The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18-11 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 18-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONTINUATION OF THE TEMECULA AREA CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP AS IT RELATES TO SUPPORT FOR AREA FOSTER YOUTH, INCLUDING EMANCIPATING FORMER FOSTER YOUTH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. The Foster Youth Task Force was formed by the Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership in January, 2009 to study the needs of our foster youth and to make recommendations to improve their conditions. B. The Task Force comprises representatives from civic, service, and religious organizations as the City, the School District, and the County's Department of Public Social Services. C. Members of the Task Force held regular meetings, researched the conditions of foster youth, and interviewed foster youth, foster parents, former foster youth, professionals in the field, national organizations and foundations with an interest in supporting foster youth. D. Members of the Task Force reported back to their sponsoring agencies on a regular basis. E. The City, County, and School District participated in trial programs that directly improved the lives of our foster youth F. Churches, civic organizations, and community leaders readily and generously supported the activities being tested that could serve as a model program. G. Temecula Area City County Schools (CCS) Partnership actively works to implement the recommendations of the Foster Youth Task Force as appropriate through contractual agreement with local non-profit organizations which serve foster youth and their foster parents/guardians through 1. The provision of services which assist foster youth in successful preparation to emancipate and to receive additional training and education beyond high school and into the workforce Resos 18-11 1 2. The development of the structure of a CCS Partnership Foster Youth Advisory Committee to link with local non-profit organizations Boards of Directors and staff for the express purpose of developing the infrastructure and governing system that broadens and stabilizes the entire community's ability to effectively and efficiently serve this population in a manner that will give them opportunities to become productive members of society. Section 2. The City Council, as a member of the Temecula Area City County Schools (CCS) Partnership, hereby approves the recommendations of the Foster Youth Task Force (Final Report, July 2017), attached. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13th day of February, 2018. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, Cfy Clerk [SEAL] Resos 18-11 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18-11 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Stewart, Rahn NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Randi Johl, City Clerk Resos 18-11 3 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Members of the Temecula and Murrieta Area City County School Partnerships From: Barbara D. Tooker, Chair; Joint Foster Youth Task Force Date: July, 2017 Subject: Report and Recommendation of the Foster Youth Task Force,2009-2016 On behalf of the Task Force Members, I would like to transmit this report to you for your acceptance and request that you take action on our recommendations. As most of you know, and as our report confirms, we have an opportunity to implement a model foster youth program that can address the service goals of the City County School Partnership as a whole, as well as separate entities. The model embraces community service organizations, businesses, religious organizations, foundations, and individuals who are eager to assist our youth. Our Task Force was fortunate to be supported by a broad base ofexperts across the country, to link with SDSU(San Diego State University) and CSUSM(California State University San Marcos) for research and project validation, and to make multiple presentations to a large portion of our population. The Task Force itself brought together a wide variety of talents and expertise with the willingness to dig deep for solutions to long-standing challenges within this population. Wherever we searched, we were helped. In the end, there seemed to be only one issue that we could not resolve, although we know it is “resolvable” by the right approach (fingerprinting of volunteers). We found that there are many agencies involved in helping foster youth; however, there is not a method for coordinating the activities. This causes duplication of services in some cases, overlap in others, and issues that stay unattended. We think we have found a solution. Working together and being assisted by a coordinating agency will serve our public agencies and our foster youth in a more seamless way. We can be proud of the model we implement and share with other communities. Best of all, we can envision our foster youth thriving here, graduating from our high schools, receiving their highereducation and/or vocational training, and becoming productive, participating, independent members of our communities. Regards, Barbara Tooker, Chair EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership was established by resolutions of the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District in November2009. Concurrently, a second set of resolutions authorized the establishment of a study committee to assess the needs of Temecula’s foster youth population, and to ascertain how theycould be assisted to successfully emancipate. See appendix: CCS Partnership.In January2010, the Partnership appointed a chair and the task force began its work. The issue was originally raised by the California City County School Partnership studies that showed the devastating impact to local governments if not collectively addressed community by community. Not a one of us starting this work ever dreamed that we would be members of The Mother of All Task Forces, with its work spanning November2008 through 2014. The issues of Foster Youth are complicated by the tangle of laws and official agencies tasked to deliver services. When we started, there were many misunderstandings among agencies punctuated by lack of communication, miscommunication, assumptions, jurisdictional responsibilities, lack of coordination and oversight, andlack of data (including actual numbers of foster youth as “official”).Many actions taken by well-intentioned employees and volunteers were adversely impacting our foster youth population with alarming frequency. Five conditions became crystal clear as we moved through this project: 1) there wasa confusing array of officials interfacingwith foster youth and their foster parents/guardians; 2)there wasan overwhelming desire on the part of our communities to find meaningful ways to help; 3) there wasan overwhelming frustration and confusion on the partof our communities as they soughtfor legal ways to include this population in their largess; 4) there was a clear need to develop our own more comprehensivedefinition of what emancipation should look like to botha foster youth and our community, and 5) there was a needto break down barriers and forge new pathways of effective, efficient collaboration among agencies, while capturing the energy and enthusiasm of a community willing to help. The Task Force continuously experimented with ways to bridge the gap between agencies, the community, and the foster youth/families in terms of information, assistance, and getting the right resources to the right place at the right time. The primary and secondarystate andnationalresearchinitially guidedour activities as we searched for ways to demonstrate how to build community capacity and draw agencies closer together to support this population: 1. Educational stability 2. Placement stability 3. Presence of permanent stable adults 4. Transportation 5. Financial assistance and literacy 6. Transitional services past high school The Task Force thanks you for your decision to allow the Chair to select its members, to assign a decision-making level to represent each of your governing agencies, and to authorize that the Chair would be able to report back directly to the elected officials. It made a significant difference in our ability to sort through a tough topic, develop a program and test it,and thentake action. The following activitiescomprise the body of workaddressedby the Task Forcebetween January2009 and December, 2014: Faced the reality that the official data from the county did not match the official data from the school district. Our closest estimates were about 10 youth per grade. Learned techniques to identify “rescuing”as opposed to assisting and encouraging. Introduced to city, county, school agencies and how they work. Amassed the laws that impact foster youth & attemptedto understand the implications. Wrote and submitted 2 OJJDP at-risk youth three-year grants for $1M(City of Temecula as lead agency). Wewere not awarded either due to the fact that our city was “too safe.” Developed and presented a 5-hourfinancial literacy workshopwhich was the precursorto the United Way financial literacy program countywidecalled SHADES (now administered by AssistanceLeagueof Temecula Valley). See appendix:Financial Literacy. Initiated agreementwith Temecula Rotary Clubs to include foster youth in RYLA (Rotary Youth Leadership Assembly). Initiated programfor freshmenfoster youth to take ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery). Developed partnership with CSU SanMarcosfor campus visitations and th assistance in admissions. Field trip for 9-12graders. Transportation provided by Boys & Girls Club, DPSS, and City of Temecula. See appendix:College Field Trips. Began a community awareness education program, presenting programs to most of the area service organizations, the Interagency Council, the Ministerial Alliance, and The California School Board Association Annual Education Conference (Mary Ann Edwards, Dr. Carol Leighty, & BarbaraTooker). “Year of the Intern,” September 2010-May 2011, courtesy of San DiegoState nd University: Shari Crall 2year MSW Internship.See appendix: Ms. Crall's Body of Work. Developed and administered fourFoster YouthLeadership Retreats (two-day events designed to build community capacity and provide youth with local positive role models)for Juniors and Seniors. See appendix:Leadership Retreats. Addressed thedifficultissue of fingerprinting for Task Forcemembers and volunteers. Unsuccessful in “attaching” to any of our government agencies. Received designations of foster youth liaison counselors at each high schoolto expedite communication with students and process paperwork. Sponsoredtwojoint school county FY Back to School Family Nights. Arranged with H.E.A.R.T. to hold an account for the Task Force called the GAP Fund (needs not addressed, initial funding from Assistance League of Temecula Valley and Temecula Valley Woman’s Club). Examined A-G requirements(UC system entry) & how they impact foster youth. Analyzed transcripts for placement in life skills, vocational, academic, or on-the- job trainingprograms. Laid groundwork forcommunity capacity building (Rotary, Kiwanis, Assistance Leagueof Temecula Valley, Temecula ValleyWoman’s Club, Hope Lutheran Church, Temecula Valley Center for Spiritual Living, American Association of University Women, Better World Foundation). Raised awareness of H.E.A.R.T. to include foster youth in their funding of Pennypickle Children’s Museum interns. Examined the effectiveness (for our kids only) of the County’s life skills education program under contract to RCC. Asked for improved conditions and parity. Selected clubs on school campuses that could help make permanent adult connections as well as provide opportunities for community service (Key Club, Assisteen, Interact, Habitat for Humanity, Boys & Girls Club). Analyzed the effectiveness of the school/county shared database, FYSIS. Reported discrepancies.FYSYS discontinued; an alternate program is now in place Established connections with Riverside County Office of Educationfor EducationalRights Holders (volunteers from American Association of University Women). Established connections with CASA for collaborative research regarding transportation issues, driverlicenses, and possible grants. Developed a Prom Prep programthat AssistanceLeague of TemeculaValley could administertofit young women with gowns & jewelry,young men with tuxedos. Developed an After-ChristmasShopping Spree with theassistance of Hope Lutheran ChurchandTemecula Valley Centerfor Spiritual Living. Presented a TEDx Temecula talkon community capacity for Foster Youth (Barbara Tooker, 2012),available on YouTube.Seeappendix:TEDx Temecula Foster Youth presentation by BarbaraTooker. hfinancial assistance for housing, phones, clothes, and Assistedmanyyouth wit drivers’education (Hope Lutheran Churchprovided scholarshipsfordrivers’ education, along with Ace Driving School). Encouraged theformation of the City of Murrieta, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and the Riverside County Board of SupervisorsCCS Partnership through joint resolution and combined effortsofthe Foster YouthTask Force, 2011.See appendix:CCS Partnership. Received the volunteer services ofDebbieSearle, retired TVUSDcounselor, to make thefamilyandfoster youth contacts during the 2012-13 school year (following the work ofMs. Crall during her internship). Participated in countywide discussions regarding the SIPfor DPSS. Riverside County Sheriff’s Departmentprovided bicycles to select youth needing rides to school. Wallick & Volkdonated $4,000 to support various projects of theTask Force. The City ofTemeculaCommunity Services Departmentfunded thedevelopment anddesign of the “Communications Portal”for this report.They also designed andproduced the certificatesfor the Leadership Retreats. City of Temecula includedfoster youth intheir summer work programs and their young entrepreneur workshops, as well as in their jobfairs andcollege fairs. Riverside County DPSS compiled workbooks to helpour youthaccess resources available to them. Temecula Valley Unified School District provided an officefor our intern and our volunteers. th Arranged and sponsored afieldtripfor 9-12graders to tour MSJC. TVUSD provided bussing. Developed the Mayors’ Foster YouthWinter Fun Fest with the support of the Temecula Valley Centerfor Spiritual Living. Temecula Middle School Home Economics teacher Linda Silvasy’s students made cloth bagsfor all foster youth attendingthe Leadership Retreat.The following year theymade a quilt that was raffled by TVWoman’s Club, raising $250. “Year of the Intern” for MVUSD. Shannon Tobias, CSU Fullerton, was assigned as an intern to the Special Education Department to identify the FY population of the District and to make recommendations as to how to best assist them. See Appendix: MVUSD Foster Program Design 2016. Staff from all CCS partners willingly and generously provided time, ideas, and resources to support the task force, thus assuring the quality of the activities and the veracity of the recommendations to follow. Task force beganto develop recommendations, based upon its research and trial programs, for the CCS Partnership that focus on coordination of services, collaboration among agencies, and sustainable community capacity to support of foster youth as they grow to become educated productive citizens.Awareness of the need for a permanent structure through the powers of the CCS Partnership came into sharp focus.Developed The Foster Youth Communications Portal concept for community capacity building. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE TO THE CCS PARTNERSHIP Adopt a joint agency mission statement: The City County Schools Partnerships of Temecula and Murrieta encourage broad general support for our foster youth by embracing multiple pathways to ensure their successful transition into adulthood and productive citizenship. Further, we will seek ways to proactively include them in community life, while protecting them from harm. We recognize that the journey toemancipation begins early in their childhood and continues throughout their educationand life skills training to the time when they become employed at above minimum wage and are able to independently sustain themselves. Contract with Rancho Damacitas Children and Family Services (RDCFS)to serve as the face of foster youth support by providing coordinating services to 1) sustain community capacity, 2) coordinate community service, 3) track foster youth as they leave high school, 4) provideand coordinatetransitional resources as they are placed in higher education, vocational training, or in jobs that include additional training opportunities, 5) develop a digital pathway (The Foster Youth Portal) to connect foster youth and community resources, 6) place foster youth in jobs that support them above the poverty level and in communities willing to assist them in their pathway to success, and 7) serve as themodel for developing partnerships and community capacity in other communities. Support RDCFSwith an initial financial contribution of $5,000per city,school district, and county and$12,000 (or balance thereof) from the Foster Youth Task ForceGap Fund. Provide ongoing cooperation and support of RDCFSwith appropriate resources as outlined in MOU. MOU to be developed by representatives of all agencies and include 7 points listed above. Support RDCFSin their general fundraising efforts to continue their model of excellence and the CCS Partnership vision of developing model citizens. BACKGROUND In June 2008, the California City County School Partnership convened a conference of representative elected officials from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California School Boards Association to hear the results of a two-year study on emancipating foster youth and what would be needed collaboratively at the local level to address these issues. Few understood the gravity of the situation nor the in-depth level of assistance most of these youth would need in order to become successfully independent, especially given the grim statistics of the 83,000 foster youth in California, with 4,000 emancipating each year (“Barriers Facing Foster Care Youth: National and Local Statistics About Emancipating Foster Youth” ): www.heysf.org Homelessness:65% need immediate housing; 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless within 18 months. Employment:50% experience high rates of unemployment within 5 years; 60% earn at or below $6,000/year. Education:70% want to go to college, 10% attend, 1% graduate; 75% are behind grade level; 40% complete high school. Mental & Physical Health:nearly 50% suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay, and malnutrition; 50-60% have moderate mental health problems; and they as a group experience PTSD at a rate 2 x’s the level of U.S. war veterans. Incarceration:5-10 times more likely to become involved in the juvenile justice system; 25% will be incarcerated within the first 2 years of emancipation. The CCS Partnership issued a Call to Action to develop local integrated approaches to address youth permanency and preparation for adulthood. The Call was to ensure the following minimal assets (California CCS Partnership report): 1.Connections to adults who care about them and will remain connected to them throughout their lives; 2.Knowledge of and access to support systems, including housing, employment support, educational options, and health care; 3.A high school diploma; 4.Work experience; 5.A safe, stable place to live; 6.An opportunity to continue their education; 7.Financial resources. With this in mind, the City of Temecula, the Temecula Valley Unified School District, and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors passed joint resolutions in November 2008, to 1) form the Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership (for the purpose of entering into collaborative endeavors), and 2) form the Foster Youth Task Force (to study the challenges of our local foster youth, especially facing those who are emancipating, and to make recommendations for coordinated actions to address their issues). SeeAppendix:CCS Partnership. In January2009, the Partnership appointed Barbara Tooker, former 17-year governing board member of Temecula Valley Unified School District, to chair the Foster Youth Task Force. Each entity was represented by one decision-making level administrator, The original Task Force included Tamra and Ms. Tookerappointed the balance. Middlecamp Irwin, City of Temecula; Susan Mahoney, County of Riverside DPSS; Guerrmo Henry, County of Riverside DPSS; Mike Runyan, Temecula Valley Unified School District Student Services Director; Rhonda Guaderrama, community at large and non-profit representative; Bruce Cripe, community at- large and non-profit representative; Michael Hubbard, Temecula Valley Unified School District Student Services Assistant Director; Tom Julian, community at- large and group home administrator; Diane Garrett, community at-large and philanthropist; and Shari Crall, community at-large, former CASA administrator, and MSW student at SDSU. Subsequently,Ms. Mahoney and Mr. Henry were succeeded by Dean Wilson,County of Riverside; Ms. Guaderrama resigned to accept a job outside the area, Mr. Runyan retired, and Ms. Irwin left her position. All have been kept in the loop and have been in contact outside the committee structure by mutual agreement of all involved. We began with what we knew, suspected we knew, and what we could research. See appendix: Guiding Documents.Our original guiding documents were: 1. CCS Partnership, CA, Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, a Community Action Guide, 2007 2.CA Blue Ribbon Commission on Children inFoster Care, “Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home,” 2008 3. CA Office of the Legislative Analyst, “Education of Foster Youth in CA,” May 29, 2009 4.Public Policy Institute of California, “Foster Care in California; Achievements and Challenges,” Caroline Danielson and Helen Lee, principal authors, 2010. 