
            Planning
                        and practice in this area.



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                      69
                      Planning for federal grant activities involved a series of meetings looking at Family
                      Engagement from the perspective of families we serve and from the Social Worker.
                      The deliverable from these sessions was a documented plan that incorporates Best
                      Practices in family engagement. Contra Costa continues a focus in this area. This
                      plan was implemented to limited staff in each office for the federal grant pilot and is
                      being incorporated into general practice.

                      The court process initiates two important case planning tools for families: the Early
                      Intervention Outreach Specialist (EIOS) and the Parent Partner. The EIOS is at
                      court and available to meet with families regarding substance abuse related
                      concerns. The EIOS can assist families in getting involved quickly in services. The
                      EIOS program was designed with the litigious nature of court in mind in that the
                      information gathered by the EIOS is never provided to the social worker and cannot
                      be used against the family. The Parent Partner Program provides support for
                      families at the initial detention hearing. Parent Partners are available to meet with
                      families and assist them through the process of self advocacy and service
                      involvement.

                      Team Decision Making Meetings to also engage youth and adults in the case
                      planning process. At the TDM a family can connect with service providers and begin
                      to discuss what they must do to make their home a safe place for their child.



      General Case    Supervisors in Contra Costa have always reviewed and approved case plans
      Planning and    generated by social work staff.
            Review
                      In the last Systems Improvement Plan, Contra Costa worked on a strategy for
                      performance improvement in Measure C1.3, Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to
                      Reunification. Activities also focused on individualized, culturally competent case
                      plans including more extensive engagement of parents and youth in the planning
                      process.

                      Changes implemented as a necessary result of budget reductions have supported
                      Contra Costa’s plan for broader family involvement in case planning and more
                      focused, concise case plans. In the past six months, there has been more scrutiny
                      of parent services and responsibilities identified in the case planning process to
                      assure activities are not duplicative, support the case plan goal, and utilize all
                      available resources. This scrutiny was necessary because of budget reductions and
                      the need for diligence in monitoring expenditures. Several Director/staff meetings
                      have been held to discuss, plan, and support this direction. A secondary advantage
                      of the emphasis in this area has been closer supervisory review and more structured
                      protocols for Division Manager review and approval of parent services and
                      requirements.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 70
    3. Foster/Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention

                       Contra Costa has dedicated homefinding staff that perform licensing and adoptive
                       home studies. The Bureau combined the home study process so that foster home
                       and adoptive home licensing are performed simultaneously.

                       Services in support of foster and adoptive parents include:



                              Contracted community liaisons to assist with recruitment within their
                               communities;
                              One post-adoption resource centers;
                              A foster parent liaison who works closely with the Bureau;
                              Family Enhancement Collaboration which provides services to relative
                               caregivers and families in the child welfare system through kinship support
                               services, family preservation, and family mentoring. Services are provided
                               in a community based setting and are used to prevent placement and
                               expedite reunification;
                              Twice a year resource parent newsletter;
                              Coffee clutches in each of the regions to address region specific issues in
                               combination with general training.


  General Licensing,   Contra Costa has been an Annie E. Casey/Stuart Foundation Family to Family
   Recruitment, and    county since 2001. There are monthly orientations held across the county at which
                       Family to Family is discussed and the applicants may specifically identify F2F as
          Retention
                       their preference. All applicants receive a follow-up telephone contact to answer any
                       questions or to assist with the licensing paperwork. Additionally, orientations specific
                       to F2F are held in the phase-in areas, including Spanish-speaking presentations.

                       There is a community liaison that covers the county to assist with the recruitment of
                       F2F homes and refer interested community members to orientations.

                       To effectively coordinate the all recruitment activities, including F2F homes, a
                       monthly recruitment and retention meeting is held on the fourth Tuesday of each
                       month. This meeting consists of scheduling specific F2F events, discussing
                       recruitment strategies, and planning for participation in events held in the phase-in
                       areas to present information about F2F and assist potential applicants.

                       Training opportunities for foster parents are plentiful. CFS has a collaborative
                       partnership with the three community colleges- Los Medanos, Contra Costa College
                       and Diablo Valley College - to facilitate trainings specific to F2F resource homes,
                       such as working with birth families, child development issues and providing
                       networking opportunities for F2F resource homes.

                       CFS also follows up with any foster parent that exits the system to identify retention
                       issues to ensure that adequate training, support systems and resources can be
                       identified to support retention of F2F resource homes.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                   71
                      The Bureau also has a foster parent steering committee where foster parents and
                      child welfare staff at all levels are able to develop policy to assist in supporting the
                      needs of foster homes. This committee has been the leaders to ensure new foster
                      parents are also supported by providing peer mentors.




Placement Resources   Contra Costa County recruits for sibling groups, older children and special needs
                      children at all times. Adoption and licensing supervisors meet monthly with
                      supervisors from the greater Bay area to discuss recruitment strategies and share
                      information with a focus on difficult to place children. CFS also participates in the
                      Valley Exchange and Bay Area Supervisors of Adoption, two groups in the Northern
                      California region where public and private adoption agencies meet together to share
                      available children and families to facilitate finding a family for children in need of a
                      permanent and lifelong commitment. These children are often older children and/or
                      sibling groups.




    4. Quality Assurance System

                      Contra Costa remains committed to continual performance and practice review. The
                      primary goals begin with protection to children and greater service to families but
                      also incorporates efficiency of staff resources, satisfaction of families and staff and
                      compliance with regulatory guidelines.

                      This section of the CSA documents Quality Assurance systems to support continual
                      oversight, monitoring, and improvement in performance

                      The department’s intent is to involve staff at supervisory and line level in planning
                      and implementing action plans for practice improvements, new initiatives, and new
                      programs. The inclusion of staff in planning informs management of staff concerns,
                      allows a dialog so staff can hear rational for decisions, supports leadership
                      development of staff, and ultimately generates a better product.

                      To support all of the meetings and efforts listed below, the Research and Evaluation
                      Manager provides data to support review and planning, inform policy and practice,
                      and provide evidence for decision making.



Project Management    The Project Management Team meets each month to manage and coordinate
              Team    projects. Standing members are: the Director, all Division Managers, Parent
                      Partners, Program Analysts, Staff Development, the Research and Evaluation
                      Manager. Attending on an ad hoc basis are supervisors or other project leads for
                      new initiatives or practices.

                      PMT reviews the System Improvement Plan, tracks and monitors performance in
                      outcome indicators, and tracks progress in specific activities designed to improve
                      performance in selected areas.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  72
                        In addition, PMT incorporates discussion and tracking of activities identified in
                        various grants and special projects including the federal Comprehensive Federal
                        Assessments grant, Residentially Based Services project, and Systems of Care.
                        The premise of PMT is to provide a forum for overarching discussion and
                        management of all initiatives and projects to coordinate resource needs, assure
                        balance in training and implementation of new activities, identify overlaps and
                        inconsistencies, and assure knowledge and communication.




    CWS Leadership      Formerly called the All Sups meeting, the name of this meeting was changed to align
             Team       with department philosophy that supervisors and managers input is integrated into
                        direction, planning and decision making.

                        This team meets monthly and is comprised of Supervisors, Program Analysts, Staff
                        Development, Managers, and the CFS Division Managers. Agenda for these
                        meetings include discussion of project implementation, practice issues, review of
                        relevant case activities and implications for practice improvement, and information
                        sharing. It also provides a forum for supervisors to directly speak with the director
                        about issues they feel are important. The overarching goal of these meetings is to
                        work towards quality assurance of services provided to children and families and
                        consistency of practice across districts.



  Director’s District   The Director of CFS regularly schedules district staff meetings to communicate with
     Staff Meetings     staff regarding the updated outcomes, program implementation and evaluation.
                        These can be regularly scheduled meetings or Brown Bag lunch time discussions.
                        The meeting open an direct dialog with the director and line staff and present an
                        opportunity for the director to seek input for pending decisions, share with staff
                        rational for decisions that may seem arbitrary to them, and preview trends and
                        direction. For staff, this is an opportunity to voice opinions directly to the Director.



  Case Read for New     Contra Costa has not held a New Worker Training Class for several years because
   Worker Training      of budget constraints and staff cut-back. However, when new worker training
                        resumes, Contra Costa will continue to incorporate a “case read” segment.

                        The Bureau identifies an area about which they would like more information. The
                        information requested is not available from a report from CWS/CMS but can only be
                        ascertained by reading the online CWS/CMS contacts and notes or by reviewing the
                        physical case file. The social workers are presented with an overview of the
                        outcomes and the importance of good record keeping. They are then given a
                        questionnaire to complete on a sample of cases. Using a review of the online
                        CWS/CMS record and the case file, the questionnaire is completed. The topics of
                        some of these case reads have been: multiple placements for children, reasons
                        children are placed in other counties, etc. This innovative program has two major
                        purposes. It gathers information on topics the Bureau is struggling with
                        understanding fully, and trains the new workers on the importance of documentation
                        in CWS/CMS. Valuable qualitative information has been found in these case read
                        sessions and this information has informed policy and training practices.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                    73
       Case Reviews    Originally a few meetings were scheduled to look at specific case actions around
                       Domestic Violence. The management team reviewed case action from one or two
                       cases from each district to look at consistency and quality of practice, identify
                       training needs, and determine necessary guidance and supports needed for Social
                       Worker. The cases were then presented to supervisors and staff for discussion.
                       The format for these meetings was very powerful because of the relevancy of the
                       cases and the variety of opinions regarding appropriate response. The result was
                       the establishment regularly scheduled meetings for Case Reviews.             The
                       Administration Team meets once a month. Areas discussed over the past two years
                       include out of home abuse, exigent circumstances, screening, and pos tox.