5.CA Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, “Building a Brighter Future for California’s Children,” 2010 These documents were quickly followed by an abundance of evidence-based as well as anecdotal stories of failures and successes across the country, California, and Riverside County. The task force soon discovered that they would be more effective if they confined their focus to foster youth ages 14 and up. Two reasons supported this decision: Younger children are more likely to be placed into adoption or returned to their family of origin, and they are less expensive to maintain within the “system.” Teens, conversely, are more difficult to stabilize and to place in more permanent environments; they are of immediate concern as they get closer to “emancipation,” and, they interface with a multitude of agencies who deal with academic, behavioral, judicial, and social challenges. Thus, the Task Force embarked upon a long-term study of a complicated issue, developing test programs and activities in conjunction with community service organizations to test efficacy of approach. Many organizations, at school and in the community, and several businesses made generous donations of time, people, and money.The City of Murrieta, the Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and the Riverside County Supervisors approved joint resolutions in 2011, and their representatives, Dean Lesicko (MVUSD) and Tammy Wilson (Oak Grove)joined the Task Force. Thousands of hours of volunteer time were spent in research, program development, anddirect service to foster youth in order to develop a set of recommendationsfor the CCS Partnershipstodevelop 1)community capacity, and 2)a model program that couldbe used by other communities to support foster youth. THE PROJECT Year 1: November, 2008 – December, 2009 The concept to address foster youth as a collaborative had its roots in the study and report of the California City County School Partnership, “Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth,” 2008. TheCCS partnership is comprised of members of the CA State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the California School Boards Association. They establish a common vision and then strategize common approaches. In May, 2008, the CCS Partnership convened in SanFrancisco to raise the awarenesson the mutual foster youth challenges facing local governments. Barbara Tooker attended that meeting, as a representative of Board of Directors for the California School Boards Association. Between May and November, the ideas for the formation of a local version of the CCS Partnership began to develop. The three local government agencies had already established informal partnerships and it was a natural progression to formalize the concept. It also made sense for the Partnership to authorizea study committee to address our local foster youth issues as they related to successful emancipation. Thus, in November, 2008, the three entities passed In resolutions to accomplish these objectives.See appendix:CCS Partnership. January2009, Barbara Tooker was appointed as chair. It was agreed that each agency would appoint one decision-making level representative and Ms. Tooker would appoint the balance. This decision proved critical over the course of the study, as it expedited Background necessary actions in a safe and effective manner (see for committee members). Thus began a journey into a fascinating and convoluted world, where “simple” solutions did not exist, where a foster youth’s story was not the story of foster youth, where misunderstandings and misperceptions thrived, and where ignorance was common. The first steps of the Task Force were to recognize these conditions, especially among themselves, and build a clear roadmap to greater understanding of this multi-faceted challenge. We began 6 months of research, interviewing experts, and listing priorities; and we were guided by (among others) the evidence-based work of The Casey Foundation, TVUSD, DPSS, Rancho Damacitas,and state and nationwide projects. Each agency was alerted to possible grant opportunities, and when a federal RFP through Juvenile Justice became available, we applied. Dr. Carol Leighty, Tamra Irwin, and Barbara Tooker wrote two $500,000three-yearproposals with the City being the lead agency. It was a healthy process because it helped clarify our vision, goals, objectives, and activities. We did not receive either grant because our area was “too safe.”In November, we presented a workshop on financial literacy called “Millionaire Mindset” after developing it with Task Force Members Bruce Cripe, Tom Julian, and Barbara Tooker. Bruce provided a valuable link to United Way, who eventually improved the curriculum in 2011 and conducted workshops throughout Riverside County. Year 2:2010 Participating in countywide meetings to develop FYSIS (a foster youth database linking school districts, trying to tie down accurate foster youth demographics through the shared efforts of the school districts, the Riverside County Office of Education, and the Department of Public Social Services), fingerprinting for the Task Force and volunteers on any projects being developed, building community awareness,developing a leadership retreat for juniors and seniors, preparing and presenting a joint TVUSD/DPSS “Foster Youth Family Night,” arranging for a field trip to CSUSM, researching possible mentoring programs, and soliciting an internship program became the focus. Theseactivities began to address the research-based issues as identified in the state-level CCS Partnership’s Call to Action. FYSIS was a multi-year project that frustrated schools and social workers alike. Linking the districts’ various student enrollment data to an existing social services database was never achieved. Manually comparing thedata between agencies demonstrated inaccuracies in each system. FYSIS was abandoned and a new system is currently in the pilot stages through RCOE. Fingerprinting became a continuing issue for the Task Force. None of our government agencies had a way to accommodate this need due to constraining parameters of the Department of Justice. This became a discussion and research point throughout the study. Almost every service organization in Temecula and many religious organizations requested programs about foster youth, and many of these groups became active supporters. An example is illustrated in the attached documentation between the Task Force and Temecula Valley Assistance League. See appendix: ALTV.Without this type of support, the Task Force would not have been able to undertake its curriculum and program test models.DPSS Social Workers and School Counselors developed a “Foster Youth Family Night,” as a way of linking parents to the educationalneeds of their youth and providing information on county services to both parents and youth. ALTV provided each youth with a back pack and Office Depot filled each back pack with school supplies.This was our first year to test our theory about the need of a leadership program for Juniors and Seniors. Acknowledging the research regarding the need to provide access to stable and permanent adults, mentors, jobs, scholarships, career training, and community service opportunities, we developed a two-day, overnight retreat that utilized our community leaders to emphasize how these youth could connect with an entire community of resources. See appendix: Leadership Retreats. The agreement with San Diego State University and the Task Force (TVUSD as lead agency) to place Shari Crall with the Task Force for an M.S.W. Internship propelled the work of the Task Force, provided us with expert guidance, and challenged our assumptions about foster youth. This has been viewed by both SDSU and the Task Force as mutually beneficial and the most impactful opportunity we had to build community capacity and a model program. We all are indebted to both SDSU, represented by Field Instructor Ken Nakamura, and Ms. Crall for the professional approach we were able to take on the entire project. Our first was developed Logic Model for the submission of the OJJDP Grant Application. Ms. Crall vastly refined and realistically reshaped it into a visual reminder of the “real work load” necessary to support our youth.See appendix: Logic Model, 2011. Year 3:2011 The internshipprogram with SDSU continued through May, andthe needsof this population becamemuch more evident through our research.TVUSD provided office spaceand IT supportfor Ms. Crall.Highlights of this year includedaddressing mentorship programs, healthissues,transportation to work and/or after school activities, administering both ASVAB(Armed ServicesVocationalAptitude Battery)andAnsell- CaseyLife Skills Assessment.See appendix:Demographics.As tools toaddress a clearer path to emancipation,buildingcommunity capacity, expanding the work of the taskforce to Murrieta, transitionalhousing, improving communications among agencies, contactingfosterfamilies to refer themdirect assistanceto meettheir needs,another field trip to CSUSM was provided, a workshop was presentedto school counselors and nd social workerson transitions to college.The 2Leadership Retreat was held.The City of Murrieta, Murrieta Valley Unified School District,and the County of Riverside formed, by resolution,their CCSPartnership anda team joined theTemecula Foster Youth Task Force.See appendix:. Althoughthe importance of permanent, stable adults inthe lives of our youth was a research-basedfinding and a need to be addressed, it became clear that our volunteer taskforce could notmanage thedepthof anongoing mentorship program. It was unwise to starta programof this magnitudewith no assurancesof being able to sustain it.Therefore, we lookedfor other ways to support this “notion” of permanency. The retreats added thiselement, and we encouraged our youth to join clubs on campus (KeyClub,Habitatfor Humanity, Assisteens, Interact, faith-based) that were tied to adult service organizations.Whenmedical issuesarose that were seemingly beyond thescope ofwhat alreadyexisted, theTask Force reachedout quietlyand effectively to members of our own medical communityforassistance.Transportation loomed as a majorchallenge.Wewere good atfinding part-timejobs,but employersneeded workerswho could reliably get to work.Many jobs went unfilledforthis reason,or our youth were hired and thenfired when they couldn’talways get to work as agreedupon. Weused the “prudentparent”permissionforms to transport youthwhen we could, but it wasinconsistent and frustratingforeveryone.A proposalfor discussion between the city of Temecula and Thessalonika Family Services for transitionalhousing was met with enthusiasm;however, it soon becameevidentthat the amount of work and the lead times were beyond the scope of the Task Force.The realization setin that many of ourefforts wouldnotbeable to continue without permanent staff support. Year 4: 2013 We were fortunate to acquire the volunteer services of Ms. Debbie Searl, long-time TVUSD counselor and newly retired, to continue the work begun during Ms. Crall’s internship.Ms. Searl coordinated thefield trip to CSUSM as well asoneto MSJC. She also worked tirelessly to make sure our youth had their collegeapplications in on time and theirscholarship applicationssubmitted. She alsoassisted on theleadership retreat. Members of HopeLutheran Church and the Centerfor Spiritual Living Temecula Valley sponsored an after Christmas shopping spree with gift cardsforeach youth and drawings for additionalmoney.TheTask Force members beganto work on building recommendationsfor what needed to happen next. Foster youth became a targetedfocusof the state’s budgeting process andfunds were transferred into a new method of allocating resources as defined by theLocal Control Funding Formula.The Task Force chair joined the LCAP (Local Control Action Planning) committeeat TVUSD and MVUSDtoensure inclusionoffoster youth needs intothe plan.The California SchoolBoards Association released itshandbookfor governing board members.See appendix:Local Control Funding Formula. It was at thispoint thatthe Foster Youth Communications Portal conceptbeganto develop.It wasa logical outgrowth of seeingthefrustration of individualsand organizations in our communities who were attempting to reachout to helpfoster youth, but wererunning into the protective boundaries of lawsand the agencies tasked with enforcing the laws.Examples arenumerous,and include such things as givinga ride, providing gift cards, holdinga workshop, invitationstoa party ora community service event, giving scholarships, taking pictures at events, etc.There hasbeen no trueface of ourfoster youth,nocontact, no expression of needs andmatching services thatthe ordinary population can find.It is true, if onewere to know about such greatfoster homes or service providers, portionsof this population couldbe reached indirectly. However, unless onefigures out that DPSS offices in Riverside have staffdirectly involved with this group, the effort seemsfutile and peoplemove onto easier-to-access service projects.Thevisual of the Portal shows how students, through a protected and approved “avatar” canexpress their needs, and howa community can search tofind out how to matchtheir interests–all without unduly burdening the governmentagencies involved. Year 5: January–December, 2014 Due to major career changes with most taskforce members and seriousmedical issues impacting the committee chair, neither thefield trips toCSUSM andMSJC tookplace. Twomajor eventsfor our youth and2 discussionmeetings occurredduring the year: however, did occur.For the youth directly: 1)the leadership retreatwas assigned to the staff at Rancho Damacitas (Mary Robilotta) and went on withouta hitch; and2)the first Mayors’ Foster YouthWinter Fun Festwas held at theTemecula Civic Center at the endof December.This event was co-sponsored by the Centerfor Spiritual Living Temecula Valley.Mayor Edwardswasa popular selfie inclusionand the group received a personal tourof the civic centerand council chambers (sitting in council chairs was a big hit).Extensive discussions were held with E.A.T. Market *Eatery,a Temecula- based slow foods establishment,and also with Smooth Transition, Inc., an at-risk- centerededucational organizationheadquartered inRiversidewho provides educational andapprenticeship opportunities in vocationaloccupations. If continued by our contractor, as outlined inthe recommendations, we would have two more viable localtraining and employmentopportunities. Years 6 &7: inactiveexceptfor Chair making presentationsto community organizations and assisting individual FY in meeting emergency needs. Funds held by Temecula Education Foundation(approximately $12,000). CONCLUSION Over the course of 5 years, we discovered many positive and several negative situations regarding the condition of ourfoster youth. The negatives were very frustrating, and we were able to addressmost ofthem at the staff level ofour public agencies. It was never the intent of the Task Force to publicize these challenges with specific detail. Our goal was to point them out and work toward solutions. This was a successful approach and brought about an unprecedented level of cooperation, exchanges of information, and active participation in system improvements. Today, our county social services works closely with our school districts to discuss educational achievements and behavioral plans, living situations, goals, life skills, needs, community service opportunities, and issues of mutual concern. Our city governments playan integral role in the overall framework of community-building. Their active and ongoing planning to provide rich social, cultural, and multi-generational activities is a testament to how it builds and maintains a climate of success for all. Master Planning hasbeen a staple, even as the cities wereplanning theirown birthsin 1991-2. Our CCS Partnership members understand clearly the risks to youth when a long-term consistentand coordinatedapproach is not well-defined and operational: High risk are those youth without a sense of permanency or place; with no plans for the future that are realistic, attainable, or supported by friends, family, or community; or with mental and/or physical health issues or special needs that go unaddressed. Medium risk have been thoseyouthin group homeswith many levelsof staff to complete tasks, who areserved through additional resources of the community Low risk are youth offered permanency, who are connected to stable adults and mentors in a community;who find work and job shadowing and internships; who are connected to additional education or training post high school; who have access to resources such as transportation, housing, health care; who are given community service opportunities; and who can reach back into our community for assistance because they know they will be “heard and helped.” It is not difficult to see that the dismal statistics cited in the Background section of our report can be dramatically decreased through the proper management of and attention to this population. Communities do not want to be the targets of the unemployed, the homeless, the gangs, the human trafficking, the unwanted pregnancies, the hospital emergencies, the high school dropouts. We can’t undo what has happened to them to get them into the foster care system; however, we can give them hope, opportunity, and support to help them make the right choices in moving their lives forward toward a pathway of dreams realized. We can helpthemprovide for themselves as responsible adults. We can wrap our arms around them assecurely as we do our own children, knowing that they can then stand more than a fighting chance to successfully integrate into our communities, raise their families, work, be productive, and give back to others. June 9, 2015 TO: Barb Tooker, Chair, CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force CC: Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership CC: Murrieta Area City County Schools Partnership RE: Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services -Letter of Interest / MOU DearMrs. Tooker and CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force, On behalf of Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to address the needs of current and former foster youth in Riverside County, CA and surrounding areas. Your commitment to serving this vulnerable population, and your work with the CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force,is a testament to your unyielding dedication to making a differencein our community. As you know, Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Serviceshas been serving abused and neglected children and developingfoster youth programs since 1983.Our former Executive Director, Tom Julian,has served as a member of the CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force. Through the CCS Partnership’s work, it became apparent that a lead agency shouldbe identified that would partner with local governments and community organizations to assist all foster youth in the area. The lead agencywould engagestakeholders to design and implement uniquely tailored programs focused on providing access to information, resources and services for youth exiting foster care, including the years from post-high school/post-emancipation,through career/vocationaltraining,employment placementandhigher education. Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services would be interested in developing a Memorandum of Understanding withpublic agencies and community stakeholders for ongoing foster youth support, to include an advisory committee to work withmyself, ourstaffand our Rancho Damacitas Board of Directors,to become the public face of area foster youth. Tracking mechanisms, documentation and accountabilitymeasures will be established in the development of a comprehensivefoster youthcommunity portal. We look forward to close collaborationamong partnering agenciesand other community stakeholders. We’re convinced we can dramatically change CA’s dismal statisticsand raise the levels of long- term successfor our children and young adults. I look forward to any questions you may have. Best regards, Cal Winslow, CEO 951.302.2317 ext. 220 cal@4kidsfirst.org Millionaire Mindset: You, Too, Can Be One! A Boot Camp for Temecula’s Foster Youth and Foster Parents When: November 7, 2009 (Saturday) Time: 8:30-3:30 Where: CRC in Temecula, on Rancho Vista Rd at the Sports Park Agenda 8:30-8:45Registration and Materials Handout 8:45-10:00Opening Session: Ms. Maryann Edwards, Mayor of Temecula Keynote: Mr. Jeff Mitzchang: Developing a Millionaire Mindset 10:00-10:15Break 10:15-11:30Money 101: Accounts and How to Manage Them 11:30-12:00Millionaire’s Lunch: Provided by Sbarro 12:00-12:15Break and Back to Work 12:15:-1:15Keynote: Janeal LeBaron: Teen TLC 1:15-2:30Credit 101: Getting It, Keeping It, Using It, Guarding It 2:30-2:45Break 2:45-3:30Community Connections Keynote: Mr. Tim Ritter: The Magic of a Million $$ Education Sponsored by The City of Temecula, The County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District, through its CCS Partnership and the Foster Youth Committee. In concert with United Way of the Inland Valley, Sbarro’s, and California Bank of Commerce (Temecula Branch). This is a great opportunity to learn about money and to work on preparation for emancipation. Parents and students working together can make a big difference in getting a head start toward independent living. Pre-register by calling: Questions? call 951-694-8910 or email btooker@AccentOnParenting.com Running head: TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK1 Temecula's City, County, School Partnership Task Force on Foster Youth Needs Assessment Shari Crall San Diego State University SW 791 Dr. Mathieson November 29, 2010 TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK2 Abstract The City of Temecula, in conjunction with Riverside County and Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) formed a CCS Partnership in 2008, creating a task force on foster youth, to look at endingduplication, better utilizingexisting resources, and coordinating activitiesto better serve their foster youth(TVUSD, October 2008).A needs assessment was completed using a convergent, multi-method approach. It was found the TVUSD high school foster youth population (N=45, sample N=28) underutilizes services and is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement, withmany years in care, numerous placements, and insufficient class requirements for college readiness. Keywords: CCS Partnerships, foster youth, placement stability, educational stability, college readiness TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK3 Temecula's City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth Needs Assessment A needs assessment was completed to better understand high school aged foster youth in Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) using a convergent, multi-method approach. Following a literature review, community assessment included focus groups with key stakeholders, one-on-one interviews with current foster youth, caregivers, and institutional providers, data from a questionnaire administered to TVUSD foster youth, data from the Foster Youth Student Information System (Riverside County Office of Education, 2010),high school transcripts and data for Riverside County from the Child Welfare Dynamic Report(California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010). It was found the TVUSDhigh school foster youth (FY) population (N=45, sample N=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement, with many years in care, numerous placements, and insufficient class requirements for college readiness. In addition, just over a third (N=17) of the high school population live at a large group home in Temecula, weighting the sample toward youth with challenging issues and many placements in their background. In the senior class (N=8), one had a GPA and required classes in place for 4-year university, contingent on success this year. One is pursuing a cosmetology course. Four were community college ready, two with GPA success but not a-g courses in place. One had concerning mental health issues and we lost one, mid-semester, who had been ina stable placement for the past few years because of a family emergency in his foster family. Two of the youth had Individual Education Plans (IEP). The questionnaires revealed a desire for more assistance in key areas identified in the TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK4 literature: housing, employment, education, financial assistance, transportation, and stable permanent connections. Many did not know their social worker’s name or were not receiving substantive help with emancipation tasks, i.e. college applications, financial aid applications, or meaningful information about options in the coming year. Findings in each of the focus areas have been discussed in the City, County, School Partnership (CCS) Task Force on Foster Youth, with recommendations to align emancipation efforts, utilizing existing resources and coordinating activities of the three governing bodies and their agencies. A focus on college readiness is recommended, employing guidelines from the October 2010 Community College Report, “Something’s Got to Give” (EdSource, October 2010). The other major recommendation is to employ specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely (SMART) goals, with attendant role assignment and task completion deadlines, to better utilize and end duplication between case-carrying social workers, independent living program social workers and emancipation coaches. Strengths were the multi-method, convergent approach utilizing access to both primary and secondary data, access to stakeholders on all levels, and review of the process by an independent researcher, Dr. Tony Garcia, from the San Diego State University School of Social Work. Limitations to the assessment were inherent in the small sample size, even noting it was more than representative of this particular population. A more robust program design might be employed in the future, administering pre and post-test questionnaires in a comparable community, not receiving a CCS intervention. The lack of a mental health component in the assessment is another limitation. The current questionnaire, created by the task force, will be replaced by the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment, Version 1- TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK5 Youth in Care (Casey Family Programs, 2010), a similar, but standardized review, providing norms for comparison. Finally, it is suggested more qualitative work with foster youth in high school be completed, to supplement the secondary data. This assessment served to draw a clear picture of the status of high school youth in foster care within the TVUSD school district, for use and analysis by the Foster Youth Task Force charged with gathering information and reporting back to the elected governing boards of TVUSD, the City of Temecula, and the County of Riverside. TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK6 References Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1-Youth in Care).Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, Independent Living, and Self-Sufficiency Services.Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give.California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1363-1374. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long-Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare, 107- 124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164- TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK7 170. Summit, C. F. (2007). Casey Family Foundation. Retrieved from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummit Report.htm Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Shari Crall Prepared for CCS Partnership October 6, 2010 MSW Intern Task Force on Foster Youth Our High School Population The TVUSD high school foster youth (FY) population (N=45, sample N=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement (permanent plans are employed after 12-18 months of reunification efforts) with many years in care, numerous placements, and challenging GPAs. PLACEMENTS The majority (64%) 4-10 placements Significant number on both ends of the spectrum: 18% in 1-3 placements, and 17% in 11-20 placements YEARS IN CARE Most 4-6 years (39%), followed by 36% in care under 3 years Significant number (25%), in care seven plus years 14% spending 11-15 yearsin care, comprising virtually their entire academic careers GPA Α N=22 majority (45%) below 2.0 41% between 2.0-2.9 2 FY (9%) with GPAs over 3.0 1, with a listing for only the last semester, 4.0 ETHNICITY 54% white, 29% Hispanic, 7% African American with smaller populations of Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American youth Our Seniors Α Typical? We began with 9 Α One: GPA and a-g classes in place for 4-year university, contingent on success this year One: Wants to go to Paul Mitchell Academy Four: Community college ready, one possibly private university ready; two with GPA success but not a-g courses in place One: mental health issues One: transferred out due to foster family emergency One: not a foster youth Two: out of county placements Two: IEPs Questionnaire results (5 of 6) Α 2 ΑASVAB complete 0 ΑFAFSA complete 3 Αknow SW name Page 1 of 2 Shari Crall Prepared for CCS Partnership October 6, 2010 MSW Intern Task Force on Foster Youth 2 Αremember last time seen SW 3 Αreport having an ILP SW 4 Αmet with ILP SW 0 Αemancipation coach 1 Αattended ILP classes 1 Αhousing after emancipation 3 Α jobs after emancipation 0 ΑķƩźǝĻƩ͸ƭ ƌźĭĻƓƭĻƭͲ Ћ Ǟƚǒƌķ ƌźƉĻ Ʒƚ ŭĻƷ 5\[ 4 Α CA ID cards Permanent adults Α 1 said 0, 1 said 4, 1 cited Rancho Damacitas 2 Α would like help making extended family connections 5 Α want CCS help: 2 Α education 4 Α housing 2 Α careers 1 Α support network 4 Α transportation 4 Α financial assistance Page 2 of 2 Running head: POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,1 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE Shari Crall San Diego State University SW 702 Dr. Loring Jones May 2, 2011 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,2 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE Policy is created in many ways, often having more impact than legislative or judicial action. Often we think of policy as those notions that precede and overarch official actions, such as in gay rights attitudes bringing down “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military. Most of the time though, policy is created by unelected staff who may not even realize their work has a tremendous impact. It is procedural policy that generates structures and regulations that tend to affect people the most. These are bureaucrats, and I aspire tobe one. For the past two years I have served on the Temecula Area City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth. In September, 2010, I began a 20-hour a week internship with the Task Force to provide documentation and research to inform the body in making recommendations to partner elected officials, to meet and connect Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) high school aged foster youth and their caregivers with community resources, and to make policy recommendations to RiversideCounty’s Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). Although it is the Director of the Task Force, my supervisor, Barbara Tooker, who has met and reported back to DPSS and elected officials, I have had the unique opportunity to prepare and present threeresearch and policy briefs at the task force level that have recently changed DPSS policy. The Task Force Organizational History and Profile Disturbing outcomes of homelessness, unemployment, underemployment, incarceration and even death were documented in a 2008 reportfrom a California State level CCS Partnership task force. Presented at the 2008 California School Board Association meeting, the report proved a call to action for Barbara Tooker, a 17-year TVUSD trustee on the verge of retirement. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,3 The ensuing formation, at Tooker’s request, of a City, County, School Partnership (CCS) in 2008, by the City of Temecula, County of Riverside and TVUSD, was immediately followed by resolutions to form a task force focused on foster youth. A Community Action Guide(CCS Partnership, 2007)created by the State task force composed of the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California School Boards Association became the foundation for Temecula’s effort, the only local CCS partnership in California. An example of a Community Building Approach, the Partnership’s Task Force on Foster Youth is charged with reporting “on current conditions of emancipating foster youth and develop\[ing\] recommendations for our role in better assisting these, our children, safely toward productive adulthood” (TVUSD, 2008). Each governing partner assigned a representative to the task force and Tooker appointed other community stakeholders, including a care provider, representatives of local service clubs, funders and organizations focused on foster youth (see Appendix A for organizational chart). Creating a Shared Vision The task force, authorized by elected officials of three governing bodies and their charge to gather information and make recommendations regarding foster youth, has given discussions a discrete position of power. Task force members were carefully assembled to include decision makers from partner agencies, care providers, and representatives from community assets, including funders and service groups. First year discussions ran a spectrum from the ideal to the real, but created a shared commitment and vision to positively change outcomes for the foster youth entrusted to our community. A central belief emerged that by localizing issues, a community could “wrap its arms around its children.” POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,4 Gathering the Data We looked closely at the specific issues facing our high school aged foster youth, developing a picture mirrored inthe literature. Research included task force meetings, extensive literature review, focus groups, one-on-one interviews with key informants at partner agencies, as well as with foster youth and their caregivers, surveys, and secondary data analysis. After an initial period of becoming informed of the challenges of foster youth and established best practices addressing them, and in conjunction with my Research class group under Dr. Mathieson, a convergent, multi-method needs assessment was completed. My supervisor, Barbara Tooker, and I then met with Dr. Anthony Garcia, who reviewed our work making several recommendations: locate a standardized survey instrument, identify a comparative population, and complete more qualitative work with students and their caregivers. That has now been completed. Please see Appendix B for research design, and Appendix C for Intern Report, delivered at the October Task Force meeting. Analysis The November Task Force meeting was very well attended, with all governing partners and community organizations represented. After other business, my intern report began with an activity learned at a California Youth Connection (CYC) presentation. I put members in groups of three or four, gave them a simple assignment –share names, their education, who they represented, and describe their interest in foster youth. As they progressed through the assignment, I made constant group changes, asking members to move and join other groups, simulating the life of a foster youth with many placement changes and little educational stability. Members did not finish the assignment, were frustrated with me and the interruption in getting to know someone. They reported feeling confused, and annoyed. In short, they got it. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,5 This laid the foundation for the analysis report (See Appendices D and E), following up on the basic assessment results presented in October,correlated with research and best practices. The System The March Task Force meeting was focused on what we had learned about the current Child Welfare System as related to emancipating foster youth. Initially, the task force thought the community building approach would consist of discovering the different roles and responsibilities of providers and better connecting our area youth to the system, enhanced with community inputs. This intern report was entitled“Lost in Translation” (See Appendix F) as after speaking with county and contracted emancipation service providers, our youth and caregivers, educators, and other stakeholders, it was evident much was said and done, but it was not translating into successful emancipations. Current structures did not support necessary activities to create success, there was role confusion,and many barriers to access ofservices. This report provided the foundation for task force recommendations to DPSS: 1) allow qualified and screened community volunteers to teach the Independent Living curriculum, in Temecula, in school district provided space; and 2) make Temecula/Murrieta a pilot program, aligning county Independent Living social workers with school district boundaries. The first recommendation came out of both supply and demand. Our youth were not attending ILP classes because of 20-30 mile distances that manycaregivers were unable to transport to, creating a demand for closer classes; and supply because of many offers for support and help from area service clubs and organizations as Task Force presentations and outreach were completed. The second recommendation arose out of frustration on the part of both school officials and county workers. Theylackedknowledge of one another, lackedrelationships, and had too many surprises on both ends. With 15 current ILP social workers and 23 school districts in POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,6 Riverside County, it was felt a pilot of matching ILP workers with districts would yield a better compliment of services. A presentation by Pam Smith, and follow up interview with Dennis Leggett, from San Diego Child Welfare Services, East County Region’s Neighborhood for Kids approach, provided solid evidence of success with a similar approach. Results It has taken two years of creating a shared vision among stakeholders, conducting evidence-based research, and then allowing the task force to analyze and correlate the data to make recommendations. The belated identification of similar goals and already operationalized programming showing success in San Diego’s East County Region, provided confirmation that programming based on solid evidence yields expected results. While much remains to be done, it has been exciting and rewarding to have an internship where creating policy became a reality. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,7 APPENDIX A –ORGANIZATIONAL CHART TEMECULARIVERSIDE TEMECULA CITY COUNCILCOUNTYVALLEY UNIFIEDSCHOOL BOARD OF DISTRICT SUPERVISORS SCHOOL BOARD MSW INTERN APPOINTED CHAIR SHARI CRALL FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE TVUSD CITY COUNTY DPSSCHILD WELFARE REPRESENTATIVEREGIONAL DIRECTOR/ MANAGEREDUCATIONAL LIAISON UNITED WAY BOYS AND GIRLSDIRECTOR, OF THE INLANDCLUBGROUP HOME/FFA VALLEYS/ROTARY H.E.A.R.T. COMMUNITY MEMBERSBETTERWORLD TRUST Elected Appointed by Appointed Appointed by Appointed by chair officialselectedsstaffchair POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,8 APPENDIX B –RESEARCH DESIGN I.Outcomes for Foster Youth (FY) are disturbing II.Data re Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Youth Needs assessment -Convergent, multi-method approach Step 1: Definition of parameters Community assessment Key stakeholders Current Foster Youth Data from administered survey to FY Data from Foster Youth Student Information Service (FYSIS) Budget: intern works for free, access to data during school year Resources: Task Force, scholarly researcher through databases accessed through SDSU library system. Step 2: Identification of information needed Outcome of FY housing after emancipation possession of vital documents (birth certificate, social security, SSI etc) Educational attainment and plans Employment status Permanent and stable relationships Step 3: Information that already exists Secondary data analysis : FYSIS Survey to FY Expert knowledge among the Task Force Research showingFY outcomes in Riverside Co.: Child Welfare Dynamic Report Step 4: Methodology -convergent analysis: use of secondary data : FYSIS, Child Welfare Dynamic Reports on FY outcomes use of impressionistic approaches: Focus Groups, speak with key informants (Task Force, community group, City of Temecula, FY, FFA providers and homes) Surveys from current foster youth showing what services are utilized, level of educational success, future outlook in post-emancipation success targeted sample –FY in TVUSD high schools Task Force participants : Temecula City, TVUSD, County of Riverside, DPSS, Community Agencies Foster Youth in TVUSD Variables Services offered Services utilized FY outcome results Objective-to discover how governing agencies, in collaboration with existing community resources, can ensure the successful emancipation and self-sufficiency of Temecula’s foster youth POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,9 APPENDIX C –OCTOBER INTERN REPORT TO TASK FORCE Intern Report –Our High School Population The TVUSD high school foster youth (FY)population(N=45, sample N=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement (permanent plans are employed after 12-18 months of reunification efforts) with many years in care, numerous placements, and challenging GPAs. PLACEMENTS The majority (64%) 4-10 placements o Significant number on both ends of the spectrum: 18% in 1-3 placements, and o 17% in 11-20 placements YEARS IN CARE Most 4-6 years (39%), followed by 36% in care under 3 years o Significant number (25%), in care seven plus years o 14% spending 11-15 years in care, comprising virtually their entire academic o careers GPA –N=22 majority (45%) below 2.0 o 41% between 2.0-2.9 o 2 FY (9%) with GPAs over 3.0 o 1, with a listing for only the last semester, 4.0 o ETHNICITY 54% white, 29% Hispanic, 7% African American with smaller populations of o Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American youth Source: FYSIS, searched 9.29.2010 Our Seniors –Typical? We began with 9 – One : GPA and a-g classes in place for 4-year university, contingent on success this year One : Wants to go to Paul Mitchell Academy Four : Community college ready, one possibly private university ready; two with GPA success but not a-g courses in place One : mental health issues One : transferred out due to foster family emergency One : not a foster youth Two : out of county placements Two : IEPs One of our seniors overlooks CSUSM Questionnaire results (5 of 6)– ǞźƷŷ /ĻƭğƩ /ŷğǝĻǩ ƭğǤźƓŭ ͻ{źͲ ƭĻ ƦǒĻķĻͼ Α ͻĻƭͲ źƷ ĭğƓ ĬĻ ķƚƓĻͼ 2–ASVAB complete 0–FAFSA complete 3–know SW name POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,10 2–remember last time seen SW 3–report having an ILP SW 4–met with ILP SW 0–emancipation coach 1–attended ILP classes 1–housing after emancipation 3–jobs after emancipation 0–driver’s licenses, 2 would like to get DL 4–CA ID cards Permanent adults –1 said 0, 1 said 4, 1 cited Rancho Damacitas 2–would like help making extended family connections 5–want CCS help: 2–education1–support network 4–housing4–transportation 2–careers4–financial assistance POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,11 APPENDIX D –NOVEMBER INTERN REPORT TO TASK FORCE WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OUR TEMECULA KIDS Needs Assessment Results –Highlighting two important areas: Quantitative results already reported, in December, qualitative interviews were begun, and initial interviews demonstrate community efforts to connect youth and caretakers to existing resources and help facilitateand navigate agency systems is welcome and needed. Placement Stability 64% of our youth have had 4-10 placements 17% have had 11-20 placements The majority of our youth are in the category described in a 2002 CA Child Welfare report: A 2002 Report on foster youth outcomes in California noted, “The clearest consistent finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system who five or more placements were those who generally experienced the have had worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care.” (Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary.Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley) Education Outcomes 45% have GPAs <2.0 41% have GPAs between 2-2.9 Many arrive in the district with strong academic needs, those needs are not identified upon arrival but take months to process. The needs are remedial, especially in math, and youth may not remain in our district long enough for us to have an impact. Many receive support while in TVUSDto graduate from HS, but are unprepared in a-g courses to enter 4-year universities, and unprepared for community college work, needed remediation in math and English to pass the Accuplacer assessment for placement in courses receiving college credit. Summary Services are underutilized by area foster youth. More outreach is needed to connect youth to what exists and to tailor services to their needs. The community can do much to supplement POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,12 Indeed, budget cutbacks are creating an opportunity and and enhance agency efforts. demand for more community involvement at the same time best practices are calling for institutional change to foster more community involvement. Communities are well-suited and can be called on to build capacity in schools, recruit foster families to increase stability, provide volunteers to increase capacity in family finding, mentoring and educational rights holders, foster connections to job networks, enhance capacity of foster family agencies and other caretaker networks, and provide financial aid. Research and Best Practice Objectives Assumptions based on the last decade of academic research, including task forces and commissions, particularly the City, County, School Partnership Task Force at the state level (see reference list): educational stability leads to academic achievement, placement stability leads to emotional health, supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for transitional aged youth, access to transportation promotes opportunity, financial aid is necessary for post-high school training, presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. Complicating Factors out of county Foster Family Agencies AND emancipation services Recommendations? What can we do differently to create more placement stability, increase permanency, and improve academic skills for our foster youth? POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,13 APPENDIX E –NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS REFERENCES REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California atBerkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/ CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport.htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1-Youth in Care).Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community ActionGuide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, INdependent Living, and Self-Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program. Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment of foster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Partners for our children, building a case for change. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,14 Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review , 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-Based Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care in their middle twenties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart,A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review , 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment , 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/ studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,15 Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long-Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107-124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). SupportEmancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982- 2006, 62.05 state. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed. Retrieved December9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=16 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,16 APPENDIX F –MARCH, 2011, INTERN TASK FORCE REPORT Lost in Translation What we know: - There are many caring, dedicated social workers, who take ownership andlove their jobs - Much thought and work has gone into current system management - Social workers, ILP social workers and emancipation coaches are charged with emancipation readiness activities - EBP suggests: successful emancipation outcomes are based on accessto education, financial aid, transportation, housing, jobs, and connections to permanent, stable adults - Many communication rays are going out - Few are received - Sender-receiver loop Analysis: - It is not a skill problem, is it a performance problem? - Is it a model problem? - Is it an expectation problem? - Is it a processing problem? - Is it a clarification problem? Generalist Practice Model: Engage –workers see this as their job, relationships are nurtured Assess –no clear awareness of CWS outcome 8A goals in larger picture Plan –overlapping responsibilities, model of minimum 4 touches for ILP, monthly for emancipation coaches, reactive rather than proactive system, no clear plan for assisting toward outcomes Implement –lacking clear delegation of roles and responsibilities –case management model? Line model? Evaluate –CWS outcome summaries, Ansell-Casey Chafee Supplements Terminate – Our seniors: Those in permanency (defined as believe they have an aftercare stake) are low risk; served through capacitybuilding, i.e. connection to ACE scholars, chafee application Those in group home with many level of staff to complete tasks are medium risk; served through capacity building, i.e. community college info, financial 20-80 aid applications Those without permanence, increased staff, or with special challenges, i.e. mental health are high risk; direct service required, ex. One youth: 48 e- mails, 8 phone calls, 3 in person POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP,17 Number of professionals employed has no bearing on success if roles and responsibilities arenot clear Collaboration has offered: - Connection to city programs, i.e. summer job program, library programs, i.e. practice SAT, FAFSA help, college and career expo, youth council - Connection to school programs, i.e. AVID, high school counselors, grade monitoring, RCOE tutoring, college tour - Connection to community programs, i.e. RYLA, Viewpoints Retreat, laptop, boys and girls club volunteers - Connection to task force, i.e. financial aid information, university and community college information, city/school/community programs {ƚƒĻƷŷźƓŭ͸ƭ DƚƷ Ʒƚ DźǝĻ CA Community College Report October 2010 What can we do to prepare college ready students? Remediation is essential in HS so less necessary in college ͻIĻƌƦźƓŭ ƷŷĻƭĻ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ ǞĻƌƌ ĬĻŅƚƩĻ ƷŷĻǤ ƌĻğǝĻ ŷźŭŷ ƭĭŷƚƚƌ ƭƚ ƷŷĻǤ ĭğƓ źƒƦƩƚǝĻ their math knowledge and assess into higher levels of these sequences Α and thus have a shorter path to college-level study with fewer opportunities for attrition Α would be of ŭƩĻğƷ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ Ʒƚ ĬƚƷŷ ĭƚƌƌĻŭĻƭ ğƓķ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ͵ͼ p. 8 ͻ. . . despite other behaviors that are predictive of success for the group as a whole and all else equal, students who started at the lower levels were less likely to successfully complete college-level course in math and writing even when they stayed in the system ŅƚƩ ƒğƓǤ ǤĻğƩƭ͵ͼ P. 13 Math is the hardest hit area English composition second Early Assessment Program (EAP), available summer prior to senior year to students who have reached at least Algebra II by grade 11 Keys for Community College success, p. 11-12 Enroll full time during first year Begin remedial sequence immediately, do not stop midway Pass initial remedial course Α if danger of failing pile on educational supports here ͻ When students are struggling academically, they need additional support so that they can pass ƩĻƒĻķźğƌ ĭƌğƭƭĻƭ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ŅźƩƭƷ ğƷƷĻƒƦƷ͵ͼ P. 22 Keep remedial sequence consistent Developmental education approaches, p. 14 Based on fine-ŭƩğźƓĻķ ğƭƭĻƭƭƒĻƓƷƭ ƚŅ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ͸ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷğƌ ƓĻĻķƭ Modularized instructional units Contextualized for students as far as possible Utilize technology IğǝĻ ğ ͷŷźŭŷ Ʒƚǒĭŷ͸ ĭƚƒƦƚƓĻƓƷ źƓ ƷŷĻ ŅƚƩƒ ƚŅ ĭƚğĭŷĻƭ ğƓķ ƒĻƓƷƚƩƭ USE Evidence Based Practice, what works?! P. 15 Support for student success needs to be explicit and pervasive Α ensure students stay engaged, receive assistance, and maintain a sense of forward progress toward their goals, p. 15 Four distinct approaches, p. 15 Learning communities, case management, study centers, summer bridge programs Milestones and on track indicators can give early warning signs students falling off-track, p. 18 Developmental students need better course taking guidance and stronger support systems to help reach their goals Running head: TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL1 Transition Temecula: Program Proposal Shari Crall San Diego State University SW 740 Dr. Thomas Packard December 13, 2010 Running head: TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL2 Transition Temecula Foster Youth Program 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula 92592 Funding Source: City of Temecula, Riverside County, Temecula Valley Unified School District Project Dates: July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012 Amount Requested: $227,575.00 Date of Submission: December 13, 2010 Project Coordinator: Shari Crall Abstract: The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (2008) documented disturbing outcomes for foster youth in our state. These findings demonstrated 40-55% of emancipated foster youth experience homelessness within 18 months, and 65% of foster youth need immediate housing when emancipating. 40% of foster youth complete high school, 75% are below grade level, 70% of youth emancipating report wanting to go to college, but only 10% attend college and less than 1% graduate from college. Compared with their peers from other “at risk” populations, i.e. low socio-economic status, non-White, English language learners or children with disabilities, foster youth fared worse. 50% of foster youth experience unemployment within the first five years, 60% have incomes at or below $6000 annually. 50-60% identifiedwith moderate to severe mental health problems, substance abuse rates are high, and 33% have no health insurance. 25% are incarcerated within two years of emancipation(Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, May2009). The Riverside County Child Welfare Dynamic Report (2009), showed 317 youth emancipated from care in 2009, with similar outcome statistics. A2007 studybyChapin Hall of former foster youth in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin showed that when services were extended to age 21, rates of homelessness, unemployment, unplanned pregnancy, arrest and incarceration all dropped significantly(Hook & Courtney, 2010).Temecula Valley Unified School District(TVUSD)has 40 foster youth currently enrolled in need of wraparound support to achieve the primary outcome of engendering healthy, successful, independent adults who can contribute to their communities. Transition Temecula(TT)is based on a San Francisco model, and is an outgrowth of Temecula’s City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth, an interagency planning effort that created directives to improve outcomes for Transitional Age Youth (TAY), aged 16-24, which met from 2008-2010.The effort highlighted the unmet needs for Temecula’s 14-18 year olds. Case management and capacity building will be employed with a goal to support current agency activities, events, and programs, link TAY and caregivers to current resources, enable stability, and employ evidence based practices to improve TAY access to education, financial assistance, housing, employment, health and welfare services, transportation and permanent, stable adult relationships. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL3 LIST OF APPENDICES 1–Service Area Map 2–Public Transportation 3–List of Community Partners 4–Logic Model 5–Staff Characteristics 6–Staff Training Log 7–Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Youth in Care 8–Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Emancipate Youth 9–Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Adult Reporter Youth in Care 10-Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Adult Reporter Emancipated Youth 11–TT Questionnaire, Youth in Care 12–Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) 13–Foster Youth Student Information System (FYSIS) Cover Sheet 14–Staff Monthly Report 15–Client File Audit Tool 16–Client File Review Schedule 17–Client Progress Notes 18–Client Critical Needs Assessment Checklist 19–Program Design Research Timeline 20–Line-Item Budget 21-Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement Benchmarks 22–Job Descriptions 23–Organizational Chart TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL4 Target Population/Goalsand Objectives: Section 1 Target Population, Need and Client Characteristics The TVUSD high school foster youth (FY) population (N=40,n=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement (permanent plans are employed after 12-18 months of reunification efforts) with many years in care, numerous placements, and lowgrade point averages(GPA). Ethnicity is 54% white, 29% Hispanic, 7% African American with smaller populations of Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American youth. Upon review of current records in the Foster Youth Student Information Service (FYSIS), the majority (64%)have experienced4-10 placements, with a significant number on both ends of the spectrum: 18% in 1-3 placements, and 17% in 11-20 placements.Most had been in care for 4-6 years (39%), followed by 36% in care under 3 years. A significant number (25%), have been in care seven plus years,14% spending 11-15 years in care, comprising virtually their entire academic careers. Academic records showed significant challenges with a majority (45%) having GPAsbelow 2.0. 41% had GPAs between 2.0-2.9, and twoFY (9%) hadGPAs over 3.0(Riverside County Office of Education, 2010). Characteristics of our eight senior class members give an even clearer picture. Only one of our eight hasa GPA and required academic classes for 4-year college eligibility. One would like to attend, and has applied to cosmetology school. Four students want to attend college but will be limited to community college placement for at least 60 hours of credit, before transferring to a 4-year college, because of limited high school academic records. One has serious mental health issues to be addressed, and attends a non-public school. One was quickly transferred from the district, mid- semester, after many years inplacement in Temecula, when his foster family experienced a family crisis. Two of these youth are out of county placements and two have Individualized Education Plans (IEP). TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL5 A questionnaire established these seniors are not connected to offered services, do not have driver’s licenses or applications for school or financial aid complete, limited contact with independent living and emancipation providers, and would like assistance in accessingeducation, employment, health and welfare services, mental health services, housing, transportation, financial aid and relationships to permanent, stable adults. A 2002 Report on foster youth outcomes in California noted, “The clearest consistent finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system whohave had five or more placements were those who generally experienced the worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care”(Needell, Cuccaro-Alamin, Brookhart, Jackman, & Shlonsky, May 2002). Goals and Objectives The overarching goal of Transition Temecula is to improve outcomes for youth emancipating from foster care in Temecula. This goal will be reached through implementation of bothcase management and capacity building modelsthat address each client’s individual risk factors known to have an adverse effect outcomes and through increasing the capacity of agencies serving this population.This program will serve foster youth aged 14-24 residing within the boundaries of TVUSD. The number of youth served attending high school is 40. It is estimated half that number (20) of emancipated foster youth remain in the Temecula area and would be eligible for services, for a total number of 60 youth served. The Transition TemeculaProgram will serve as a pilot program for Riverside County. If effective, the model could be expanded to other Riverside County cities and school districts willing to sponsor the service. Specific output objectives forthe pilot program are as follows: 1.Between July 1, 2011and June 30, 2012,twocasemanagerswill screen all transitional aged foster youth (TAY)attending TVUSD high schools, or of high school age residing within TVUSD boundaries. Outreach efforts will bemade through local Foster Family Agencies TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL6 (FFA), group homes, County Independent Living Programs (ILP), and high school contacts to identify and screen emancipated TAY within the service boundaries. Screenings will result in identification of 50eligible clients who will be individually assessed for connection to existing services and individual client plans will be developed. 2.Following an assessment, 50 TAY will have at least 5visits with a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. 3.Case managerswill provide clients referrals to agencies/organizations based on individual need on an on-going basis. All referral activity will take place between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. 4.Case managerswill follow up on 100% of all referrals made to community agencies/organizations during the year from July 1, 2011to June 30, 2012. Specific outcome objectives for the program are as follows: 1.100% of clients who receive at least 5visits from a case manager will be connected to ILP and emancipation services offered through Riverside County 2.75% of clients still in high school, who receive at least 5visits from a case managerwill increase their college readiness by community college, CSU or UC standards 3.After 5visits from a case managerbetween July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012,75% of clients will remain in placement within the boundaries of TVUSD 4.Between June 1, 2011and July 30, 2012, 75% of eligibleprogram participants will be connected to a community mentor, Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) or have a family finding search completed 5.After 5visits from a case managerbetween July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 70% of high school seniors will have completed appropriate applications for continued education or trade opportunities and financial aid applications TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL7 6.Between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, the number of foster families licensed, or in process of licensing will increase 50% 7. After 5visits from a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 70% of clients will be connected to a summer job program or other employment 8. After 5visits from a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 70% of TAY in need of housing will be connected to a transitional housing program Methodology: Section 2 Evidence-Based Intervention Model Disturbing outcome statistics of foster youth have been well-documented and a focus of research for the past decade and a half. Best practices and important areas of focus have been identified through The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (2009), statewide review by the City, County, School (CCS) Partnership (CCS Partnership, 2007, 2008), The Casey Family Foundation (Casey Family Foundation, 2007), research departments at the University of California, Berkeley ((Needell, Cuccaro-Alamin, Brookhart, Jackman, & Shlonsky, May 2002), Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago (Hook & Courtney, 2010), nationally at the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (Macomber, et al., 2008), through the Child Welfare League of America (Child Welfare League of America, 2005), and through numerous academic studies(Henderson, 2010; Sullivan, Jones, & Mathieson, 2010; Strijker & Knot-Dickscheit, 2008; Pecora P. J., 2005, 2006). A Community Action Guide created through a statewide CCS Partnership (2007) stated foster youth: . . . exit care largely unprepared for managing life on their own. Some have been in care since they were young; most have multiple foster home and/or group home placements. On average they have had six placements. For many of these young people the outcome of public parenting is unemployment, under-education, homelessness and prison. Studies show that about TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL8 two-thirds of the incarcerated population were foster youth at some point in their lives. For all of the youth, the effects of their years in foster care are lasting. The state removes these youth from their homes and becomes their parent. As a parent the state has failed.(CCS Partnership, 2007, p. 3) A review of the literature identifiesfive areas of critical need: housing, education, employment, mental and behavioral health, and permanency.Models created using case management and capacity building, as well as legislative policy initiatives to address these issues, have proven effective. The Transitional Age Youth San Francisco Project (TAYSF), established in 2008 after a multi-agency task force convened by Mayor Gavin Newsom, works to connect, convene, measure and sustain transitioning foster youth,Justice system involvedyouth, parenting youth, youth with disabilities, immigrant youth, and youth who have not completed high school. They have “successfully advocated for the inclusion of transitional age youth as a priority population in housing development, supported improvements to education and employmentservices and has worked collaboratively with other agencies to increase healthaccess for older youth and young adults” (Transitional Age Youth San Francisco, 2010). TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL9 Figure 1. Model, Transitional Age Youth San Francisco Casey Family Programs operates the Pasadena Alumni Support Center (PASC), a similar, smaller scale program than TAYSF, in conjunction with public and private social service agencies and departments in Los Angeles County. Key members of the staff are youth advocates, young adults formerly in foster care who know what it’s like to go out into the real world feeling unprepared and uncertain of the future. Along with the on-site community supervisor, community specialist and case managers, Youth Advocates connect young people to services they need, TAY seek employment, find housing, and gain access to health and mental health benefits, and research scholarships and information about higher education. In addition to Casey employees, a county probation officer and transition coordinators from the county child welfare and probation departmentsare on-site. Target Neighborhood The geographical boundaries of Temecula Valley Unified School District will be the target community for this program (see Appendix 1), comprising the City of Temecula, and surrounding Riverside County unincorporated areas, including the heavily residential French Valley and more rural neighborhoods. An estimated 60 TAY live within these boundaries. It is a well-resourced community with a commitment to better outcomes for foster youth. Transition Temecula will be located at the new Cal State University San Marcos extension, at 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula 92592, which also houses TVUSD’s alternative high school, Rancho Vista. A former TVUSD elementary school building, located on the southeast side of Temecula, aclassroom has been designated to house this program. Co-location with both the CSUSM extension and alternative high school provides easy access and collegial association with both related programs. The center is accessible from the Temecula/Wal-Mart bus stop, Riverside Transit Agency Route 24. See Appendix 2to view TT’s TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL10 proximity to public transit, with service running from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Centeris located in a busy, well-lit neighborhood, near commercial and residential properties. Client Recruitment and Acceptance to Program TAY still in high school will be identified through TT staff access to the Foster Youth Student Information System (FYSIS), through their association with TVUSD, as well as indirect access to ARIES, TVUSD’s student database, through TVUSD’s foster youth liaison. It is believed, once establishment of TT is completed, TAY will remain identified after high school, because of earlier identification while still in foster care. In addition, TT staff will conduct outreach to emancipated TAYthrough relationships with Riverside County Independent Living Program (ILP) coordinators, resident care providers, and high school counselors. All foster youth, aged 14-24, are accepted into the program. Former foster youth who have been adopted are not eligible. Program Description Transition Temecula will utilize a case management and capacity building model. To prepare for the implementation of TT, staff will receive training in basic mental health screening, motivational interviewing and cultural sensitivity. They will also begin meeting with key contacts from local social service agencies, foster family agencies, group home providers, educational providers, and community assetsto begin forming working relationships. Partner agencies will serve both as a referral source and a client resource. Please refer to appendix 3for a list of community partners. Once determined eligible, clients will be further assessed by a case manager. Clients will work with case managersto develop a plan to address the identified individual risk factors. Clients will be assessed forthefive areas of critical need: housing, education, employment, mental and behavioral health, and permanent, stable adult relationships.Clients will be given appropriate referrals to address their individual needs.If desired by client, family finding activities will be initiated.Vital record repository will also be offered. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL11 In addition, each client will meet with TTstaff a minimum of 5timesat which time services such asmentoring and case-managementwill be provided by the TTstaff. Oneof the visits must be in the client’s home. Since the clients will be involved with several service delivery systems, care will be coordinated (Connelly, 2007). To accomplish the capacity building portion of TT’s mission, program outreach coordinators will sponsor foster parent recruitment, educational awareness training, housing establishment, and sheltered job and internship programs.Fundraising will be conducted to establish a GAP fund. TTwill accomplish its ultimate goal of improving outcomes for TAY residing within TVUSD boundariesbyimproving access to education, financial assistance, housing, employment, transportation, mental and personal health services, and permanent, stable adult relationships. Operational Schedule Transition Temeculawill be open Monday, Tuesday, and Friday, from 11:00am-7:00pm,and 11:00am –9:00pm on Wednesday and Thursday nights to accommodate the schedule of the working and studentclients. Home visits will be scheduled for times that are convenient for the client. Logic Model The logic model for TT is based on the overriding assumption that better emancipation outcomes for TAY can be achieved through community collaboration andsupport. Underlying assumptions are: educational stability leads to academic achievement, placement stability leads to emotional health, supportive services past the age of 18 can ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for TAY, access to transportation promotes opportunity, financial aid is necessary for post-high school training, and the presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. The resources, or inputs, dedicated to TTare clients(TAY residing within the boundaries of TVUSD),other resources (program supplies, training),facilities (office space inside Temecula CSUSM campus), equipment (computers, phones), and the support of local partnering agencies. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL12 Program activities, or throughputs, for TTare developing relationships with community partners, assessing clients, making referrals, connection to services, providing service through 5case manager visits, continuous assessment, referrals and intense referral follow-up,capacity building, familyfinding activities, attendance at team decision making meetings, foster parent recruitment, educational awareness training, housing establishment, sheltered job and internship programs, fundraisingand monitoring and evaluation of TTefforts. All of this will be done in a culturally sensitive manner(Connelly, 2007). The resources (inputs) and program activities (throughputs) will result in a variety of outcomes. The short-term results (intermediate outcomes) will beincreased college readinessand graduation from post-high school programs, increased access to transportation, jobs, health and welfare services, mental health services, substance abuse programs, financial resources, and increased relationships with permanent, stable adults.Other short-term results for the community will be increased collaboration among agencies. The short-term effect on society will be lesscost associated with client outcomes(homelessness, substance abuse, dependence on public assistance, incarceration). In addition to the short-term results (intermediate outcomes), the combination of resources and activities will also lead to long-term results (final outcomes). TT’s logic model indicates the projected long-term results of the program will be youth who can achieve, compete, and thrive, alongsidetheir peers, contributing to the communities in which they reside.TT’s long-term effects on the community will be the increased capacity for community agencies to collaborate, strengthening existing programs outside the Temecula service area. The program’s long-term effects on society are decreased costs associated with clients’ outcomes(homelessness, substance abuse, dependence on public assistance, incarceration).Please refer to Appendix 4 for TT’s logic model. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL13 Management Information System (MIS): Section 3 Introduction The Transition Temecula program will have a data collection and evaluation process built in to monitor program implementation and measure client outcomes, to ensure services effect desired client outcomes(Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008).Monthly reports will be gathered with a focus on outcomes to reflect whether service objectives have been met, comprehensiveness to assess performance against all important objectives, comparability to similar populations, andtimeliness so data can retain relevance for decision makers(Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008, p. 200)Outcome measures and instruments were established in consultation with Dr. Anthony Garcia, a researcher at the San Diego State University School of Social Work. Process Monitoring To monitorprocess fidelity, monthly reports will be gathered from TT staff (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008). Key inputs of practitioner characteristics and training(see appendices 5 and 6), as well as client demographics(appendices 7 and 8)will be tracked. A set of data collection forms has been created and can be viewed in the attached appendices. Case management documentation will include initial assessment(see appendices 7-12), followed by assessment after completion of at least 5case management visits. Outreach documentation will be reported in the monthly report and will document all staff contacts with the community and its partners. The following program activity (throughputs) will also be monitoredin stability/permanency, supportive services and assessment:placement stability, team decision meetings, foster family recruitment, family finding activities, referrals and services to increase access to education, employment, health and welfare services, mental health, safe and secure housing, transportation, financial aid, and connection to permanent, stable adults, and preand post assessment. TTutilizes both a case management model in micro practice and a capacity building model in mezzo and macro practice. Therefore assessment and intervention are continuous activities that will TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL14 be monitoredthrough case management, addressing the six identified areas of critical need.Results of the pre and post Ansell-Casey assessments will be compared to benchmarkdata housed at Casey Family Projects(Casey Family Programs, 2010). Results of pre and post GAF assessment (American Psychiatric Association \[DSM-IV-TR\], 2000) testing will be compared for improvement over time. For assessment activity monitoring, please refer to appendices 7-10, and 12. The youth self report on the TT Questionnaire (Appendix 11) will be used for youth in care, pre and post the prescribed 5 case management visits,and will indicate youth’s perception of connection to existing services. All on-going client contact and critical needassessment will be noted in client progress notes (see Appendix 17)and critical needassessment checklist (see Appendix 18).Number, mode and location of staff visits with client will also be recorded in the client progress notes. All on-going community partner referral and follow-up activity (to address clients’critical needfactors) is recorded by staff in a referral log (Appendix 18). The activities related to treatment fidelity will be monitored in supervision. Outcome Evaluation Intermediate and final outcomes will be measured to evaluateprogram effectiveness. Intermediate outcomes to be measured are college readiness, emotional health, employment, and access to health and welfare services, mental health services, safe and secure housing, transportation, financial aid,and the establishment of relationships with permanent, stable adults. These outcomes will be measured through secondary record review, administration of the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement(Casey Family Programs, 2010)pre and post tests, and pre and post tests of the GAF assessment(American Psychiatric Association \[DSM- IV-TR\], 2000).Completion of the case management model will lead tofinal outcome results, with capacity building measured in process evaluationonly. Outcomes of increased graduation from post high school programs and a reduction in homelessness, incarceration and unemployment will be time seriesmeasured, pre test, post test and then quarterly, as long a TAY are active in the program. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL15 Those results will be compared individually and also on a macro level with statistics on emancipating youth recorded in the Child Welfare Dynamic Report (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010)for Riverside County. Use of Aggregate Data Collection Tools Select data will be aggregated on a monthly basisto provide useful program evaluation data. Upon entry, after 5case management visits, and then quarterly while active in the program, other key variables will be aggregated.All data will be aggregated by the administrative assistant from client forms onto aggregate data forms.On a monthly basis, for review during the first staff meeting of every month, starting the second month, the administrative assistant will aggregated select data into a monthly report to be reviewed during client case review and to monitor client care and program delivery process. See Appendix 14for Monthly Report form. Monthly data includes measures of stability/permanency, supportive services, and assessment. Measures include numbers of TAY enrolled, those moved from program boundaries, team decision meetings attended, foster family recruitment and licensing outreach, family finding applications, case management visits (one of which must be in client’s home), referrals and referral follow-ups to supportive services, and number of assessments completed. Services are customized to individual areas of critical need as assessed by both the youth and adult reporters living with the youth, supplemented by educational and placement information in FYSIS (see Appendices 7-13). The addition of the adult reporters to the youth self report is expected to bring a more accurate picture, as well as identify TAY perception deficits. As TAY are often cut off from adult support, or stable placement, it is important to know youth do not know they have a social security number, even though their caregivers know they do. In addition, staff will perform monthly client file audits. Five client files, of clients who have been in the program for 30 days or more, will be divided amongst staff each month. Measures have been selected for monitoring based on key components of TT’s services and individual TAY’s TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL16 identified critical needs.Auditors will look for evidence thata case manager has been assigned, assessments given and critical needs identified, appropriate referrals have been made, what progress, if any, has been noted, regular staff/client contact has been maintained and appropriate staff/community partners contacts have been made. Refer to Appendices 15 and 16for audit tool and schedule. EVALUATION DESIGN: SECTION 4 TT Evaluation Research Questions An overall evaluation plan will incorporate program objectives and data collection procedures. TT’s performance can be measured and the implementation fidelity can be monitored with use of appropriate research questions.Although TT is a new program and evaluation efforts will mostly be formative, two databases will provide comparativepopulations. Independent variables will include staff visits/contacts, client referrals, and client referral follow-ups.Dependent variables includecollege readiness, emotional health, employment, access to health and welfare services, mental health services, safe and secure housing, transportation, financial aid and the establishment of relationships with permanent, stable adults. TT’s evaluation research plan will be designed to answer the following questions: Performance Measurement- 1.How many visits/contacts did TTprovide? 2.How many referrals did TTprovide? 3.Were referrals followed-up? 4.How many clients completed a complete service package (5visits/contacts)? 5.How many clients reported increased college readiness? 6.How many clients reported increased emotional health? 7.How many clients were employed or increased job readiness? 8.How many clients increased access to health and welfare services? TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL17 9.How many clients were in safe and secure housing? 10.How many clients increased access to transportation? 11.How many clients increased access to financial aid? 12.How many clients reported 3-5 relationships with permanent, stable adults? 13.How many clients graduated from post high school programs? 14.How cost-effective are TT’s outputs and outcomes to produce? 15.How cost-efficient hasTTbeen in achieving its outputs and outcomes? Monitoring- 1.DoesTTstaff have credentials required by program model? 2.Does TTstaff have required trainings? 3.Doesstaff have contact with community service providers? 4.Does staff receivesupervision on cases to ensure treatment model fidelity? 5.Does TT staff providethe number/ type of visits/contacts required by the program model? 6.Are clients being assigned a case manager asrequired by the program model? 7.Are clients having regular contact with TTstaff per the program model? Evaluation Design, Methods and Timelines An evaluation plan has been designed to accommodate the needs of administration, program staff, and funders. Please refer to Appendix 19for a timelineconceptualizing the evaluation design. Staffcredentials and training will be documented during the planning stage, and again at year-end (Appendices 5 & 6).Monthly reports will document stability/permanency, supportive services and assessment(See appendix 14). During monthly client file audits, which will rotate among staff, staff will verify the assignment of a case manager, staff visits/contacts with clients, including referrals, on-going assessment forareas of critical need, evidence of progress in critical need areas, and contact between staff and community partners (see Appendix 15). Information from the audits will be reported in TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL18 staff meetingsand used for program feedback, learning and fidelity monitoring. The administrative assistant will be responsible program and budget monitoring and reporting(Connelly, 2007). Pre and post tests of the Ansell-Casey battery and GAF assessment, as well as the self-report questionnaire for youth in care (see Appendices 7-12) will be used at program entry and after 5case management visits. As clients enter the program at various stages in their school careers and maturity, as well as following emancipation, it is expected areas of critical need will be unique to each individual. Time series design will be employed to capture progress in access to services in each of the identified areas of critical need. Following completion of the case management program, if clients are still involved with TT, post tests will be re-administered annually. A key measurement component will be the number of case management contacts/visits needed for improvement in critical need areas. Ansell-Casey data will be compared to the Casey Family Programs database(Casey Family Programs, 2010), and identified outcome measures of the Child Welfare Dynamic Reports (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010)for Riverside County will also provide comparison for TT’s clientele.This data will be used to decide if TT is meeting their intended objectives on micro, mezzo and macro levels. In the last month of the program, a final compilation of data will occur. An evaluation consultant will be contracted for assistance with the compilation and evaluation of final program outputs and outcomes.Cost analysis data will also be included in the final report. The monthly data and the year end data will be synthesized into one final report(Connelly, 2007). The total program’s total expenses of $227,575.00divided by 50,TT’s planned number of clients, equals $4,551.50annually or $12.47 per day to serveeach client (see Appendix 20for line item budget).Per unit service costs are more difficult to allocate during the pilot year, as numbers do not yet exist on service units provided. It is expected, in many cases, service contact will continue beyond theprescribed fivecase management visits. Eventual valuable evaluation data will consist of TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL19 number of contacts per client, with data on low, medium and high use service usage to achieve intermediate outcomes. The director is paid $50,000 a year, or $24.04 per hour ($50,000/2080 hrs annually) with an additional 25% ($12,500) budgeted for employee related expenses (ERE) (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008), for a total of $62,500. The two case managers are each paid $40,000 annually,which equals ($40,000/2080hrs worked in a year) or $19.23 per hour salaryplus $10,000 ERE for a total of $50,000.The Outreach Coordinator will work part-time (PTE), 20 hours a week, at an hourly rate of $13.50, for a salary of $14,040 annually, plus ERE of $3510 (25%), for a total of $17,550. The Administrative Assistant will also be PTE, 20 hours a week, at an hourly rate of $11.50, for a salary of $11,960 annually and ERE of $2990 (25%), for a total of $14,950. Unit cost can be estimated by adding total salary and ERE costs ($195,000) and dividing by the number of staff hours per year (8320), for a total of $23.44 per staff hour. Individual hours can be assigned through monthly report, to determine a range of unit costs. Design Constraints There are several limitations in this program evaluation design, the first being the low number in the sample, even though it is representative of the entire in care population and the identified emancipated population. The use of comparison data from Casey Family Programs(Casey Family Programs, 2010) and Riverside County Child Welfare Dynamic Reports (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010) will attempt to control for that factor as well as common threats to internal validity, i.e. maturation, history, testing, instrumentation, selection, and mortality (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2010). Indeed, in some aspect, it is a hope of the program design that testing emphasis on the critical areas of need will in itself produce a positive awareness and contribution to results. As clients will enter the program at different ages and stages of their transition, measuring outcomes can be difficult. The time series design will provide individual data on progress. Ideally, TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL20 the evaluation will be longitudinal to allow for TAY to cycle in and out of the program with more final outcomes for consideration. Instruments The Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, captures outcomes for child welfare and Chafee services. This free assessment was created for adolescents in care and young adults who have emancipated from care or are in aftercare.Benchmark data is available, free of charge, for comparison (Casey Family Programs, 2010). Please see Appendix 19 for information on the benchmark data. The Child Welfare Dynamic Reports for Riverside County include the County –Specific Outcome Spreadsheets. “These spreadsheets contain the data that are included in the California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System quarterly reports, along with additional tabs that include graphs of the measures, ways to compare performance over time, composite views, etc. In order to understand any measure, it is necessary to review it in the context of the entire cycle of measures, performance over time, and performance stratifiedby age, ethnicity, and gender” (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010). This quarterly data includes self-report, availability-sample data obtained during exit interviews with youth emancipating from care on the identified areas of critical need. In 2009, data was compiled from 176 or the 317 youth emancipating from care in Riverside County. Techniques Used to Analyze Data A contracted evaluation consultant will compile and analyze all data gathered through the MIS process. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used to compute frequency distributions for independent variables, and correlations between independent variables and each of the dependentvariablesthrough univariate and bivariate analysis. Statistical procedures TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL21 will be chosen by the evaluation consultant according the quantity and quality of the data collected (Connelly, 2007). PERSONNEL: SECTION 5 Case Management and Capacity Building Approach The Transition Temecula team is made of a director, case managers, and an outreach coordinator, with backgrounds in the social services. The team meets weekly to discuss client cases. The director runs the meetings. The TT team is made of five staff members, each of which will be briefly described in this section(Connelly, 2007). Please refer to Appendices 22 and 23to read detailed job descriptions and to view the organizational chart. Director (1.0 FTE). The TT director will be paid $50,000 annually to direct all activities and provide supervision to program staff. The director will promote TT in the community, in meetings and conferences, and will report to the CCS Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth.The director supervises staff, monitors program fidelity, monitors the program budget and coordinates the program evaluation activities(Connelly, 2007).Some evening and weekend work may be required. Master’s level degree, preferably with an administrative emphasis in social work, is required. Other advanced degrees in business, administration, leadership and social services will be considered.Two years of experience with TAY clientele is preferred, two years experience in child welfare is required. Casemanager (2-1.0FTE). TT casemanagers will be paid $40,000 annually to manage a client case load of 25-30 TAY. Clientele will consist of both in care and emancipated TAY.Each case manager will work one evening a week, and some weekend time when necessary.The case managers report atweekly meetings, perform file audit review, and administer case management services as proscribed by the program.They screen, assess, counsel, mentor and make customized referrals for clients. Case managersform relationships with community service providers and closely monitor all referrals TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL22 (Connelly, 2007).Bachelor degrees, preferably in social work, but secondarily in the social sciences, are required. A valid California Driver’s License is also required. Outreach coordinator (.50 FTE). The outreach coordinator (OC) is responsible, along with the director, for capacity building aspects of TT’s mission. A bachelor degree, preferably in social work, but secondarily in the social sciences, is required. A valid California Driver’s License is also required.Work hours are flexible each week, requiring night and weekend work, as needed. One night a month, foster family recruitment will be conducted by the OC. Other duties include training stakeholders in the impact of educational instability and college readiness, and the provisions of AB12, distributing printed materials, conducting tours, doing outreach to identify services and community programs and documenting them for the case managers, representing TT, along with the director, at city, county, and school meetings. Salary is $13.50 an hour, plus benefits. It is hoped providing benefits with this PTE will provide employment stability. Administrative assistant (.50 FTE). The administrative assistant’s job is to provide clerical support for the program. It requires a high school diploma andbasic computer skills. The administrative assistant compiles client data, monitors budgets and works with the directorto create reports and participate in various evaluation activities(Connelly, 2007).Work hours are 11am-3:30pm dailyand the pay is $11.50 an hour, plus benefits.It is hoped providing benefits with this PTE will provide employment stability. Budget: Section 6 Context Transition Temecula(TT)is based on a San Francisco model, and is an outgrowth of Temecula’s City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth, an interagency planning effort that created directives to improve outcomes for Transitional Age Youth (TAY), aged 16-24, which met from 2008-2010.The effort highlighted the unmet needs for Temecula’s 14-18 year olds. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL23 With a focus on connecting TAY to existing resources, improving collaboration, and coordinating activities, the task force still found significant gaps in supportive services. It was determined the CCS Partnership, which included the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District would pool financial resources, and solicit community assets for implementation of a pilot program to see if better outcomes for TAY could be achieved. Based on existing best practice research, and on models in San Francisco and Pasadena, the decision was made to form Transition Temecula with a goal to support current agency activities, events, and programs, link TAY and caregivers to current resources, enable stability, and employ evidence based practices to improve TAY access to education, financial assistance, housing, employment, health and welfare services, transportation and permanent, stable adult relationships. The implementation is supported through in-kind matches of office space, office equipment and furnishings, and utility support from the governing partners. Since TTis a new program, the data collected will serve as a baseline for future program evaluations. All expenses are projected, and budgetary data will be monitored for areas that need to be fine-tuned to maximize efficiency as future budgets are created(Connelly, 2007).If successful, TT will be used as model program for other Riverside County cities and school districts who desire to form CCS partnerships of their own. Analysis Personnel. As a case management model, the majority of TT’s expenses are under the personnel category, totaling $195,000 or 86% of the budget.CCS partners will contribute both in-kind and in cash, with $150,000 of program costs split evenly between agency budgets. Community partners have allocated the following funds for the first year of the program: BetterWorld Together Trust - $25,000, United Way of the Inland Valleys -$15,000, H.E.A.R.T. -$10,000, Temecula Valley Woman’s Club -$10,000,and Wishes for Children -$6000. Temecula Valley Assistance League, TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL24 Temecula Noon Rotary, and Temecula Kiwanis have also promised support for the GAP fund and for a yearly TAY retreat. TTis anxious to show favorable outcomes so support will continue. Due to personnel costs being classified as a direct cost, and the administrative overhead kept down through the support of CCS partners, TTprograms/expense ratio is high at 94.6%.This meets and exceeds the 60% desired standard(Connelly, 2007). Nonpersonnel. TT’s non-personnel costs are kept low through the in-kind support of CCS partners. A total of $34,180non-personnel costs are proposed, which equals 15% of the total budget. However, $21,800 of this figure is achieved through in-kind office space, utility, and office equipment and furniture donation, making the total overhead figure $12,380, or 5.4% of the budget. Other Comments Overall, TT’s projected budget is balanced. It has acceptable overheadexpenses (5.4%), and acceptable cash match total (25%). It has present financial support from CCS Partners and community assets. TT is currently looking for additional grant funding. TTneeds to diversify funding sources to remedy its initial over reliance government budgets. It is estimated it will cost TT $4,551.50annually or $12.47 per day to serve each client (see Appendix 20 for line item budget), with a cost of $23.44 per staff hour. These costs can be compared to both in care costs for TAY and incarceration costs to the community. One third of Temecula’s TAY live in a level 9 group home, at a rate of $5000-6000 per youth, per month. Foster Family agency placement, the bulk of the rest of Temecula’s TAY caregivers, costs $600-800 per month, as does county caregiver placement(State of California, 2007). Incarceration costs for both federal and state prisons, runs at $62.01 and $62.05, respectively, per day(U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). The CCS Partnership Task Force on Foster Youth believes if foster youth outcomes can be significantlyimproved, the TT program will prove a bargain. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL25 REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home.San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.).Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport. htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1-Youth in Care).Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, INdependent Living, and Self-Sufficiency Services.Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program.Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL26 EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give.California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment of foster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Partners for our children, building a case for change.Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review, 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-Based Approach.Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care in their middle twenties.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary.Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL27 Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect, 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study.Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review, 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment, 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation.Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division.Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long-Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare, 107- 124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL28 Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982- 2006, 62.05 state.Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed.Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=16 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL29 APPENDIX 1 –GEOGRAPHICAL MAP OF TT SERVICE AREA TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL30 APPENDIX 2 –PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL31 APPENDIX 3 –COMMUNITY PARTNERS City of Temecula City Council City Manager’s Office County of Riverside Board of Supervisors, particularly District 3 Department of Public Social Services Independent Living Programs Riverside Community College Foster Youth Services Temecula Valley Unified School District School Board Foster Youth Liaison High School Counselors Riverside County Board of Education Foster Youth Services BetterWorld Together Trust Boys and Girls Club, Southwest County Help Eliminate Abuse in Rancho-Temecula (H.E.A.R.T.) HUGS Foster Family Agency Plan-It Life Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) Temecula Kiwanis Club Temecula Rotary Temecula Valley Assistance League Temecula Valley Woman’s Club Thessalonika Services Rancho Damacitas Group Home Rancho Jireh Foster Family Agency United Way of the Inland Valleys Wishes for Children TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL32 APPENDIX 4 –CLIENT OUTCOME LOGIC MODEL FOR TRANSITION TEMECULA Assumptions:Intermediate Activities/ServicesResults better Outcomes emancipation Transcript review, Involvement in Team outcomes for counselor contact, Decision Making TAY can be youth information (TDM) meetings achieved through and case management College Increased community graduation from readiness Information and collaboration post HS programs Train all branches on referrals tocaregivers and support impact of educational instabilityand college readiness Reduction in Tours of college campuses and homelessness, educational Designate FY high connection to incarceration, stability leads to school counselors guardian scholar academic programs and Increased achievement unemployment Connect to RCOE emotional Community College tutoring for TAY assessment and health remediation begun placement during senior HS year stability leads to Foster family emotional health Increased recruitment employment Secure and maintain Connect to THP+ supportive vital records housing services past the Increased access age of 18 to health and Fund and create ameliorate Priority placement welfare services Temeculaarea THP+ outcomes of summer jobs program housing joblessness, Increased mental homelessness Train all stakeholders Sheltered job and health access incarceration, and in AB12 provisions internship program substance abuse TAY who can for TAY Increased access achieve, Connect to to safe and secure compete, and emancipation services, housing access to bus passes thrive alongside transportation their peers, promotes Increased contributing to opportunity Driver’s license access to program the communities transportation in which they financial aid is reside GAP FUND necessary for post-high school Increased training Follow upon FAFSA, access to Chafee, Cal Grants, financial aid scholarships from community groups presence of permanent, stable 3-5 relationships Family Finding adults creates Fund CASA, CASA with permanent, resiliency. Start program stable adults TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL33 APPENDIX 5 –TT STAFF CHARACTERISTICS Staff Name _______________________________________________________________ Position: Director Case Manager Outreach Coordinator Degree: High School Graduate AA Degree Para-professional Certificate Please state name of certificate_____________________________________ BSW MSW LCSW MFT Other Please state type_______________________________________________ TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL34 APPENDIX 6-REQUIRED STAFF TRAINING LOG Staff memberTrainings RequiredDate Completed DirectorCultural Sensitivity Training GAF Assessment Training Motivational Interviewing Training TT Program Model Training Harm Reduction Model Training Trauma Informed Model of Care Training Casey Family Programs Breakthrough Series Collaborative: Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families Case ManagerCultural Sensitivity Training GAF Assessment Training Motivational Interviewing Training TT Program Model Training Harm Reduction Model Training Trauma Informed Model of Care Training Outreach CoordinatorCultural Sensitivity Training TT Program Model Training Casey Family Programs Breakthrough Series Collaborative: Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families Administrative AssistantCultural Sensitivity Training TT Program Model Training TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL35 APPENDIX 7 -ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT,YOUTH IN CARE Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (CS 1.0) VERSION 1 –Youth in Care Instructions: These questions ask about the life of a youth in foster care. This information is considered confidential. Only representativesof your state or county social work agency will see the information. Your responses may help to make your agency’s policies and services better for foster youths. If you have any questions about this assessment, please contact your agency social worker or independent living coordinator. Please choose the responses that best describe you. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL36 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL37 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL38 APPENDIX 8 -ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT,EMANCIPATED YOUNG ADULT TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL39 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL40 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL41 APPENDIX 9 -ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT,ADULT REPORTER FOR YOUTH IN CARE TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL42 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL43 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL44 APPENDIX 10 -ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT,ADULT REPORTER FOR YOUTH IN CARE TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL45 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL46 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL47 APPENDIX 11 -TT QUESTIONNAIREFOR YOUTH IN CARE . achieve.compete.thrive TT RANSITION EMECULA APPLICANT INFORMATION Date of Last NameFirstM.I. Birth Street AddressApartment/Unit # CityStateZIP PhoneE-mail Address EDUCATION INFORMATION Schoolattend: 2010/2011 Est. Graduation Date/Credits completed: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Grade Level TVUSD Community Service Yes No Yes No IEP ? Requirement Complete Type of school Community College 4-year Trade School Other__________________ want to attend: ASVAB Have you completed the ASVAB interest survey with your high school counselor or career center? Yes No FAFSA Did you check the box indicating Have you applied for Yes No Applicationyou had been foster care? YesNo other scholarships? YesNo FOSTER PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMATION Last NameFirstM.I.Date Street AddressApartment/Unit # CityStateZIP PhoneE-mail Address TRANSITION INFORMATION Social Worker Name: Yes No ILP Social Worker Name: Have you met with him/her? Mostrecent time was? Yes No Emancipation Coach Name: Have you met with him/her? Most recent time was? Yes No Yes No Have you attended ILP classes? Do you have plans in place for housing after emancipation? Yes No Yes No I.D. Card? Yes No Do you have plans in place for a job after emancipation? Do you have a driver’s license What careers interest you? Yes No Are you interested in working with the CCS Partnership on emancipation issues? Are you interested in efforts at locating extended family members? How many permanent stable adults do you have in your life? Yes No What sectors of your transition plans need attention? Education Housing Career Support Network Transportation Financial Assistance Other ________________ TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL48 APPENDIX 12 -GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONING (GAF) (American Psychiatric Association \[DSM-IV-TR\], 2000, P. 34) Global Assessment of FunctioningGAF The () is a numeric scale (0 through 100) used by mental health clinicians and physicians to subjectively rate the social, occupational, and psychological functioning of adults, e.g., how well or adaptively one is meeting various problems-in-living. The scale is presented and described in the DSM-IV-TRon page 34. The highest ratings are 91-100, “Superior functioning in a wide range of activities.. No symptoms”and the lowest ratings (besides a 0, for “Inadequate information”) are 1-10, “Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others…OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death.” Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale• Consider psychological, social, and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health-illness. Do not include impairment in functioning due to physical (or environmental) limitations. Code (Note: Use intermediate codes when appropriate, e.g., 45, 68, 72.) 100-91 Superior functioning in a wide range of activities, life’s problems never seem to get out of hand, is sought outby others because of his/her many positive qualities. No symptoms. 90-81 Absent of minimal symptoms (e.g., mild anxiety before an exam), good functioning in all areas, interested and involved in a wide range of activities,socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems or concerns (e.g., an occasional argument with family members). 80-71 If symptoms are present, there are transient and expectable reactions to psycho-social stressors (e.g., difficulty concentrating after family argument); no more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., temporarily falling behind in schoolwork). 70-61 Some mild symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and mild insomnia) OR some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., occasional truancy, or theft within the household), but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful relationships. 60-51 Moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional panic attacks) OR moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers). 50-41 Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) OR any serious impairment in social,occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job). 40-31 Some impairment in reality testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times illogical, obscure, or irrelevant) OR major impairment in several areas, such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., depressed man avoids friends, neglects family, and is unable to work; child frequently beats up younger children, is defiant at home, and is failing at school). 30-21 Behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations OR serious impairment in communication or judgment (e.g., sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation) OR inability to function in almost all areas (e.g., stays in bed all day; no job, home or friends). 20-11 Some danger of hurting self or others (e.g., suicidal attempts without clear expectation of death; frequent violent; manic excitement) OR occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene (e.g., smears feces) OR gross impairment incommunication (e.g., largely incoherent or mute). 10-1 Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others (e.g., recurrent violence)OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL49 APPENDIX 13-SAMPLE FYSIS COVER PAGE Riverside County PART OF THE YOUTH INSIGHT™ NETWORK Tech SupportDistrictsSchoolsChildren Education Grades Data Views Attendance Discipline Schools Demographics Detail Contacts Immunizations Placement History Detail First Birth LEthnicityWhite* NameCountry LXXX CXXXXChild :: Profile Middle Birth ALanguageEnglish F : 17 NameState Active Last DOB: XXX XX, 1993 CBirth City Name SSN: 614-XX-XXXX AKA Imported: Sep 12, 2009 Updated: Dec 01, 2010 Name Relationship Case Manager / Status Educational Rights Holder Phone Placing AgencyChildrens/Social Services Fax CountyRiverside Address ContactSW: A G Last Edited By, Phone(951) 358-XXXX Fax Juv Court No.JUV097XXX Case StartSep XX, 1999 Case End Case Closure Reason TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL50 Appendix 14: TTMonthly Report Month: ___________ STABILITY/PERMANENCY # of TAY in TVUSD # of emancipated TAY enrolled in program # TAY moved out of district to more permanent placement # TAY moved out of district to equivalent or less permanent placement # TDMs attended # foster families in TVUSD boundaries # in attendance at monthly recruitment forum # in licensing process # completing licensure # TAY in family finding process # completed family finding process SUPPORTIVE SERVICES # of staff visits/contacts provided to clients initial 5contacts quarterly follow up contacts other # of referrals provided to clients education employment health and welfare services mental health housing transportation financial aid permanent connections # of referrals follow-ups provided to clients ASSESSMENT # of assessments completed initial Ansell-Casey post 5visitAnsell-Casey initial GAF assessments post 5visit GAF assessments TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL51 Appendix 15: TTClient File Audit Tool Select Client Files will be Assigned for Audit on First Team Treatment Meeting of the Month Date: Name of Auditor: Evidence that a Case Comments and Initials YES Managerhas been assigned to client case NO Evidence of A-C & GAF YES assessment. Evidenceareas of critical needare NO identified. Evidence of Connection to YES Services. Evidence of connection to existing NO services/referrals. Evidence of progress in YES areas of criticalneed through TTservices and/or NO referrals. Evidence of regular YES staff/client contact NO Evidence of regular YES staff/community partner contact NO TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL52 Appendix 16: TTFile Review Schedule Client Name ____________________________________________________________ MonthInitial ContactPost 5visit Quarterly Staff Conducting contactcontactsReview January February March April May June July August September October November December TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL53 APPENDIX 17 –CLIENT PROGRESS NOTES TT Progress Notes Practitioner Contact Client Name _____________________________________________ Date of Service:Brief Client Assessment:Referrals Made: Amount of Time:Interventions: YES or NO Record all Location of Service:Stage of Change for each identified risk activity factor: On-site related to Pre-Contemplative referrals and Off-site Contemplativereferral Home follow-ups in Preparation/Determination Client Mode of Service: Action Referral Face to face Maintenance Management Phone Relapse Log Type of Service: Director Case manager Outreach coordinator Area of Critical Need Addressed: College readiness Emotional health Employment Health and welfare services Mental health services Housing Transportation Financial aid Permanent, stable adults TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL54 APPENDIX 18 –CRITICAL NEED ASSESSMENT TT Critical Need Assessment At a Glance Use as a companion to Progress Notes after Client Contact and at Discharge (Record all Referral Activity in Client Referral Management Log) Date __________________ Client Name __________________________________________________ Critical NeedNOYESRESOLVED College Readiness Emotional Health Employment Health and Welfare Services Mental Health Housing Transportation Financial Aid Permanent, Stable Adult relationships Other risk factors Total # Total # of Resolved TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL55 Appendix 19: Research Design Timeline Item Monitored/Measured Novembe (posttest) and exit entry (preUpon client AuditMonthly June JulyAugust Septembe October Decembe JanuaryFebruaryMarch AprilMay June - 2011 test) 2012 - r r r # of clients enrolled/active in the xxxxxxxxxxxxx program # of visits/contacts provided to clients xxxxxxxxxxxx # of referrals provided to clients xxxxxxxxxxxx # of referral f/u provided to clients xxxxxxxxxxxx # of client service package completions x #of clients with identified critical areas x xxxxxxxxxxx of need # of clients who resolved concerns in x x identified critical areas of need # of clients who increased college x x readiness # of clients who increased emotional x x health # of clients who improved employmentx x # of clients who increased access to x x health and welfare services # of clients who increased mental x x health access # of clients who increased access to x x safe and secure housing # of clients who increased access to x x transportation # of clients who increased access to x x financial aid # of clients who increased relationships x x with permanent, stable adults Cost-effectiveness of outputs and x outcomes Cost-efficiency of achieving outputs x and outcomes Doesstaff have required credentials?Xx Doesstaff have required training? Xx Doesstaff have interactions with Xx community service providers? Doesstaff receivesupervision to ensure Xx Tx fidelity? TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL56 Appendix 20: TT Line Item Budget Budget Line-ItemCase Management Capacity Indirect Cost Pool Program(65%)Building/Outreach Program(35%) 1. Salaries and Wages Director50,000.00 Admin.Assistant 11,960.00 (20X11.50) Case Managers80,000.00 Outreach Coordinator 14,040.00 20x13.50 Total Salaries and Wages80,000.0014,040.00156,000.00 2. ERE @ 25%20,000.003510.0039,000.00 3. Rent(12,000.00) TVUSD 4. Utilitites(1200.00) TVUSD 5. Equipment/Furnishings(8000.00)City 6. Supplies (1%)800.00140.001560.00 7. Telephone(600.00)TVUSD 8. Travel/Mileage 1320.00660.003300.00 (.55 mile/mo,cap of 100 miles) 9. Trainings300.00150.001000.00 10. Printing1000.00 11. Other (3%)2400.00420.005520.00 Total Direct Costs104,820.0018,315.00123,135.00 Allocated Indirect Costs67,886.0036,554.00104,440.00 Total Direct & Indirect Costs 172,706.0054869.00227,575.00 Total In-Kind Contribution (21,800.00) (9.6%) Total Budget Cost205,705.00 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL57 APPENDIX 21–ANSELL-CASEY BENCHMARK DATA INFORMATION ACLSA & Supplement Benchmark Data The links at the left lead to benchmark data files for the ACLSA assessments and supplemental Benchmarks assessments. are average scores in each domain area (Communication, Daily Living, etc.) and average Total Mastery and Total Raw scores, for groups defined by youth age, race/ethnicity, gender, and living situation. The benchmarks can help you interpret scores on ACLSA or supplemental assessments for youth you work with. Average or “mean” scores are typical scores on an assessment for youth (or their caregivers, in the case of caregiver versions) indexed by the youth’s age, race/ethnicity, gender, or living situation group. The standard deviationindicates how widely the scores varied around the mean score, while the “N” allows you to see how many individuals were in the group on which the benchmark scores are based. Benchmark scores for groups of 50 or more individuals are considered representative for youth of that age, race/ethnicity, or living situation; benchmark scores for groups of less than 50 individuals are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution. Pleasenote that “N”s in subgroups may not always sum up exactly to match the “N”s for larger groups due to missing data on some group-defining variables. Groups for which benchmarks are established are pre-defined. We have tried to include as many age, gender, race/ethnicity and living situation groups as possible in the benchmarks for each assessment. Unfortunately, we are not able to present benchmark information for all possible groups. Source: (Casey Family Programs, 2010) TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL58 APPENDIX 22–JOB DESCRIPTIONS Position: Director (1.0FTE) Reports to: City, County, School Partnership (CCS), Task Force on Foster Youth Hours: 40hours/week Annual Salary: $50,000 Job Description: The executive director supervises the PPP program manager and acts as a boundary spanner between the program and the CHC Board of Directors. The executive director also promotes PPP in the community. Qualifications: Master’s Degree, preferably MSW with administrative emphasis, other acceptable: business, administration, leadership or social services Two years experience with TAY preferred, other acceptable: child welfare Responsibilities: Supervise TT staff Plan and lead weekly team meetings monitoring program and treatment model fidelity o provide feedback/support/supervision to program staff o Monitor program fidelity Administer program budget Coordinate program evaluation activities Coordinate THP+ housing program with City of Temecula Administer GAP fund Represent TTto the CCS Partnership Raise awareness of TTin the community (in meetings, conferences, etc) Identify and secure budget funding Work with administrative assistant to create evaluation and budget reports TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL59 Position: Administrative Assistant (.50) Reports to: Director Hours: 20 hours/week (11am-3:30pm) Annual Salary: $11,960 Job Description: The administrative assistant will support TTby doing a variety of clerical duties. In addition, the assistant will assist in budget monitoring and evaluation efforts. Qualifications: High school diploma Ability to take direction and respond to the needs of the program staff Good organizational and interpersonal skills Basic computer skills/willingness to learn new programs as needed Culturally sensitive Responsibilities: Answer phones and take messages Sort mail Photocopy materials as needed Enter and update client data on the computer on an as needed basis Compile data from client charts onto various aggregate forms (monthly, quarterly) Assist directorin budget monitoring activities and reports Maintain vital records repository TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL60 Position: Case Manager(1.0 FTE) Reports to: Director Hours: 40 hours/week, including one weeknight(flexible scheduling) Annual Salary: $40,000 Job Description: The care coordinator will work as part of a team,managinga client case load of 25-30 TAY. Clientele will consist of both in care and emancipated TAY. Each case manager will work one evening a week, and some weekend time when necessary. The case managers report at weekly meetings, perform file audit review, and administer case management services as proscribed by the programto address the identified areas of critical need.They screen, assess, counsel, mentor and make customized referrals for clients. Case managersform relationships with community service