 Fairness and Equity   In 2002, Contra Costa embarked on a Fairness and Equity plan, with a goal to
                       reduce disproportionality in the child welfare system and create an environment
                       where biases in decision making can be addressed in a safe environment. Though
                       there is evidence of some improvement in areas of disparity and disproportionality,
                       more work remains. An oversight committee, currently on hiatus, focuses on
                       practice related issues in this area. In addition, disproportionality as a systemic
                       issue was a topic for the past Systems Improvement Plan.

                       Over the past three years, a training session, “Words Mean Things” was presented
                       to all staff to raise awareness of the bias implicit in language and to promote
                       strength based presentation of case and family information.



 Placement Resource    The County established a Placement Resource Expansion Team comprised of CFS,
    Expansion Team     Mental Health and, Juvenile Probation to address the high level placement needs of
                       children in our county. The goal is to develop a continuum of care for children in
                       placements rated as level 12 and higher.



    Supervisor Case    The Bureau has a policy that supervisors meet with their workers and review cases
       Conferences     at least monthly. During this meeting, the supervisor also reviews Safe Measures
                       compliance reports with the worker and discusses success, challenges, and
                       strategies for reaching and maintaining compliance. This is in addition to frequent
                       “informal” case staffing between workers and supervisors.



         Supervisor    This guideline was created by the Systems Improvement Plan “timely reunification”
     Discussion and    workgroup. The guideline is a checklist to support Social Workers in assessing
                       issues, setting goals, and planning for reunification.
Assessment Protocol



 Disposition Review    Contra Costa has a Disposition Review Team in each geographical district. This
                       team is chaired by the Division Manager responsible for child welfare operations in
                       that district. The Disposition Review Teams consist of the case carrying social
                       worker, district supervisors, appropriate liaisons, such as domestic violence and
                       substance abuse, and the Division Manager. They grapple with such decisions as:




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                              74
                              Closing referrals involving children age three and under,
                              Reviewing high risk cases, such as cases involving severe physical abuse,
                              Reviewing cases where the worker and supervisor feel additional staffing is
                               necessary.



 Placement Resource    The Placement Resource Team (PRT) is comprised of a Division Manager,
              Team     supervisory placement and adoption staff, a mental health manager, and placement
                       specialists at the worker level. When a request is made for a change to a more
                       restrictive placement or higher level of care, the assigned worker must present the
                       case. The emphasis of PRT is to design the least restrictive, most family-like
                       placement for the child and to determine if therapeutic behavioral services or other
                       “wrap-around” services could assist in that goal. In addition, the County’s strong
                       emphasis on recruitment, retention and training of county-licensed foster homes
                       assists in the development and preservation of family-setting placement options for
                       children.
                       The PRT is one of the primary means the Bureau has for addressing concurrent
                       planning early – while the child is in his/her first emergency placement (as well as
                       placement matching to the appropriate level of care).

                       This team is used to identify the appropriate level of care for all children in
                       emergency placements. Staff may come to PRT before the end of the 90 days of
                       emergency shelter care to discuss the child's needs and the team will determine the
                       appropriate level of placement and assign a member of the team to find an
                       appropriate county licensed foster home, FFA, group home, etc. Permanency
                       reviews are also conducted and if the plan is adoption, the adoption supervisor
                       assigns a social worker to the case. This includes children in relative and extended
                       family placements.



     Kinship Review    Kinship Review is held at district level with District managers. Cases where children
                       who are placed with relatives and have been in placement for 45 to 60 days are
                       discussed to assure the placement is appropriate and to assess and strategize the
                       potential for legal permanency.



        Permanent      The PP Review meeting takes place monthly in each of the geographic district
  Placement Review     offices. This meeting involves a team of staff (Division Manager, adoptions
                       supervisor, district supervisor and case carrying social worker) who meet to discuss
                       the permanent plan for each child approaching the possible termination of FR
                       services. The team strategizes the best plan for each child, assigns adoption social
                       workers as needed and provides concurrent planning for children in FR



   Compliance with     Beginning in 2004 and continuing through the last Systems Improvement Plan,
 Regulatory Policies   Contra Costa County targeted two compliance indicators:
     and Timelines
                              2B. Percent of child abuse/neglect referrals with a timely response
                              2C. Percent of timely social worker visits with child.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                75
                       Many quality assurance systems were implemented to monitor and improve
                       compliance in these areas. The Safe Measures computer program has been
                       invaluable to track compliance by district, unit and worker. Contra Costa continues
                       to monitor compliance. Other SIP activities now focus attention on compliance
                       related issues such as quality of discussion and assuring at least half of the contacts
                       occur in the child’s residence.

                       It is anticipated that this is an area of further policy development for quality
                       assurance.




    5. Service Array

                       Parents and families involved in the Contra Costa County child welfare system have
                       a full range of services available to them. The Child Abuse Prevention Council of
                       Contra Costa produces a resource directory, Surviving Parenthood, identifying these
                       resources. That brochure documents the availability of current community based
                       and prevention focused programs and activities provided by public and private
                       organizations. The services are sorted by category, include a description of the
                       service, and contact and referral information.

                       In addition to the services noted above, the County has created a number of “liaison”
                       positions that are specifically designed to facilitate increased linkages between child
                       welfare staff, families and existing resources in the community. The County employs
                       liaisons and family advocates/mentors in many areas as listed below. Also listed are
                       a variety of service and support programs administered or co-administered by
                       Children & Family Services.



  Domestic Violence    Two full time experts in domestic violence issues are embedded in the Children and
           Liaisons    Family services units. They provide help with assessment and treatment plans.



  Housing Specialist   One housing specialist works with families in the child welfare system to help them
                       resolve credit problems, develop tenant resumes, connect them with property
                       managers, and generally help secure housing. The housing specialist also works
                       with youth in the ILSP program to help them find housing.


 Education Liaisons    There are 2.5 FTE education specialists who work with social workers, families, and
                       children to expedite school entry, resolve difficulties, promote tutoring, attend IEP
                       meetings, and advocate for the educational success of kids in foster care.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  76
 Early Intervention    The EIOS staff have the goal of helping parents with substance abuse problems
Outreach Specialists   access services, and successfully reunify with their children.



      Mental Health    Two full time mental health liaisons are available to assist social workers in
           Liaisons    negotiating referrals to mental health services and accessing mental health
                       resources.



       Public Health   Public Health Nurses are co-located at Children & Family Services districts to assist
             Nurses    in procuring health records and provide consultation regarding health issues for
                       Foster children.



        Community      Two full time CES work to engage families at-risk of entering the child welfare
       Engagement      system and link them to Path 1 community-based case management services. CES
                       are also responsible for recruiting resource families within the Redesign impact
   Specialists (CES)
                       areas.



    Parent Partners    1 full-time coordinator, 2 full time and 8 additional part-time Parent Partners are
                       available to help parents navigate the child welfare system, develop supportive
                       relationships that will strengthen and support the family, and facilitate timely
                       permanency for their children. Additional Parent Partners are being hired for
                       mentoring/advocacy services. A new program has been created that will place new
                       staff in each operation office to serve as community resource specialists.



  Adoption Resource    To support our adoptive families, Contra Costa set up three (3) Adoption Resource
            Centers    Centers across the county where families are able to access adoption-related
                       resources, including books, videos and other informative materials to help with their
                       needs. As a result of budget reductions, the County now has one center located
                       centrally. In addition, an Adoptions Educational Liaison is available to assist
                       adoptive families navigate the educational system and advocate for the academic
                       needs of their children.



Family Enhancement     This collaboration provides services to relative caregivers and families in the child
       Collaboration   welfare system, through kinship support services family preservation. Services are
                       provided in a community based setting and are used to prevent placement and
                       expedite reunification




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                77
       Kinship Care    Community-based supportive services to relative caregivers and their children
           Program     include tutoring, after school programs, mentoring, case management, legal
                       assistance, advocacy, recreational activities, respite for the caregivers, therapeutic
                       support groups, educational training, and basic needs assistance. These services
                       are free of charge and are offered through sites located in Richmond, Pittsburg and
                       Concord. All relative caregivers residing in Contra Costa County are eligible to
                       receive services. Currently, there are about 300 families throughout the county who
                       use Kinship services each year.



Family Preservation    This program provides intensive, individualized, in- home case management
          Program      services to approximately 75 Children and Family Services (CFS) families each
                       year. These families have children who are at risk of out-of-home placement.
                       Supportive services tailored to the family’s individual needs are offered to help
                       stabilize the family so that the children can remain safely at home. Services can last
                       up to 6 months.