providers and closely monitor all referrals.The case managerwill meet with clients in the office, in clients’ homes and/or in the community. The case managerwill collect data and assist in evaluation efforts. Qualifications: BSW or bachelor’s degree in social sciences Valid California Driver’s License Basic computer skills/willingnessto learn new programs as needed Ability to work well as a member of a team Ability to work autonomously A strength-based perspective Good organizational and interpersonal skills Willingness to form relationships with community service providers Culturallysensitive 2 years experience working with TAY or in child welfare is preferred Responsibilities: Develop and maintain relationships with community service providers to foster a referral system Screen and assess clients to identify areas of critical need Give referrals to community partners for all identified areas of critical need Follow-up on all referrals made Identify and rectify any barriers assigned clients have to services/resources needed Ensure that each assigned client has a minimum of 5visitswith staff Offer support and mentoring to assigned clients during visits and phone calls Coordinate assigned cases to ensure the reduction of areas of critical need Attendweekly team meetings/seek consultation on cases Collect client data needed for evaluation and assist in other evaluation activities as needed TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL61 Position: Outreach Coordinator (.50 FTE) Reports to: Director Hours: 20 hours/week, including nights and weekends (flexible scheduling) Annual Salary: $14,040 Job Description: The outreach coordinator will work as part of a team,and is responsible, along with the director, for capacity building aspects of TT’s mission. One night a month, the outreach coordinator will be responsible for a foster family recruitment forum. Other duties include training stakeholders in the impact of educational instability and college readiness, and the provisions of AB12, distributing printed materials, conducting tours, doing outreach to identify services and community programs and documenting them for the case managers, representing TT, along with the director, at city, county, and school meetings.The outreach coordinator will report atweekly meetings and perform file audit review, as proscribed by the programto address the identified areas of critical need.Theoutreach coordinatorwill collect data and assist in evaluation efforts. Qualifications: BSW or bachelor’s degree in social sciences Valid California Driver’s License Basic computer skills/willingness to learn new programs as needed Ability to work wellas a member of a team Ability to work autonomously A strength-based perspective Good organizational and interpersonal skills Willingness to form relationships with community service providers Culturally sensitive 2 years experience working with TAY or inchild welfare is preferred Responsibilities: Develop and maintain relationships with community service providers to foster a referral system Conduct outreach to emancipated TAY through relationships with Riverside County Independent Living Program (ILP)coordinators, resident care providers, and high school counselors Identify and document community resources for case manager reference Foster family recruitment Conduct training with stakeholders Provide appropriate capacity building materials to stakeholders Assist in sheltered employment and internship program Coordinate Family Finding program Coordinate driver’s license program Coordinate annual TAY retreat with community partners Attendweekly team meetings/seek consultation on cases Collect client data needed for evaluation and assist in other evaluation activities as needed TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL62 APPENDIX 23 –ORGANIZATIONAL CHART TRANSITION TEMECULA CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP (CCS) TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED CITYCOUNTY SCHOOL OF TEMECULAOF RIVERSIDE DISTRICT CITY COUNCILBOARD OF TRUSTEES SUPERVISORS APPOINTED CHAIR FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE BARBARA TOOKER Function as Board of Directors TVUSD EDUCATIONAL CITY COUNTY DPSS LIAISON/CHILD REPRESENTATIVEREPRESENTATIVES WELFARE STAFF DIRECTOR, BOYS AND GIRLS UNITED WAY GROUP HOME/FFA CLUB OF THE INLAND VALLEYS/ROTARY HEART BETTERWORLD COMMUNITY TOGETHER MEMBERS TT TT DIRECTOR Admin. Asst. TTTTTT Case ManagerCase ManagerOutreach Coordinator Elected Appointed by Appointed Appointed by Reports to officialselectedsstaffchair chair WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OUR TEMECULA KIDS Needs Assessment Results Α Highlighting two important areas: Quantitative results already reported, in December, qualitative interviews were begun, and initial interviews demonstrate community efforts to connect youth and caretakers to existing resources and help facilitate and navigate agency systems is welcome and needed. Placement Stability 64% of our youth have had 4-10 placements 17% have had 11-20 placements The majority of our youth are in the category described in a 2002 CA Child Welfare report: ! ЋЉЉЋ wĻƦƚƩƷ ƚƓ ŅƚƭƷĻƩ ǤƚǒƷŷ ƚǒƷĭƚƒĻƭ źƓ /ğƌźŅƚƩƓźğ ƓƚƷĻķͲ ͻŷĻ ĭƌĻğƩĻƭƷ ĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system who have had five or more placements were those who generally experienced the worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care.ͼ (Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley) Education Outcomes 45% have GPAs <2.0 41% have GPAs between 2-2.9 Many arrive in the district with strong academic needs, those needs are not identified upon arrival but take months to process. The needs are remedial, especially in math, and youth may not remain in our district long enough for us to have an impact. Many receive support while in TVUSD to graduate from HS, but are unprepared in a-g courses to enter 4-year universities, and unprepared for community college work, needed remediation in math and English to pass the Accuplacer assessment for placement in courses receiving college credit. Summary Services are underutilized by area foster youth. More outreach is needed to connect youth to what exists and to tailor services to their needs. The community can do much to supplement and enhance agency efforts. Indeed, budget cutbacks are creating an opportunity and demand for more community involvement at the same time best practices are calling for institutional change to foster more community involvement. Communities are well-suited and can be called on to build capacity in schools, recruit foster families to increase stability, provide volunteers to increase capacity in family finding, mentoring and educational rights holders, foster connections to job networks, enhance capacity of foster family agencies and other caretaker networks, and provide financial aid. Research and Best Practice Objectives Assumptions based on the last decade of academic research, including task forces and commissions, particularly the City, County, School Partnership Task Force at the state level (see reference list): educational stability leads to academic achievement, placement stability leads to emotional health, supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for transitional aged youth, access to transportation promotes opportunity, financial aid is necessary for post-high school training, presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. Complicating Factors out of county FFAs AND emancipation services Recommendations What can we do differently to create more placement stability, increase permanency, and improve academic skills for our foster youth? REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/ CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport.htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1- Youth in Care). Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, Independent Living, and Self- Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program. Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment of foster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Partners for our children, building a case for change. Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/ areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review , 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness- Based Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care in their middle twenties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review , 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment , 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long-Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107-124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982-2006, 62.05 state. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=16 APPENDIX 4 –CLIENT OUTCOME LOGIC MODEL FOR TRANSITION TEMECULA Assumptions:Intermediate Activities/ServicesResults better Outcomes emancipation Transcript review, Involvement in Team outcomes for counselor contact, Decision Making TAY can be youth information (TDM) meetings achieved through and case management College Increased community graduation from readiness Information and collaboration post HS programs Train all branches on referrals to caregivers and support impact of educational instabilityand college readiness Reduction in Tours of college campuses and homelessness, educational Designate FY high connection to incarceration, stability leads to school counselors guardian scholar academic programs and Increased achievement unemployment Connect to RCOE emotional Community College tutoring for TAY assessment and health remediation begun placement during senior HS year stability leads to Foster family emotional health Increased recruitment employment Secure and maintain Connect to THP+ supportive vital records housing services past the Increased access age of 18 to health and Fund and create ameliorate Priority placement welfare services Temecula area THP+ outcomes of summer jobs program housing joblessness, Increased mental homelessness Train all stakeholders Sheltered job and health access incarceration, and in AB12 provisions internship program substance abuse TAY who can for TAY Increased access achieve, Connect to to safe and secure compete, and emancipation services, housing access to bus passes thrive alongside transportation their peers, promotes Increased contributing to opportunity Driver’s license access to program the communities transportation in which they financial aid is reside GAP FUND necessary for post-high school Increased training Follow up on FAFSA, access to Chafee, Cal Grants, financial aid scholarships from community groups presenceof permanent, stable 3-5 relationships Family Finding adults creates Fund CASA, CASA with permanent, resiliency. Start program stable adults Temecula FY will achieve, compete and thrive. Outcomes C ĻƒğƓĭźƦğƷĻ ƩĻğķǤ Ʒƚ ƷğƉĻ ķƩźǝĻƩ͸ƭ ƷĻƭƷ ƚƩ FY grade level in math and English within 12 FY emancipate with immunization records FY enroll in supported environments, i.e. 3 adults identified ate enrolled in college, trade SA/Chafee/Cal Grants apps complete FY emancipate with social security cards FY know how and where to apply for FY emancipate with birth certificates guardian/ace scholars, THP+ housing FY remain in TVUSD four years of HS Cal FY emancipate with a place to live, FY emancipate with letter proving FY emancipate with HS transcript - FY emancipate enrolled in Medi FY emancipate with CA I.D. card preferably sheltered housing ment stabilization school, or apprenticeship FY emancipate with a job Outputs - FY emancipate with 1 they can count on dependency FY emancip with CDL FY place months lfare FAF we Empower FY through education, connections and support to plan Connect FY and caregivers to county services, i.e. RCOE tutoring, ivers to college/trade/career Collaborative activities, i.e. back to school night, college trips, Prioritize FY acceptance into the youth summer job program Assess every middle and high school FY for academic needs cipation Follow up on vital documents to youth by emancipation Create backward calendar of fy resources and activities to train on FY issues Recruit local dentists/ orthodontists for FY treatment Facilitate transportation to ILP classes and events n Cal upon ema ILP classes, emancipation coaches, ILP workers Appoint FY to city youth advisory committee Create safe place for back up FY documents unty, and school internships information, including financial assistance Add FY needs to agency strategic plans holders Activities Recruit and train educational liaisons s to BGC for volunteer hour Identification of tvusd counselors - Ensure FY are connected to Medi Formation of files on all agencies Inform and connect FY and careg , financial literacy Task force meetings with stake Creation of TF documentationBegin a family finding program IĻƌƦ C ŭĻƷ ķƩźǝĻƩ͸ƭ ƌźĭĻƓƭĻƭ Recruit local foster families housing Create a GAP fund for FY Press for FYSIS accuracy Intern making linkages Inform FY of options Start a CYC chapter Create transitional Collection of data Send FY to RYLA own outcomes Create city , co spring retreat Bolster CASA nnect Co Foster, FFA, and group Task force personnel School district facility County of Riverside Community groups RCC emancipation City of Temecula home providers Resources Foster Youth TVUSD Intern DPSS APPENDIX A: FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Driving ForcesRestraining Forces Task Force push for better outcomesClosed system of DPSS Confidentiality issues State outcome measure demands DPSS staff, community benefit Background check and contact demands from more successful FY emancipation Structural challenges of DPSS CCS Partners desire better coordination Use of private contractors Lack of clear role identification Concerns of CCS elected officials Inadequate program design Recognition by DPSS of outcome voids Lack of resources to hire local Evaluative data coordinator Intern Size of county –Temecula’s position on the southern tip Supportive community Lack of EB management Funding cutbacks State demands for community involvement Desired State Current State California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN MAY 2009 About the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care On March 9, 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care and appointed Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno as its chair. The commission was charged with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on the ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness - tains the commissions recommendations for improving Californias juvenile dependency courts and foster care system and the commissions action plan for implementation. The commission includes members from a variety of disciplines including judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and others providing leadership on the issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. The establishment of the commission builds on recent Judicial Council efforts to improve Californias juvenile courts and is consistent with goals and objectives recently adopted by the Judicial Council. The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care seeks to achieve four results: 1. A comprehensive set of achievable recommendations for how courts and their part- ners can improve the child welfare system, including an implementation plan; 2. Improved court performance and accountability in achieving safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness for all children and families in the child welfare system; 3. Improved collaboration and communication between courts and child welfare agencies and other stakeholders, and the development of permanent local county commissions that support ongoing efforts involving foster care; and 4. Greater public awareness of the courts role in the foster care system and the need California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care FOSTERING A NEW FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIAS CHILDREN Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN MAY 2009 Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 www.courtinfo.ca.gov Copyright © 2009 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies are distributed at or below cost and credit the copyright holder. For more information on the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care or to view the report and its supporting documents online, please visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon.To order copies of the report, please call 415-865-7739. Printed on 100 percent recycled and recyclable paper. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding for the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Statewide Summit was provided by the generous contributions of the: Stuart Foundation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Court Improvement Program van Löben Sels/RembeRock Foundation Walter S. Johnson Foundation The Blue Ribbon Commission would also like to thank and acknowledge The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care for its pioneering national work on improving outcomes for children in foster care and its encouragement of state level commissions; the Pew Charitable Trusts for its support of our commission’s work; and Carol Emig, President of Child Trends, for her help in shepherding our commission through critical decisions in developing our recommendations. Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Chief Justice Ronald M. George Chair of the Judicial Council William C. Vickrey Administrative Director of the Courts Ronald G. Overholt Chief Deputy Director Center for Families, Children & the Courts Diane Nunn Director Charlene Depner Assistant Director Lee D. Morhar Assistant Director Carolynn Bernabe Staff Analyst Chris Cleary Attorney Megan Lafrenz Administrative Coordinator David Meyers Senior Attorney Chantal Sampogna Attorney Sonya Tafoya Senior Research Analyst Don Will Manager Leah Wilson Manager Christopher Wu Supervising Attorney Executive Director to the Commission Renée Wessels and Joanne Edgar, Consultants Renée Wessels & Associates iii Members of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, 2006–2009 Hon. Carlos R. MorenoMs. Miryam J. Choca Hon. Terry B. Friedman ChairSenior Director Judge Superior Court of California, Associate Justice California Strategic Supreme Court of California Consultation County of Los Angeles Casey Family Programs Ms. Robin Allen Mr. Robert E. Friend Executive Director Mr. Joseph W. Cotchett Director California CASA Attorney at Law California Permanency for Youth Project Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy Hon. Michael D. Antonovich Member Mr. Michael S. Cunningham Hon. Richard D. Huffman Los Angeles County Board of Chief Deputy Director Associate Justice Court of Appeal, Fourth Supervisors, Fifth Program Services Division Supervisorial District California Department of Appellate District, Alcohol and Drug Division One Hon. Lucy M. Armendariz Programs JudgeHon. Susan D. Huguenor State Bar Court, State Bar of Hon. Kathryn Doi Todd Presiding Judge of the California Associate Justice Juvenile Court Court of Appeal, Second Superior Court of California, Ms. Mary L. Ault Appellate District, Division County of San Diego Deputy Director Two Ms. Teri Kook Riverside County Department of Public Social Services Dr. Jill Duerr Berrick Senior Program Officer, Professor Child Welfare Hon. Karen Bass School of Social Welfare Stuart Foundation Speaker of the Assembly Co-director, Center for Child California State Assembly and Youth Policy Ms. Miriam Krinsky University of California at Lecturer Hon. Richard C. Blake Berkeley University of California at Chief Judge Los Angeles School of Hon. Leonard P. Edwards Hoopa Valley Tribal Court Public Affairs (Ret.) Mr. Lawrence B. Bolton Judge-in-ResidenceMs. Amy Lemley Deputy Director/Chief AOC Center for Families, Policy Director Children & the Courts CounselJohn Burton Foundation for California Department of Children Without Homes Social Services Mr. Raul A. Escatel Tax Counsel Mr. Curtis L. Child California Franchise Tax Director Board AOC Office of Governmental Ms. Deborah Escobedo Affairs Staff Attorney Youth Law Center iv Mr. Will Lightbourne Ms. Linda Penner Mr. Joseph L. Spaeth DirectorChief Probation Officer Public Defender Santa Clara County Social Fresno County Probation Marin County Office of the Department Public Defender Services Agency Hon. Todd Spitzer Hon. Bill Maze Mr. Anthony Pico Former Member Former Member Legislative Assistant Office of Assembly Member California State Assembly California State Assembly Fiona Ma Ms. Donna C. Myrow Hon. Darrell S. Steinberg Former foster youth Executive Director President pro Tempore L.A. Youth Ms. Patricia S. Ploehn, California State Senate LCSW Hon. Michael Nash Hon. Dean T. Stout Director Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Presiding Judge Juvenile Court Department of Children Superior Court of California, County of Inyo Superior Court of California, and Family Services County of Los Angeles Ms. Pat Reynolds-Harris Mr. John Wagner Mr. David Neilsen Director Family to Family Deputy Director Permanency Consultant California Department of Program Services Division Founder, California Social Services California Department of Permanency for Youth Ms. Jacqueline Wong Alcohol and Drug Project Programs Consultant Ms. Jennifer Rodriguez Foster Youth Services Ms. Diane Nunn Program Staff Attorney DirectorYouth Law Center California Department of AOC Center for Families, Former foster youth Education Children & the Courts Ms. Maria D. Robles, R.N. EX OFFICIO Mr. John O’Toole Sacramento Hon. John Burton Executive Director Dr. David Sanders Former President pro National Center for Youth Law Executive Vice President for Tempore of the California Systems Improvement State Senate Mr. Ken Patterson John Burton Foundation for Casey Family Programs Managing Director Children Without Homes Child and Family Services Mr. Gary Seiser Casey Family Programs Senior Deputy County Counsel Mr. Derek Peake San Diego County Office of Partner the County Counsel Costly Grace Mr. Alan Slater Mr. Jonathan Pearson Special Consultant Former foster youth AOC Southern Regional Office v Contents Message From the Chair ......................................................................................................1 Introduction: Our Children Deserve Better........................................................................3 The State of the Courts............................................................................................................4 Background on the Blue Ribbon Commission.........................................................................5 The Process of Developing Our Recommendations................................................................6 Highlights of the Commission’s Recommendations ...............................................................7 Implementing the Recommendations......................................................................................8 Chapter 1: California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations............................................................10 Four Overall Recommendations............................................................................................10 Recommendation 1: Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency..........................................................................................................11 Recommendation 2: Court Reform........................................................................................14 Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Their Child Welfare Partners.......20 Recommendation 4: Resources and Funding.........................................................................23 Chapter 2: A Road Map to Reform: The Blue Ribbon Commission’s Action Plan....................................................................29 Recommendation 1: Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency..........................................................................................................30 Recommendation 2: Court Reform........................................................................................35 Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Their Child Welfare Partners.......40 Recommendation 4: Resources and Funding.........................................................................45 Chapter 3: Conclusion: Looking to the Future.................................................................49 Epilogue: Brighter Futures ………………………………………………………………52 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………............55 A.Judicial Council Resolution Creating Blue Ribbon Commission…………….