Children’s Interview   This partnership between Children and Family Services, Law Enforcement, District
              Center   Attorneys, and a nonprofit agency, reduces the number of interviews of children who
                       have suffered sexual abuse and helps build a solid base of evidence against
                       perpetrators. Trained forensic interviewers conduct interviews with the input of these
                       other professionals



 Independent Living    Costa County’s ILSP program is recognized as one of the finest in the State. With
     Skills Program    the 10,000 square foot Independent Living Skills Youth Center the program helps
                       more than one hundred teens successfully emancipate from the child welfare system
                       each year. Additionally, ILSP has an aftercare staff that support youth in the areas
                       of housing, employment, and education until they reach age 21.



     Team Decision     Team Decision Making (TDM) is one of the four core Family-to-Family strategies.
          Making       The primary goals of TDM meetings are to 1) keep children safely at home,
                       whenever possible; 2) if placement is necessary, identify the least restrictive
                       placement available, ideally within the child’s own community; 3) facilitate the
                       reunification/permanency process; and 4) minimize placement disruption for children
                       in foster care.

                       In Contra Costa County, the TDM process was initially implemented in 2003. TDM’s
                       phase were in areas with the highest rates of referrals and removals. Additionally, in
                       an effort to address issues of racial disproportionality of African American children
                       entering the child welfare system, we offer TDMs countywide for all African
                       American families with children under five years of age. Families invite their chosen
                       supports and agency partners to participate in TDM’s in assessing safety and
                       setting a plan for the family.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 78
     Wrap Around      Wraparound services are available to families involved with two or more public
                      agencies such as Mental Health, Social Services, Probation, and Education.
         Services
                      Wraparound brings the various formal (professional) and informal supports (family,
                      friends, and other community members connected to the family) into a “child and
                      family team” that works collaboratively to develop one plan to meet the agency’s
                      requirements and the needs of the family.



       Transitional   Contra Costa County has transitional housing for both in-care youth           and
                      emancipated youth. The in-care program allows 8 youth ages 16-19 to live in
          Housing
                      shared apartment housing. This program has been successful in safely transitioning
                      youth to living independently. The emancipated youth program provides services to
                      youth ages 18-24. The county plan allows for 50 youth to be served. There are
                      currently four providers who offer, apartment living, shared housing and 24hr
                      supervision with shared housing. All the programs have case mangers which assist
                      in helping the youth maintain employment and educational opportunities.



       Community      In 2009 Bureau developed two community visitation centers that can provide
                      supervised visitation for families receiving Family Reunification Services. These
 Visitation Centers
                      centers were developed as a part of a visitation model continuum. The model is a
                      step down model that allows for the reduction in the level of supervision needed for
                      families and allows families to have more frequent visits including weekends and
                      evening.



Community Needs       To respond to specific community needs and create capacity in identified areas,
                      Contra Costa initiated a mini-grants program to provide “seed money” to local
Survey and Mini-
                      community-based agencies to fund services and/or one-time projects serving at-risk
          Grants      families and children.

                      A community needs survey, funded by the State Redesign budget, was designed to
                      help identify the areas of need. The purpose was to learn about community
                      concerns and needs regarding services. The survey was originally conducted in
                      2003 and was again conducted in 2005. We plan to complete an online survey in
                      2010 as a follow-up.

                      The community area surveyed was the Family to Family phase-in communities that
                      have high referral rates. Multi-lingual/cultural community members were hired from
                      partner agencies to go door-to-door to administer the survey. Over 1800 residents
                      were surveyed for the 2005 survey. The information on service needs that was
                      gathered has been used in each of the district offices to further guide capacity
                      building within the target communities. The survey results and a summary of results
                      follow.

                      The County allocates some state redesign and grant funding for mini grants, which is
                      spread out across the Redesign target communities. Mini grants can range up to
                      $3,000.00. The mini grants program has funded several community projects serving
                      at-risk families and children. Examples of projects funded in FY 2009-10 include:
                      youth and community surveys by youth partners to identify service needs and
                      current support services for youth transitioning to self sufficiency; youth enrichment
                      and drop-in centers, including activities to increase school readiness and violence


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                79
                      prevention classes; parenting education classes in English and Spanish; anger
                      management workshops and support groups for youth and their parents to deter
                      violence and gang involvement; teen mentoring programs; Family Counseling
                      services; domestic violence prevention programs; and bilingual English/Spanish
                      booklet for housing resources.   Our RFI for FY 2010-11 mini-grants has been
                      completed and grant awards are currently being processed.



         Outreach     Contra Costa’s connection with communities and community partners provide
                      outreach to community members in identifying and locating support services in a
         Activities
                      variety of topic areas.
                      The Child Abuse Prevention Council publishes a resource directory for Contra
                      Costa. This directory is titled ‘Surviving Parenthood and is in its 11th edition. The
                      directory provides information on a wide variety of topics from identifying and
                      reporting suspected child abuse to service providers and available services. This
                      informational brochure is available to the public; it is also used by Social Work staff
                      because it is maintained as a resource of currently available resources. This guide
                      is an attachment to this report.

                      In addition, general information and referral services are available by calling 2-1-1.
                      This interactive voice system offers 24 hour provider and referral information on the
                      same variety of topics.

                      Contra Costa County Children & Family Services agency continues to sponsor
                      Community Partnership Meetings in each of the three areas of county, East, West,
                      and Central. These meetings are a forum for convening agencies, providers, law
                      enforcement, education, health providers, and faith based organizations to discuss
                      relevant topics pertaining to supporting children and families in the communities.
                      Demographic information and participation rates are shared with committees on a
                      quarterly to semi-annual basis by the CFS Research and Evaluation Manager.
                      These committees are a collaborative gathering so that when a project, policy
                      directive, resource need, or problem arises, ad hoc groups can be convened to
                      address the issue and inform the decision.




Services Funded by     There is a broad range of prevention services funded through CBCAP, CAPIT, and
                       PSSF. These activities have been contracted in order to provide relevant prevention
  CBCAP, CAPIT,
                       services for the children and families of Contra Costa. The services range from primary
             PSSF      prevention activities and information - such as the “Surviving Parenthood” handbook –
                                           th
                       currently in it’s 11 edition, which is a resource directory for Contra Costa and published
                       by the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Contra Costa County, to the secondary and
                       sometimes tertiary prevention activities of our differential response providers who work
                       with families who have had a report of potential child abuse or neglect, but whose
                       problems do not warrant a child welfare case being opened. All of our services funded
                       through the use of these dollars are clearly related to either fostering families staying
                       together safely, or preventing abuse and/or neglect in the first place. See the list of
                       services provided in the table below.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 80
                        Contract                           Prevention Activity
                        Adoption mediation                stable adoptions
                        Adoption Promotion/Support Fund   stable adoptions
                        Bay Point (Ambrose)               differential response
                        Brighter Beginnings               differential response
                        Coronado (YMCA)                   family/child support
                        Differential Response             differential response
                        Kinship (FF)                      kin family services
                        Neighborhood House/Helms          family/child support
                        North Richmond (CHD)              differential response
                        Parent Partners                   family stability/reunification
                        Post Adopt Edu.                   stable adoptions
                        Post Adopt Support Grps           stable adoptions
                        Stand                             domestic violence treatment
                        Community Violence Solutions      domestic violence treatment
                        Mental Health Services            family/child support
                        Catholic Charities                differential response
                        Family Preservation               family stability/reunification
                        Shared Family Care                family stability/reunification
                        Receiving Centers                 child safety
                        Public Health Services            child safety/health




    6. Staff/Provider Training

                      Children & Family Services has two dedicated Staff Development Specialists to
                      provide and coordinate staff and provider training. These trainers report directly to a
                      Children & Family Services Manager thus decisions regarding training are a
                      standing agenda item on the Administrative Team. The manager with Staff
                      Development responsibilities and the Staff Development Specialists prepare training
                      plans and information to assure core training requirement are met and assist in the
                      planning and implementation process for new initiatives to assure staff have the
                      necessary skills to implement the changes.

                      In addition to the two dedicated CFS Staff Development Specialist, a dedicated
                      CWS/CMS trainer provides training on CWS/CMS and other systems used by CFS
                      staff.

                      Staff Development provides core training to the Bureau including new worker
                      training, CWS/CMS and California Law Enforcement Training (CLETS). In addition
                      to the ongoing needs of staff, providers, and the Bureau regarding core practices
                      and issues, advanced training is also provided. Staff Development, Bay Area
                      Training Academy and U.C. Davis provide this training. The Bureau identifies topics
                      for training and Staff Development identifies trainers and processes enrollment to
                      track staff attendance.

                      Staff Development has focused on training in the following areas for the past three
                      years:




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 81
                              Program, policy and procedures for basic Child Welfare programs for staff
                               transitioning into new assignments including court processes

                              Family Engagement

                              Permanency and Transition

                              Cultural competence skills and cross cultural communication for successfully
                               engaging families

                              Developing good case plans with clear, succinct, relevant parent
                               responsibilities and agency agreements

                              Understanding, building and maintaining community partnerships and
                               relationships.

                              Cross training between all parts of the system including community partners.

                              Documentation and accountability including use of CWS/CMS and
                               Comprehensive Assessment Tool

                              Using appropriate, strength based language in documentation for court
                               reports, case plans, and contacts with sensitivity to words and descriptions

                              Addressing ongoing needs of emancipating youth

                              Utilizing programs and resources available to assist families in timely
                               reunification through visitation and stronger partnerships with birth parents


                      Highlights of Staff Development operations include:

                              Staff Development coordinates with the Bay Area Regional Training
                               Academy (BAA), U.C. Davis, the California Department of Social Services,
                               and the Statewide Training Education Committee to provide the most
                               effective means to meet staffs needs.

                              Each new social worker receives a six to eight week core training based on
                               the CalSWEC core competencies and county specific information. This
                               induction training utilizes Bureau subject matter experts, Staff Development
                               personnel, Bay Area Academy and U.C. Davis for trainers and training
                               resources.

                              An ongoing series of training sessions designed to increase the cultural
                               competency of staff and understanding of key issues of disproportionality,
                               fairness and equity.

                              CWS/CMS training is provided on a frequent on-going basis to all staff.

                              CFS Clerical Training.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                82
                      Supervisor and manager training is conducted by contractors who have developed a
                      customized training series for aspiring supervisors and managers. Additionally, Staff
                      Development and selected supervisors collaborate to provide ongoing training for
                      supervisors and managers.

                      Staff Development in collaboration with the Mental Health Department and the Spirit
                      of Caring/System of Care grant had established a collaboration of county agencies
                      that provide cross training to employees. This collaboration’s goal is to better utilize
                      all county resources to share training and to cross train our staff in better
                      understanding other agencies roles and resources. In 2008 the project was
                      defunded.

                      CFS is eager to assess and make any necessary improvements to the
                      organizational culture of children and family services. The Child Welfare League of
                      America’s cultural competency tool has been administered four times, results
                      analyzed and training strategies where adapted in response to the survey findings.
                      Additionally the bureau is now assessing many performance outcomes based on the
                      significant efforts to address issues of culture, bias and disproportionality.




    7. Agency Collaboration

                      The ongoing spirit of collaboration between agencies in Contra Costa providing
                      intervention and prevention services to children and families continues to provide
                      forums for interagency program planning and specific case reviews.

                      In a time of budget constraints when agencies may be competing for limited funds
                      and contract services are reduced, it becomes more difficult but even more
                      important to continue the collaborative environment.

                      The strong engagement of community partners contributes to Contra Costa’s
                      strength in defining and implementing programs that support child welfare,
                      probation, and community goals.

                      All of the efforts add up to a supportive, collaborative effort to integrate services
                      between the Child Welfare system and the community. The partnership between
                      child welfare and nonprofit and public agencies, consumers, faith based
                      organizations, and foster parents has helped hundreds of children and families over
                      the past several years in ways that involved community and client participation to
                      identify issues, share responsibilities and successfully support families. Listed below
                      are forums and meetings that have collaborative partners.



       Placement      The Placement Resource Team is an internal Child Welfare staff meeting utilized to
                      provide a forum for discussing placement needs and permanency planning goals for
        Resource
                      children in out-of-home placement. The Team is headed by a Division Manager and
  Expansion Team      is comprised of a variety of staff with placement expertise and resources. The team
                      also plays a role in determining the level of placement and approving concurrent
                      plans. Children’s Mental Health is an active participant in these meetings bringing
                      their expertise in support of case decisions.


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  83
   Systems of Care    System of Care Planning and Policy Council is an oversight body comprised of top
                      level managers of the child-serving public agencies in Contra Costa County. The
  Grant and Policy
                      Policy Council was developed over ten years ago to provide oversight of the
          Council     Children’s Mental Health Federal grant and provide a forum for interagency
                      collaboration and coordination. Currently the Policy Council provides leadership and
                      oversight for the CFS federal grant that was awarded to the bureau in 2003.



   Promoting Safe     Five collaborations of community based nonprofit service providers work to offer
                      services that support families and children and prevent their entry into the child
and Stable Families
                      welfare system. Those service needs/gaps are identified though the community
Programs Supports     needs assessment survey.



      Community       Children & Family Services hosts regional Community Partnership meetings each
                      month. These meetings bring together families, business people, faith-based
    Partner Teams
                      communities, CBO agency staff, Bureau staff, and interested community people to
                      learn about community needs, Bureau initiatives, and to plan together to better serve
                      children and families.

                      Chaired by Children & Family Services managers, these meetings have substantial
                      representation by a diverse group of community, other agency, and faith-based
                      partners who have engaged in this collaboration. Ad Hoc sub-committees are
                      formed for specific interests are formed to address needs as they are discussed,
                      such as Faith Based services and communication with law enforcement agencies.



    Home Visiting     Since 2003 the County departments of Health Services, Employment and Human
                      Services (Family and Children’s Services Bureau) and Community Services have
     Collaborative
                      been working in a collaborative funding and program partnership with Contra Costa
                      First Five to build and operate the Contra Costa Home Visiting System for children
                      and their families. The Home Visiting System is a continuum of strategies and
                      services that support families with young children, especially families living in the
                      County’s highest need neighborhoods. Home visiting programs in the collaborative
                      include: Black Infant Health, Public Health Nursing Mothers/Infants Program,
                      Welcome Home Baby, Lift Every Voice Project; Prenatal Care Guidance, Medically
                      Vulnerable Infant program, Community Services Program and Differential Response.



                      A memorandum of Understanding to improve service delivery to clients exists
            MOUs      between CFS and a variety of agencies. These include Public Health, County Office
                      of Education, local Community Colleges, Probation, Mental Health, local law
                      enforcement jurisdictions throughout the County, the Contra Costa Sheriff’s
                      Department, and alcohol and other drugs (AOD) service providers. For example, the
                      AOD/CFS Collaboration was originally charged to create an MOU regarding service
                      needs of shared clients but has evolved into an on-going collaboration for improved
                      communication, service delivery and training.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                               84
                      Child welfare leaders meet regularly with judges and commissioners on the juvenile
    Juvenile Court    court to better collaborate. We have begun to share child welfare data with the
                      judges in order to help inform them of the current status of Children & Family
                      Services.



                      The county regularly updates and distributes reports to keep community members,
      Community       foster parents, and other interested parties apprised of child welfare changes,
      Information     successes, and challenges. There is also a foster parent newsletter that goes out
Report, Newsletter    and has articles on a variety of child welfare topics – including child welfare
                      outcomes.
        & web site


  CFS & Probation     The Juvenile Probation Department and the Children & Family Services Bureau
                      have an on-going collaborative relationship that includes joint case staffings, serving
     Collaboration
                      on commissions, and sharing resources. Examples of this relationship include:

                              Juvenile Justice Commission. This advisory body meets on a monthly basis
                               and includes representation from child welfare, probation, juvenile court and
                               the community.

                              Juvenile Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC). Originally
                               charged by the Board of Supervisors in the early 1990’s to investigate
                               Juvenile Hall operations and oversee the design and building of a new
                               facility, the charge of this commission has expanded to address the new
                               challenges for Juvenile Probation in a growing county.

                      Serving as an advisory group to the Board of Supervisors, JSPAC’s membership
                      consists of representatives from all major county departments, representatives from
                      advocate and advisory groups, and several community members. Staffing is
                      provided by a member of the County Administrator’s office. Currently, JSPAC is
                      looking at these initiatives:

                              Blended funding strategies
                              Establishment of an in-county juvenile treatment program
                              Examining the placement and service needs of county youth transitioning
                               from high level placements or coming back from outside of the county. (i.e.
                               returning from a placement outside of the county)

                      Probation is an active member of the council. Probation staff are also active
                      members of the Permanency and Youth Transition workgroup that address
                      operational issues related juvenile justice and child welfare.


                      Dual Jurisdiction Committee. While this committee has been operational for over 9
                      years, in December 2003, the existing Memorandum of Understanding between
                      Probation, Juvenile Court and Children and Family Services Bureau was revised to
                      establish an interagency joint assessment protocol per Welfare and Institutions
                      Code 241.1. The MOU charges the Committee with joint assessments of all child
                      cases where there is the possibility of both W&I 300 and 601/602 involvement. The
                      purpose of the joint assessment “is to determine whether dependency or
                      delinquency serves the best interests of the child and the protection of the
                      community.”

Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 85
    8. Local Systemic Factors

                      For Contra Costa, along with all counties in California, state and local budget deficits
                      are a significant factor for the various government agencies. Contra Costa was one
                      of the first counties to experience significant cuts because of local budget factors
                      and foresight towards further state allocation restrictions.

                      For Children & Family Services, major budget reductions occurred in December
                      2008. With a loss of 35% of staff in the bureau and , a major review of practice was
                      required to align remaining staff in critical assignments, re-engineer processes for
                      optimum efficiency, and examine authorized services and funding sources for those
                      services. The shift resulted in dismantling staff dedicated to the Court Process to
                      Intake and Continuing services positions and spreading court responsibilities to all
                      Social Work staff.

                      The guiding principles for determining reduction and practice changes were safety of
                      children, timely court processing, and compliance with regulatory timelines. An
                      intensive training plan was immediately implemented to support staff during this time
                      of transition.

                      The impact of change these changes was a precipitous decline in performance in
                      compliance outcomes as staff learned new programs and adjusted to organizational
                      changes. Over the past year, Contra Costa has regained most of the initial declines;
                      Children & Family Services acknowledges the efforts and commitment of staff as
                      they have adjusted to these changes.

                      In addition to the staffing cuts the bureau also suffered a reduction in contracted
                      service. These services included the closure of two receiving centers, reduced to all
                      parent contracted services and reduction and aging supports.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  86
M.      Summary Assessment and Self Assessment Discussion

     1. Safety Outcome Indicators

      Performance      Introduction: Overall, Contra Costa County is performing relatively well in the area
                       of safety outcomes. The layoffs that occurred in January 2009 have affected our
                       compliance measures in this area, but luckily have not appeared to have a
                       significant effect upon other safety measures.

                       No recurrence of maltreatment - CFSR measure S1.1: Looking at federal measure
                       of no recurrence of maltreatment within 6-months of a substantiated allegation,
                       Contra Costa is currently performing at above the state average and slightly over the
                       national goal.

                       No maltreatment in foster care – CFSR measure S2.1: Although Contra Costa
                       County is performing slightly under the state average as well as the national goal
                       (0.2%) in this outcome area, the number of children with a substantiated allegation
                       of abuse or neglect is relatively small (in the last 3 quarters examined it has hovered
                       around 10) – although having any children in foster care abused or neglected is
                       unacceptable. We have a dedicated emergency response investigator who only
                       handles investigations of potential abuse/neglect by substitute caregivers.

                       Investigations with a timely response – AB636 Measure 2B:                    The
                       process/compliance indicators 2B (percent of child welfare investigations with a
                       timely response) were previously included in the SIP and have shown significant
                       improvement (10-day referrals) until our recent layoffs. The compliance for our
                       immediate referrals has consistently stayed above 90%, while our 10-day referral
                       compliance has shown a decrease for calendar year 2009 compared to previous
                       years. We have, however, shown month – to – month improvement in this area over
                       the past 9 months, although we still need to improve in this area.

                       Timely social worker visits – AB636 Measure 2C: Timely social worker visits was
                       also a previous SIP item and the County had not completely met the goal of having
                       sustained compliance of 90% or greater – although we were close. Since the layoffs
                       in January 2009, this particular measure has shown the greatest decline and the
                       weakest recovery. Even though recovery has been somewhat slow, there has been
                       some increase seen. For example, in December 2009, the compliance for timely
                       social worker visits was at 88.6% - the highest compliance seen since November
                       and December 2008.

                       A significant amount of time has been devoted to assisting staff in effectively
                       managing their continuing services caseloads. This includes geographic
                       assignments/visits, focusing upon closing cases that can safely be completed, and
                       the opening of a visitation center in order to assist staff with supervised visitations.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                   87
   Self Assessment    WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT?
        Discussion
                              Differential Response- Path 1 & 2 – over 300 families served per year.
                              Timely SW visits – Child Welfare staff are having an active presence in homes.
                               Six month exceptions have been eliminated. Team Decision Making Meetings
                               continue to be a strong focus.
                              Child Welfare staff are having an active presence in homes
                               ▪ No 6 month exceptions
                              Team Decision Meetings (TDM’s) are integrated into practice.
                              Group decision making supports effective placements decisions (PRT).
                              Compliance with 10 day referrals
                              Staff are being trained to the “new way” of doing business
                               ▪ More in-depth family assessments
                               ▪ Following penal code versus W&I Code
                               ▪ Understanding what is minimum sufficient level of care
                               ▪ Leveraging resources – shared mandates
                              Expertise of Domestic Violence, Education, Mental Health, and Public Health
                               Nurse liaisons support families.
                              Family Engagement with clients is a focus.
                               ▪ Permanency is better defined
                               ▪ Parent Partners
                               ▪ Shifts in paradigm
                              Strong collaborative efforts with community partners and agency partners
                               support families.
                              Community understands more what CFS does/ tries to keep families together
                              More supports are available to families caring for our children.
                              Less time in court – more SW time with clients
                              There is a renewed focus on empowering parents.
                              Staff are having difficult conversations regarding permanency thus decreasing
                               time to permanency
                              Diversifying staff
                               ▪ Outreach to schools with BS/MSW programs
                               ▪ Bi-lingual staff recruitment
                              Probation successes:
                               ▪ Manager from MH sits at placement meetings
                               ▪ Engage and tap into their programs for high end/high risk youth
                               ▪ Assess prior to placement
                               ▪ Review community resources/alternatives


                      WHERE ARE OUR CHALLENGES?

                              CFS needs more male parent partners and male social workers
                              Work continues on partnering with Courts for an understanding of CFS role



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                              88
                              Team Decision Making is focused in some zip codes and needs to be expanded
                               across all parts of the county
                              There are limited community resources for families
                              Transition of cases from ER to Continuing Services
                               ▪ Timely f2f visits with current caseloads
                               ▪ “non-effective” use of time
                               ▪ Getting court orders (Dept. 10/30) to know what is required/needed to do.
                               ▪ County Counsel not following up with staff when CFS does not attend hearing
                              Need better communication between ER Investigator and birth parents
                               ▪ Successful investigation means hearing birth family input
                               ▪ Birth families feel railroaded/stereotyped
                               ▪ Birth families need better understanding of CFS function/roles
                               ▪ Need to work for engagement at 1st contact
                              Substance abuse services
                               ▪ Lack of outpatient providers/services
                               ▪ Parent paying for service/will it impact FR rates
                               ▪ Visitation – no aides or support services to assist with
                                 transportation/supervision
                              Probation – case management of cases that seem more “juvenile justice” vs.
                               protection (CFS)
                              Put more services in front end vs. back end- “pay now or pay later”
                              Think outside box – be creative
                              Did parents “get to the end” of service plan- how do we determine?
                              Shift focus to the family assessment rather than just looking at compliance with
                               case plan goals
                              Housing and jobs: Need to support families in transition from participating in
                               mandated/required services to “regular life”
                              How do parents justify 18 months of “gaps” when jobs suspended to comply with
                               mandated/required services for completion of case plans?
                              No step-down for parents - Left them high and dry when children returned
                              Limit number or mandated/required services in cases plans – avoid “LOADED”
                               case plans
                              Exiting should not be seen as a negative impact to families as services end -
                               Need to wrap services around families life
                              3 months at AA/NA as an alternative - can CFS staff “accept” this resource?
                              Local services are needed for sexually exploited children.
                              Families are feeling a lack of finances/medical insurance
                               “Is it just easier to leave out dad” of home and focus on “mom/kids”? Need
                               continued focus on inclusion of both parents in case planning.



                      GAPS IN SERVICES

                              Front end – lack of partnering with Mental Health- what are psychiatric issues
                               vs. CPS issues



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 89
                              MH vs. CFS placements – who can best serve them?
                               ▪ Clarify the role of MH liaisons.
                               ▪ Strengthen continuum of care from youth to adult for transitioning youth.
                              Aging out (17 ½) – what benefits and systems support are available (Probation
                               mandate is different)?
                               ▪ Housing
                               ▪ Education
                              Reduction in adoption staffing has limited adoption staff in a consultant role.
                               Need to have permanent planning talks early in case.
                              Focus on education to avoid disruptions by placement moves; consider the
                               impact on youth
                              Court “disconnect” with staff being at court
                              Engagement of fathers (standards may be different for mom/dad)
                              No high level group homes in county creates more travel time for Social Workers
                              2nd/3rd generation entering system?
                               ▪ Teach/educate to not fall back into system
                              Teen Birth rates:
                               ▪ Types of service available in community- lack of in and out patient programs
                               ▪ Option to have child with them in programs
                               ▪ Limited services/resources
                               ▪ Group homes – disconnect to what youth doing in community/programs while
                                 in placement
                               ▪ TAP Program – youth/pregnancy program has had reductions (countywide –
                                 not just CFS youth)
                               ▪ Reduction in Public Health services


                      PREVENTION SERVICES

                              Prevention services down may mean a delay in FR
                              Teens (former dependents) coming in to CFS system as a parent- what efforts
                               are being made to prevent this?
                              Strength-based social work is needed.
                              “Failure to reunify”- reassess at later points to continue family connections
                              Staying part of child’s life/prescribes how they see us and their children




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  90
    2. Permanency Outcome Indicators

      Performance      Introduction: The area of permanency outcomes is a broad one and encompasses
                       4 federal composite outcomes and 15 distinct measures. We will discuss each
                       composite area in general and then get more specific by looking at the individual
                       measures that make up the composite. Overall, Contra Costa County’s performance
                       in this area is mixed. While we do well in the areas of adoptions and placement
                       stability, we do poorly in the long term care composite – which examines how well a
                       county does in gaining permanence for youth who have been in care for an
                       extended period of time. In addition, our performance in the reunification composite
                       is mixed – we do well in keeping children from coming back into foster care after
                       they have reunified, but we would have to do better at getting more children
                       reunified within the 12 months the federal government uses as the timeframe for
                       timely reunifications. While the 12-month timeline is a federal measure, the
                       measure may not be a realistic timeframe for the families for children to return home
                       safely.


                       Permanency Composite 1: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunifications: The
                       county’s performance in the 4 measures that make up this composite are mixed.
                       Our county does well in that our recidivism rate for reunified children is low (C1.4).
                       Our performance on rates of reunification within 12 months are somewhat below the
                       national goal – especially when examined using an exit cohort methodology (C1.1).
                       As would be expected, the median time to reunification (using an exit cohort) is
                       longer than the national goal (C1.2). Using an entry cohort analysis (C1.3), however,
                       the latest available scores are nearly equal to the national goal (i.e., 47.9% versus
                       48.4% reunified within 12 months of entry). It is possible that the discrepancy
                       between the entry and exit cohorts are related to a relatively high number of children
                       who do end up reunifying – but do so slower than the 12 month timeline set by the
                       national government. Thus, we appear to reunify a reasonable number of children
                       within a year of entry (nearly equal to the national goal), and we also reunify a
                       significant number of children in a period of time over 12 months – thus deflating the
                       percentages on the exit cohort analysis. Of course, safely reunifying children is a
                       part of our mission and even though a large portion of those that do reunify (35-
                       40%) do so in greater than 12 months, it is better to safely reunify these children
                       rather than keep them in care. We will be looking at factors that cause children to
                       reunify in greater than 12 months in order to see if there is anything that can be
                       done to safely and legally speed up the process.

                       Permanency Composite 2: Timeliness of Adoptions: This composite is composed of
                       5 distinct measures related to adoptions. In general, Contra Costa County is
                       performing well in this composite – our composite total score is above the national
                       goal – as are 3 of the five measures making up the composite (C2.1 Adoption within
                       24 months, C2.2 Median time to adoption, C2.5 Adoption within 12 months if legally
                       free). The performance on measure C2.3 – Adoption within 12 months if a child has
                       been in care at least 17 months is significantly below the national standard and the
                       California average. This may be related to the poor performance the County sees in
                       it’s long-term care composite – which will be discussed in the next paragraph.
                       Contra Costa also performs poorly on measure C2.4 which assesses the
                       percentage of children who have been in care for at least 17 months and who were
                       not legally free for adoption on the first day of the year, who then become legally
                       free within the next 6 months. The low percentage of children who become legally
                       free for adoption as measured in C2.4 is likely related to policy which does not


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 91
                       support moving towards termination of parental rights unless an adoption is
                       imminent. There is debate as to whether performing well on this measure is in the
                       best interest of the child and their biological family.

                       Permanency Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Youth in Foster Care: This
                       composite is composed of 3 distinct measures related to long term care and
                       permanency of foster youth. This is an area in which both Contra Costa and State of
                       California perform poorly. As discussed earlier in this report (see PQCR section),
                       measure C3.1 – exits to permanency for children who have been in care at least 24
                       months, is an area in which we perform very poorly. This is related to C3.3 which
                       examines the percentage of youth who emancipate or turn 18 while in care who
                       were in foster care for 3 years or longer. Contra Costa and the state also perform
                       poorly in this outcome. Contra Costa does relatively well (nearly meeting the
                       national goal) on measure C3.2 – which examines children who were legally free for
                       adoption and whether they were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th
                       birthday. For example, in calendar year 2009, there were 4 children who were
                       legally free for adoption who did not get discharged to a permanent home prior to
                       their 18th birthday (and 107 who did; county data pull).


                       Overall, the area of achieving permanency for children who have been in care for a
                       period of time is one of our highest priorities and will be included on the upcoming
                       SIP.

                       Permanency Composite 4: Placement Stability: This composite is composed of 3
                       distinct measures related to placement stability. Overall, Contra Costa is doing
                       relatively well in this area and slightly above the national standard for the composite
                       score using the latest data from SafeMeasures (calendar year 2009). Contra Costa
                       does especially well with keeping the number of placements to 2 or less for children
                       who have been in care for less than 2 years (measures C4.1 and C4.2). For children
                       who have been in care 2 years or more, however, performance suffers. This means
                       that the longer children are in care the greater number of placement moves they
                       experience and a smaller percentage of children have had 2 or fewer moves
                       (national goal is 41.8% and Contra Costa’s percentage is currently 32.6% for
                       calendar year 2009; county data pull).




   Self Assessment    WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT?
        Discussion
                              There is more attention in making placement changes that put siblings together.
                              Adoption resources are more available for sibling sets.
                              Stepping-down placements (higher to lower levels)
                              Staff recognize families needs supersede federal outcomes/timelines
                              Populations we are not serving well are being identified (stratifying/more real
                               applications), for example, MH kids - the issues are changing/different today
                              Placement TDMs (previously limited to specific zip codes)
                               ▪ Identify issues before they become problematic can prevent placement
                                 disruption
                               ▪ Utilized as prevention supports caregivers
                              FR (permanence) “looking at dads more”


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  92
                              Parents – involve birth parent in emancipation process/long term care
                              Survey provided information/data on what did we do well – what is/is not working
                              Parent Partner Model – doing right
                               ▪ Parent Parents never close a case, provide continues support
                               ▪ Parent Partners stay with families through “learning curve”
                               ▪ Program supports empowerment of parents



                      GAPS IN SERVICE

                              Latency age (ages 7-11) – placement options are limited
                               ▪ Residential
                               ▪ Group homes
                               ▪ “Tough age”
                              We need to look at the kinds of placements that work.
                              What are the choices/ placement options that work? Look at successes! For
                               example: Kinship Care
                               ▪ Supports connectness to family
                               ▪ Keeps identity
                               ▪ New law changes Kinship Care to permanent status, status was not seen as
                                 valued previously
                               ▪ Guardianship vs placement
                              Receiving center database provides information
                               ▪ Child focused – input by child
                               ▪ Capturing family data
                              Need to utilize more non-traditional community services
                               ▪ Faith-based – phlethora of support and services
                              There is a continued need to come together to look at assessing ourselves
                               ▪ Multiple agencies (not just CFS)



                      CHALLENGES

                              Data is not available to examine homeless rates and the impact on FR kids
                               ▪ Other organizations may query this and we could utilize their data
                              Ending Foster Care for youth cuts off of ILP, Chaffee grants – this limits
                               youth/families willingness to go to permanency.
                               ▪ Money
                               ▪ Support
                               ▪ Connection to community supports
                               ▪ Older children – question if they want to be adopted
                               ▪ ILP
                              What can be done to support parents who are just “unwilling” to care for their
                               children with no “CPS” issues – parent/child conflict?



Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 93
                              Limited access to birth parent information presents difficulties in supporting
                               emancipating youth in:
                               ▪ Obtaining finances/financial aid
                               ▪ Applying for College
                               ▪ Receiving services
                               ▪ Securing Housing
                              Social Workers need to research for more information on birth father and
                               relatives – whole new group of family members.
                              Siblings with mental health issues/diagnosis
                               ▪ Teaching youth to deal with these issues
                              Need to establish relationships with clients (SW → client)
                               ▪ Keeping “pulse” on community with your client base
                               ▪ Commonalities on referrals
                               ▪ What is common with the community?
                               ▪ Remove what is familiar to child when place away from community
                               ▪ Need to be sensitive to child’s culture/views
                              With staff reductions, there is less time to work with families
                              Legal status vs continued placement
                               ▪ Systemic issue of “having to be in the system”
                               ▪ Resources – can they be accessed?
                              FR/homeless statistics/what are the numbers returned home
                               ▪ This is a “bigger picture”
                               ▪ Outcomes are poor
                               ▪ Limited engagement
                              How to prevent/stop staying in system
                               ▪ FR rates
                               ▪ LTFC
                              More work is needed to support dual parents even when they are not co-
                               parenting.
                               ▪ Need to stress Children & Family Services not Children and Mom services
                               ▪ Rehabilitate together/parent together
                               ▪ Address both parents in closing plan
                               ▪ There is a need for more co-parenting classes
                              Relative placements – explore removing barriers to place children with relatives:
                               ▪ Space
                               ▪ Criminal history
                               ▪ More services quickly
                               ▪ More exceptions/exemptions
                               ▪ CPYP/broke down statistically
                              Relative Liaisons services are both a challenge and a positive influence:
                               ▪ Limited hours they are available
                               ▪ Social workers are reminded to connect families to kinship services




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 94
                      GAPS IN SERVICES

                              Need more Treatment programs for fathers
                               ▪ Can they identify with program? (primarily female clients)
                               ▪ How do we reach those service providers about these issues?
                              Addressing MH kids in a continuum of care; there are agency issues in
                               determining “whose kid is it?” and who determines placement
                              Probation – active placement orders drive the placement/services
                               ▪ Dual jurisdiction cases
                               ▪ Complexity of needs of children coming into either system
                               ▪ Informal probation – 601 behavior
                              Are we looking at services with a strength-based perspective?
                              Are there other services available for youth when they are 18 and dependent of
                               court?
                               ▪ Return to family – what is CFS role
                               ▪ How to get family to see what their role is
                               ▪ Adoption vs. guardianship – differences in services/funding
                              Talking/working with parents to teach them about college age youth needs and
                               issues and to support returning children
                               ▪ Need more available training and services
                               ▪ Parent partners provide some support
                              Need more supports for families in transition
                               ▪ Contracts with CBOs
                               ▪ Declines in financial support/lack of training
                               ▪ Open trainings to community
                               ▪ Getting this information to family/caregiver/social worker from receiving center
                                 database
                              Increased workload (change/reduction in staff)
                              ILP Issues
                               ▪ Wait list for social workers in ILP
                               ▪ All staff should have same knowledge of ILP resources
                               ▪ All kids can go to ILP services – not just those on ILP caseload
                              Youth are changing, S.W. staff are not “keeping up” with these new
                               dynamics/challenges
                               ▪ Work for individualized planning not Cookie Cutter plan



                      WHAT CAN WE IMPROVE?

                              Contact/relationship with attorney
                               ▪ “public pretenders”
                               ▪ Quick interactions – need to be open, communicators
                               ▪ Take time to develop relationships – “these are our children” – need
                                 information




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                              95
                              DV houses/programs for men
                              How do we teach/work with parents upon return of children
                               ▪ General child development


                      PREVENTION SERVICES
                          Kinship Centers
                           ▪ Develop independent living skills
                           ▪ Teaching and modeling
                              Different pockets that are working with families
                               ▪ Assume parents can do this (including caregivers)


                      PROBATION
                          Kids are removed due to their delinquent behavior
                           ▪ where to tap in for continuum of care/aftercare
                           ▪ WRAP/family preservation
                           ▪ Parents have not really embraced them
                           ▪ Need supports/help (parents)
                               Big Brother/Big Sisters programs
                               Mentoring programs
                               Lifelong commitments
                               ▪ After turning 18
                              Shelters versus housing (waiting game/place for father and children)
                              Knowing what resources exist to refer families
                              Some social workers “don’t mix” with their clients
                               ▪ Biased
                               ▪ Too negative (father figures)
                               ▪ Background of social workers my influence decision making
                               ▪ Do we evaluate social workers? (complaints)
                               ▪ Accountability
                              Faith-based – using faith/spirituality as a support (encourage this)
                               ▪ Comfort level to share information with church personnel
                              “My Space” was tapped into/used against client
                               ▪ “not necessarily who I am as a person”
                               ▪ Privacy versus public issues
                               ▪ Don’t stereotype clients
                              Life conference (Solano County) resource
                               ▪ Family searches/finding
                               ▪ Youth connecting with youth 1:1
                               ▪ Youth advocates/partners
                               ▪ Knowing resources (ex: ILP)




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                       96
    3. Well Being Outcome Indicators

      Performance      Introduction: The broad area of “well-being” outcomes is one that was added to the
                       areas of safety and permanence – which have long guided practice and policy in
                       child welfare, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
                       Despite the common sense appeal of “well-being” as an outcome, developing
                       measureable outcomes has proven to be difficult (see Beyond Common Sense:
                       Child Welfare, Child Well-Being, and the Evidence for Policy Reform, by Wulczyn,
                       Barth, Yuan, Jones-Harden, and Landsverk; 2005; Aldine Transaction Publishers,
                       USA). There are no established federal outcomes with national goals/standards
                       using administrative data as there are within the areas of safety and permanence.

                       Despite the lack of established administrative standards, there are several areas of
                       child well-being we have examined and which California has established
                       administrative data measurement. These areas include 1) siblings placed together,
                       timely medical and dental exams for foster children, psychotropic medication
                       authorizations for foster children, least restrictive placement settings, and youth
                       transitioning to self-sufficiency/emancipating.

                       Siblings placed together: Placing siblings together whenever possible is a Bureau
                       goal. The overall rate of placement with all or some siblings has increased slightly
                       over the past 5 years to just over 60%. The placement of all siblings together has
                       shown a similar trend and is now over 40%. We are below the State average for
                       both of these measures. While the Bureau works hard at placing siblings together in
                       care, various factors impact our ability to improve the rate at which we do so. These
                       include the high cost of housing in the county and the ability of caregivers to afford a
                       home with extra bedrooms that can accommodate sibling groups.
                       Timely Medical and Dental Examinations: Contra Costa has significantly improved
                       the percentage of children who receive timely medical and dental exams according
                       to the Child Health and Disability Prevention periodicity schedule. This is an area we
                       are continuing to work to improve and have several innovative processes in place.
                       First, there is an MOU in place between Health Services and CFS which allows for
                       regular data sharing with public health - leading to increased awareness of new
                       foster care cases to be seen for medical and dental assessments and treatments.
                       Secondly, a “foster care clinic” has been running for the past 2 years. This clinic
                       focuses upon the needs of foster children and allows for timely scheduling of
                       medical exams.

                       Psychotropic Medication Authorizations for Foster Youth: The data for both Contra
                       Costa County and the State of California show an increasing percentage of foster
                       youth who have been authorized psychotropic medications. While there may be an
                       actual increase in authorizations, some of the increase can be explained by better
                       recording of authorization information. For example, in Contra Costa we partnered
                       with our Chief Psychiatrist of Mental Health (who oversees all psychotropic
                       medication authorizations) and we were able to update CWS/CMS so that it
                       captured over 90% of the current authorizations, compared to less than 30% (our
                       baseline). We are continuing our quest to fully capture all of the authorizations in a
                       timely and accurate fashion. We will use our current data to compare with future
                       trends.

                       Least restrictive placement setting: The Bureau performs well when examining its
                       least restrictive setting placement rate. Contra Costa County has a significantly
                       higher percentage of youth initially placed in foster homes compared to the State


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                   97
                       average, and a lower percentage placed in group homes. In terms of a youth’s
                       primary placement within a reporting period, Contra Costa has a much higher
                       percentage of youth in Foster Homes than the State average (which has more youth
                       in FFA’s). The percentages for youth in group homes are approximately the same
                       (8%).

                       Youth transitioning to self-sufficiency: The Bureau’s Independent Living Services
                       program is a vital, dynamic program that serves a large number of the youth eligible
                       for services. The County’s performance on the indicators related to ILSP services
                       and outcomes show improvements – although further refinement of the data is
                       needed. ILSP data indicates a greater number of their youth have received a High
                       School diploma or GED, are enrolled in higher education, are employed or have
                       other means of support, and have received ILSP services.



   Self Assessment    WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT?
        Discussion
                              Trained pediatric doctors to using “Xylitol” –dental medication that
                               reverses/protects further dental problems (pre-cavity state)
                               ▪ 52 pediatricians in Contra Costa County trained to using this.
                              Liaisons were maintained through budget cutbacks
                               ▪ Know their specialty areas
                               ▪ Helps staff resolve issues quicker
                              Number of children placed in foster care is declining due to:
                               ▪ More strength-based in assessments to prevent placement
                               ▪ More efforts to support families so children can remain at home
                               ▪ More proactive vs. reactive work.
                              Review of disparity chart – African American families/youth showing stability
                               compared to general population
                              Statistics of African Americans (primary and secondary ethnicity coding in
                               CWS/CMS) may not accurately capture the “ethnicity-identity”
                               ▪ Staff ask families what ethnicity they identify with and use that coding
                              Community partnerships continue to be a strength
                               ▪ Sharing ideas/resources support families and children.
                              Services for emancipated youth including peer counseling
                              Health risks –CFS shares responsibility with caregivers in informing youth
                              Teaching youth to be self-sufficient – impacts foster youth most


                      CHALLENGES

                              Is there a correlation between time in care and economic indicators and poverty
                               levels at location of removal?
                               ▪ There is limited economic family information in CWS/CMS to analyze
                               ▪ Data from census bureau provides some information on average income




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                98
                              Students obtaining a high school diploma vs. not graduating – Are staff utilizing
                               educational supports and services?
                               ▪ Need more collaboration with education for foster youth
                               ▪ Foster youth services avavailability known to students and families on
                                 resources they provide?
                               ▪ Youth Advisory Committee meets-Neely attends
                               ▪ Community Partnership meetings used as a forum to share information
                                 (involve education)
                              Parent employment/unemployment statistics – need to review CalWORKS
                              Percent of seniors who don’t get diploma
                              Front end – when/who steps in for meeting child’s needs?
                              Have hearings (241.1) with probation/not mental health to review cases
                              Knowledge on working cross-agency has changed
                              Need collaborative structure to review cases
                              Inter disciplinary meeting (Sup/DM/line staff) = who can best meet child’s needs
                              Community misperception: Is child in danger or at risk,
                              Becomes court driven system
                               ▪ Not easy to dismiss
                              Previous system review committee – look at “holes” in system
                              Missing AWOLS in data
                               ▪ What data are we collecting?
                               ▪ Permanency –health, etc./What are we doing for them?
                               ▪ How are they marked in CWS/CMS and does social worker know where they
                                 are?
                              They still have medical/dental needs (AWOL’s)
                               ▪ Does Medi-Cal stop so they cannot be seen?
                               ▪ Can set up separate Medi-Cal after foster care money stops
                               ▪ Need to know/get info needed to process application
                               ▪ Better communication with benefits/CFS staff
                               ▪ Review for ‘process’ change. Should be the default that Medi-Cal continues.
                              Notification/having communication about how clients are advised of services
                               available?
                               ▪ How being communicated to care provider what our clients needs are?
                              What services are they entitled to?
                            Services in community not through CFS?
                           Kids placed in other counties
                               ▪ What supports are available?
                              Mental health – statewide issues on “right” services when placed out of county
                               of origin
                               ▪ Example – Solano – managed care system/difficult to access
                               ▪ Many CFS kids in Solano County
                               ▪ Authorization systems do not work
                              High end mental health/CFS kids – no sub-acute placements
                               ▪ Psychiatric hospitalizations


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                              99
                               ▪ Psychiatric services in general for kids not being seen and monitored
                              Solano – their ILP program – out of county youth not hearing of services
                               ▪ Want youth to be proactive in reaching out for services
                              Community colleges provide classes for foster parents and kin providers- do
                               they attend?
                              ILP services – drop in centers/youth do not utilize


                      GAPS

                              Restructure of CFS system/budget cuts
                               ▪ Detention – dispo
                               ▪ Who “owns” case
                               ▪ Not addressing child’s trauma at this point
                              Well-being – ability to continue to attend school district where they were
                               removed from
                               ▪ Limited transportation options
                               ▪ Trauma of removal – what service are we providing?
                              Increase use of TDMs on well being issues of kids in placement for a period of
                               time
                               ▪ Selective use over time
                              Classes – specific to youth (economically/culturally) – can they relate to the
                               class content? (ex. Can I afford those food products?)
                               ▪ How to cook, clean (classes while in care ) geared toward their
                                  economic/cultural background(life skills training)
                               ▪ ILS as an example
                               ▪ Budget needs to be considered (lost 1/3 of staff)
                              Group home providers/foster parents – need to reinforce these skills in
                               placement/reinforce the learning
                              Cutbacks mean we need to be more creative/engage family to think “outside the
                               box”
                               ▪ How are we delivering the services?
                               ▪ Need place to discuss critical decisions about families.
                               ▪ Difficult to make decisions without knowing pulse of community.
                              Services for pregnant teens
                               ▪ Parenting education services lacking
                              Relationships (permanency connections) are they evaluated if these are “good
                               or bad” level of contact
                               ▪ Need qualitative data

                      CHALLENGES/GAPS

                              Need to start life skills at an earlier age (versus 16)
                               ▪ Behavioral skills
                               ▪ Need to widen our focus
                               ▪ Start now at deficit vs. strength-based


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                 100
                               ▪ These children are growing up in our system – establish permanency earlier
                               ▪ What age do kids enter system/young children
                               ▪ Children may chose a “connection” we may not “approve of”
                              Lack of support for young youth
                               ▪ We think they do not know/understand what is going on (birth family may tell
                                 them (“sick vs. dirty test”)
                               ▪ We keep it a “secret” whey they are in system
                              Discipline – line between abuse & discipline (cultural aspects)
                               ▪ Types of discipline (spanking), “whooping”
                               ▪ How family was raised/parenting styles
                               ▪ Classes that teach different types of parenting
                               ▪ Geared toward younger children
                               ▪ Need teen focused classes
                              Social workers can work with parents on effectiveness of parenting
                               (classes/techniques)
                               ▪ Alternative methods to set limits
                              Access to therapy services
                               ▪ Don’t understand CWS clients
                               ▪ Affordability
                               ▪ Spanish speaking population


                      RESOURCES

                              ILP manual ( Put on Formstar & keep updated)
                              Surviving Parenthood (ILP section- stand alone section) Are these being
                               disseminated
                              Child abuse prevention website
                               ▪ Suggest they be put in placement packets
                              Foster parents/mandatory therapy- can we make them go?
                               ▪ Caregiver plan can order therapy
                              Teen pregnancy – all foster youth (youth oriented)
                               ▪ Do they learn parenting?
                               ▪ How to communicate with adults on what “they are feeling”
                               ▪ Communication skills
                               ▪ Pro-social behavior




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                           101
    4. Systemic Outcome Indicators

      Performance      There are many system strengths in Contra Costa County in addition to a few areas
                       of need. Systemic factors that are strengths include use of a management
                       information system, foster/adoptive parent recruitment, licensing, and retention,
                       service array, staff/provider training, and agency collaborations.

                       Areas identified that need improvement are:

                              Reorganization of the social worker and supervisors workload so they can
                               spend more time engaging with families and for supervisors to provide
                               support.
                              Easy access to effective services so families can receive the services they
                               need to reunify quicker.
                              Support staff and improve communication flow within the agency to improve
                               worker morale and the implementation of new initiatives to better serve
                               families.
                              Continue to work on how to improve the relationship between CFS and the
                               Court.
                              Continue to address language/cultural issues to ensure engagement of
                               families and appropriate services identified.
                              Develop visitation methods that support family assessment, engagement
                               and a place for families to try out new positive parenting behaviors with
                               support.
                              Further support social workers, children and families by exploring creative
                               methods of finding out of home care options that meet the individual needs
                               of the child and develop outcome measures to ensure excellent services
                               delivered by placement homes.
                              Continued work – with fresh and evidence informed practices – on lessening
                               the ethnic disparity present within the child welfare system.




    5. Strategies for the Future - Looking Forward to the Systems Improvement Plan

        Summary        All in all, the general trend in Contra Costa continues to be toward performance
                       improvement. One year following major cut-backs Contra Costa is poised to again
       Assessment
                       demonstrate the excellence for which it is recognized.

                       Contra Costa continues to build on strengths of past years even in the current
                       environment of budget constraints. Evidence based and evidence informed practice
                       and best practices influence policy decisions and direction and have been a
                       hallmark of Contra Costa’s philosophy of quality service to families and children.
                       Those strategies put into place in past years when funds were more plentiful have
                       certainly been reviewed for efficacy and competence.


 Looking Forward       With the completion of the Peer Quality Case Review and the Comprehensive Self
                       Assessment, Contra Costa has begun plans for the 2010 – 2013 Systems
       to Systems
                       Improvement Plan.
Improvement Plan


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                          102
                       To begin, Contra Costa’s Project Management Team reviewed performance
                       indicators and determined those areas where need for improvement is apparent.
                       Those areas are listed below:

                           •   Increasing permanency for children in care 2 years or longer, and,
                               decreasing the number of youth that stay in care 3 years or longer until they
                               emancipate

                           •   Timeliness of 10-day referrals

                           •   Timeliness of monthly social worker visits

                           •   Disparity and disproportionality

                           •   Increasing the percentage of emancipating youth with a High School
                               degree/equivalency


                       For those five identified areas, the Research and Evaluation Manager prepared a
                       survey for staff asking for their input in identifying areas of priority. Eighty-four staff
                       completed the anonymous survey. The priority ranking by staff is as follows:

                           •   Highest Priority

                                    –   Increasing permanency for youth who have been in care for 2 or
                                        more years

                           •   2nd Rank

                                    –   Timeliness of SW monthly visits

                           •   3rd Rank

                                    –   Timeliness of 10-day referrals

                           •   4th Rank

                                    –   Increasing HS equivalency for emancipating youth

                           •   5th Rank

                                    –   Disparity and Disproportionality


                       Consistent with Contra Costa’s philosophy of staff involvement, meetings have been
                       scheduled in each of operational district offices. These meetings led by the
                       Research and Evaluation Manager and attended by the full administrative team
                       presents an opportunity for a dialogue with line staff. Summary data about
                       performance in identified areas is reviewed and staff are then asked to brainstorm
                       activities that could assist in improvement in quality of services as well as impacting
                       outcome indicators.

                       Next steps will be to review suggested activities at the Project Management Team
                       and propose a Systems Improvement Plan.


Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                                  103
                       One of the questions asked in the survey to staff was their willingness to participate
                       and/or lead committees of staff and other partners to plan, implement, and monitor
                       new activities identified in the SIP for policy and procedural changes. Some of the
                       most innovative, responsive work for the last SIP came from supervisory led
                                                            rd
                       workgroups, and approximately 1/3 of staff have said they were interested in being
                                                                       rd
                       a part of our SIP workgroups and another 1/3 said that that they may be interested.
                       Though budget reductions have impacted staff and workload, Contra Costa looks
                       forward to continued collaboration and commitment of staff at all levels in
                       performance improvement.




Contra Costa County Self Assessment, April 2010                                                             104

								
To top