……..57 B.Judicial Council Resolution on Data Sharing………………………………………. 58 C.Local Team Planning Workbook…………………………………………..………..60 D.Summit Statistics From 50 Local County Teams…………………………..………. 80 E.Twenty-six Recommendations Within the Purview of the Judicial Branch………...81 F.Operational Framework for the Blue Ribbon Commission…………………............ 84 G.Overview of the Blue Ribbon Commission…………………………………............86 H.Facts at a Glance: California Dependency Courts………………………………….. 87 I.Backgrounder: California Dependency Courts and the Hearing Process…………... 89 J.Chronology: California Dependency Courts……………………………………….. 91 K.Highlights of Commission Recommendations and Action Plan…………………… 95 vii Message From the Chair I am pleased to present this final report from the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. The report includes the commission’s recommendations and action plan, which are the result of an unprecedented three-year collaborative effort to help California’s overstressed juvenile dependency courts do a better job of safeguarding children, reducing the need for foster care, and improving the foster care system. As a relative caregiver and foster parent myself, I know from my own family’s experience how important it is to provide children in foster care with the love, stability, and security that all children need. Fostering the success of our state’s most vulnerable young people is vital to planning for the future of our state. Our commission is California’s first statewide effort to look at the role of the courts in child welfare reform. The courts, along with their child welfare partners, have legal responsibility for the safety and well-being of children in foster care, in effect serving as their “parent.” The weight of that responsibility informed our work as a commission throughout the three-year process. Our recommendations promise to significantly change the lives of our state’s children and youth. Under the system we envision, there will be fewer children in foster care, leading to substantial savings for the child welfare system that can be reinvested to continue strengthening this state’s most vulnerable families. I invite you to read this full report—our recommendations, our action plan, and about implementation efforts that are already underway. In particular, I invite you to read the “stories” at the end of the report where we describe what we hope will be brighter futures for California’s children, youth, and families. The true measure of our commission’s success will be the real difference we make in their lives. On behalf of the commission, I thank all of the individuals and organizations that advised us throughout our process. I also extend a heartfelt thanks to each of our commissioners for their invaluable contributions and extraordinary commitment to improving the lives of California’s children and families. And I thank, too, our talented and dedicated staff whose tireless efforts significantly eased the burden of our challenge as a commission at every step. Finally, I thank Chief Justice Ronald M. George; William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of the Courts; and the Judicial Council for giving us the extraordinary opportunity to present our blueprint for significant reform of the juvenile dependency courts and the child welfare system and for making that reform a high priority for California’s judicial branch. Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California Chair, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 1 Introduction: Our Children Deserve Better The courts are often the unseen partners in child welfare, but every child When I was 12 years and parent in the foster-care system knows that the courts are where old—in a court hearing I critical decisions are made, including such life-changing issues as where was not invited to, and and with whom a child will live. When dependency court judges and that I did not even know attorneys are not acquainted with “100 percent” of the child, when there about—a decision was is inadequate time or not enough information to make informed made that I was not decisions, hearings are likely to be rushed or delayed. Children and appropriate for a foster families suffer. family but needed to be in group homes. The courts and their child welfare partners share responsibility for the safety and well-being of children while they are in foster care, in effect, That decision was made serving as their “parent” until a child either safely returns home, moves in only a few minutes, to another permanent home, or becomes an adult and leaves the system. with most of the people Dependency court judges, attorneys, and child welfare workers work in the room having never collaboratively so the judge can make the best decision for each child met me, not knowing my and family. They share a belief that allchildren are entitled to a safe, hopes and dreams, only permanent family that will love, nurture, protect, and guide them. The knowing one or two of courts and their partners agree that even when children must be removed the facts that represented from their homes, foster care should be a short-term refuge, not a long- 1 percent of the 100 term saga. Timely reunification with their family or placement in another percent child I was. permanent home is always the goal. —Jennifer Rodriquez But time moves slowly through the eyes of children, especially those Staff attorney, who have been removed from their homes, through no fault of their own, Youth Law Center; Former member, and placed into the mysterious world of dependency courts. Finding a California Blue Ribbon permanent home for a child sometimes takes years. Youth who grow up Commission on Children in foster care too often “age out” of the system ill-prepared to live as in Foster Care adults. These young people face increased risk of dropping out of school, unemployment, homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse, and involvement with the criminal justice system. There are more than 75,000 children in foster care in California, more than in any other state in the nation. Most – almost 80 percent – have been removed for neglect. Nearly half – 45 percent – have been in care for more than two years; 17 percent of them for more than three years. We know that the longer children remain in care, the less likelihood they have of reunifying with their parents. We also know that African- American and American Indian children are disproportionately represented in the system. 3 The State of the Courts California’s dependency courts are overstressed and underresourced, burdened by crowded dockets and inadequate information. For example: Fewer than 150 full-time and part-time judicial officers preside over the entire dependency court system. Full-time juvenile dependency court judges carry an average caseload of 1,000, which directly affects the amount of time and attention given to any one case. Juvenile dependency court attorneys, who represent children and parents in court, have an average caseload of 273, which far exceeds the recommended caseload standard of 188 recently adopted by the Judicial Council. In some counties, attorney caseloads rise to 500 or 600. Children and parents sometimes do not meet their attorneys until moments before their hearings, which not only limits their opportunity to speak in court, but means attorneys often have inadequate information about a child’s life. The median time for a hearing is only 10-15 minutes, far less than the recommended 30-60 minutes. Judges are often assigned to juvenile court for short rotations, instead of the recommended three-year assignments. Families are often involved with more than one system, yet courts and other agencies do not easily share data or information that may be critical to the families’ circumstances. Overwhelming caseloads and crowded dockets in the courts sometimes prevent even the best of judges and attorneys from addressing the whole of each child and family member who come before their courts. In addition, the courts do not work in isolation. Communication between juvenile dependency courts and the other agencies charged with helping families is inconsistent and often ineffective. All of these factors taken together means the system is not always a very good “parent” to these children. With these concerns in mind, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care in March 2006, and appointed Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno as its chair. The Chief Justice charged the commission with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness for children and families in the child welfare system. After an unparalleled three-year collaborative effort, we submit this final report with our recommendations for improving California’s juvenile dependency courts and child welfare system, and our action plan for 4 implementing these recommendations. We believe our recommendations and action plan represent a blueprint to fundamentally change a system that too often fails our state’s children and their families despite the efforts of hardworking and dedicated professionals. Background on the Blue Ribbon Commission Commission’s Mandate The Blue Ribbon Commission is a multidisciplinary, statewide body The commission’s charge providing leadership on issues that face foster children and their families was to develop and the courts and agencies that serve them. The commission includes recommendations focused judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, foster youth, caregivers, on four areas: philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and more. A roster of commission members is included at the front of this 1. How courts and their report. partners can improve the child welfare The establishment of the commission builds on other Judicial Council system, including an efforts to improve California’s juvenile courts and is consistent with the implementation plan; goals and objectives recently adopted by the Judicial Council. These efforts include a number of programs that are designed to improve the 2. Improved court operations of the juvenile dependency courts, including 1) expansion of performance and the Court Improvement Project to increase the number of training accountability in programs and to enhance development of data exchanges to improve achieving safety, communication between the courts and child welfare agencies; 2) permanency, well- expansion of the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) being, and fairness for program to include specific projects related to improving compliance all children and with the Indian Child Welfare Act and increasing the number of families in the child permanent placements for children in foster care; and 3) establishment of welfare system; the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) program relating to attorney representation of parents and 3. Improved children in juvenile dependency court. collaboration and There was national impetus behind our formation as well, including the communication Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, which was established in among courts and 2003. The Pew Commission was charged with developing nationally child welfare agencies focused recommendations to improve outcomes for children in foster and others, including care. Former U.S. Representatives Bill Frenzel and William H. Gray III the development of served as chair and vice-chair respectively. William C. Vickrey, permanent local California’s Administrative Director of the Courts, was one of 18 county commissions members representing a broad cross-section of organizations involved in that support ongoing foster care issues. efforts; and In 2004, the Pew Commission issued its recommendations, which 4. Greater public focused on federal child welfare funding mechanisms and improving awareness of the court oversight of child welfare cases. The recommendations called for court’s role in the the courts and public agencies to collaborate more effectively by foster-care system and establishing multidisciplinary, broad-based state commissions on the need for adequate children in foster care. In 2006, the Chief Justice of California and flexible funding. established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. 5 The Process of Developing Our Recommendations Principles and Values We deliberated over the course of two years, holding public meetings, hearings, focus groups and other activities. We attended site visits to see Our commission was guided by a programs and courtrooms firsthand. We heard from a variety of juvenile set of overarching principles, court and child welfare experts and from social workers, families, which we adopted early in our children, and youth who have been in the child welfare system. Their deliberations: experiences and their suggestions for reform proved invaluable as we developed our recommendations and action plan. All children are equal and deserve safe and permanent We also drew from significant research provided by the County Welfare homes; Directors Association of California; the Center for Social Services Efforts to improve the foster care system must focus on Research at the University of California at Berkeley; Chapin Hall Center improving safety, for Children at the University of Chicago; Child Trends; the U.S. permanency, well-being, and Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children fairness outcomes for and Families; and the Urban Institute. children, and services should be integrated and After nearly two years of information gathering, we developed draft comprehensive; recommendations for public comment in March 2008. We held public Collaboration is essential for hearings on the proposed recommendations in Los Angeles and San achieving the best possible Francisco. In response to the public comment and testimony, we outcomes for children and reviewed the recommendations at a June 2008 commission meeting. families; Courts play an important statutory role in overseeing Our final recommendations fall under four broad categories: children, families, and services in the dependency 1.Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; system; 2.Court reform; Children and families should 3.Collaboration among courts and partnering agencies; and have a say in decisions that affect their lives; and 4.Resources and funding. Government agencies need adequate and flexible funding The full set of recommendations can be found in Chapter 1 of this report. to provide the best outcomes They include our four overall recommendations and 79 specific for children in the foster care recommendations. Of the specific recommendations, 26 of them are system. within the purview of the Judicial Council and can be accomplished within our judicial branch of government. The remaining A set of values informed our work recommendations require collaboration with child welfare and other throughout. We believe in: agency partners. Collaboration; Shared responsibility; Accountability; Leadership; Children and families; Child safety; Inclusion; Permanency; and Youth voice. 6 Highlights of the Commission’s Recommendations 1. Reasonable Efforts To Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency Increasing the Number of Placements With Relatives (Kinship) That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case, and the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when necessary. Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African- American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System That the courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth That the Judicial Council urge the California Legislature to extend the age for children to receive foster-care assistance from 18 to 21. 2. Court Reform Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers That the Judicial Council work to reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys, and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. Ensuring That All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court- Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Are Adequately Trained and Resourced That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards, and the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. 3. Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners Facilitating Data and Information Exchange That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families 7 they serve. The Judicial Council should implement court- performance measures to improve foster-care outcomes as mandated by state law. Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child-welfare concerns and to help implement the commission’s recommendations and related reforms. Improving Indian Child Welfare That the courts, child welfare agencies and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families receive the services for which they are eligible. 4. Resources and Funding Prioritizing Foster Care That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child-Abuse Prevention and Services That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child-abuse prevention and eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child- abuse prevention and services. Expanding Educational Services That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all of its related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. Implementing the Recommendations On August 15, 2008, the Judicial Council unanimously accepted our final recommendations and directed the Administrative Director of the Courts to refer to the appropriate advisory committee 26 of the 1 recommendations that could be acted on by the judicial branch alone. Work on implementing those recommendations has begun. The Judicial Council also directed that we develop an action plan for recommendations that require collaboration with court partners, including child welfare and other agencies and organizations that serve children and families. 1 See Appendix E for a list of the 26 recommendations within the sole purview of the judicial branch. 8 The commission met again in October 2008 to prioritize the recommendations and adopt an action plan to implement them. While our commission is strongly committed to ensuring that each one of our 79 recommendations becomes a reality, we focused our initial action plan on a practical set of recommendations that are fiscally responsible, realistic first steps that will lay a critical foundation for implementing the remaining recommendations. In December 2008, we brought together teams from 50 counties to a summit meeting to begin the process of developing local foster care commissions to take the work home. The commission is aware of the current fiscal realities in our state and the nation. However, we strongly believe that our abused and neglected children must be given the same priority in state and federal budget deliberations that responsible California families give their own children. More than half of our recommendations are cost neutral and call for using existing resources differently, implementing policies that are already in place, or phasing in proposals over time in order to reduce reliance on new funds. Some recommendations have little fiscal impact, focusing on structural issues within the courts. Other recommendations call on Congress to give states more flexibility in how they use federal child welfare funds. Most of all, we must remember that when our recommended changes are implemented successfully, there will likely be fewer children in foster care or in other more costly out-of-home placements. Money saved on placements can be reinvested in the child welfare system to more effectively serve children and families who need supportive prevention and reunification services. It is not enough, however, to just use current funds more effectively and efficiently and reinvest the money that is saved. We know that additional resources will be required to fully implement our recommendations. Current budget restraints may affect the timing of securing additional resources, but we believe that improving the lives of our foster children must remain a priority. The bottom line is that our recommendations represent the changes, both short-term and long-term, that must be made to improve the juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems and to ensure a better future for our most vulnerable children and families. 9 Chapter 1: California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations The Blue Ribbon Commission believes that all children in California Ours has been an deserve a safe, nurturing, and permanent family where they can grow up unprecedented effort to and learn to become productive adults. We drafted these focus attention on the recommendations as a blueprint for achieving that goal. central role that the courts play in foster In developing our recommendations, we sought to build on the care. We have an momentum for child welfare reform that is already changing how the absolute obligation to courts, the state, and counties serve children and families. We recognize do right by the children that California is in the midst of a statewide effort to improve child and families who come welfare practices across the board, with an end goal of safer and more into our court rooms. stable families and fewer children in foster care. We see this as an opportunity for real change in the systems that serve our state’s most With these vulnerable children and families. recommendations, we propose changing the None of the efforts to improve child welfare practices thus far have way that juvenile focused on the courts. We believe that it is essential for the courts to play dependency courts do a leadership role in building a better system for children and families business, and we given the courts’ critical role in the child welfare system. identify the ways in which courts and As a legal “parent” to children in foster care, the courts share with their agencies can more child welfare partners responsibility for the welfare of our state’s effectively collaborate children. Every day judges make decisions that are often life-changing to meet the needs of for children and their parents. But, the courts, like the rest of the child foster children and their welfare system, are overwhelmed and underresourced. families. Four Overall Recommendations —Diane Nunn Director, Center for Families, Children & the Our final recommendations point to what the courts, child welfare Courts, Administrative agencies, and other partners can do to help children grow up in safe, Office of the Courts; nurturing, and permanent homes. The recommendations cover four key Member, California Blue areas: Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 1.Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2.Collaboration among courts and partnering agencies; 3.Court reform; and 4.Resources and funding. In the rest of this chapter we have organized our recommendations as follows: within each of our four overall recommendations, we include 1) a summary of some of the main issues that speak to the reforms needed, 2) our principal recommendations, and 3) specific recommendations that flow from each principal recommendation. 10 Recommendation 1: Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency As the commission met during the last three years, we learned much about the various stakeholders in the child welfare system and the I was in foster care for realities they face every day. We know that the courts and their child eight years. I was removed welfare partners are unified in a fundamental belief that all children from my mother when I was deserve a safe, stable family in which to grow up and thrive. And there is ten years old. I was placed a universal acknowledgment that interrupting a child’s bond to a parent, in seven different foster even when necessary and temporary, is a destabilizing event. homes during that first year. But while child welfare agencies aspire to offer more services to prevent placement in foster care, funds to support preventive services have not When I turned 11, I was been given a priority at the local, state, or federal level. A recent national placed in a group home. study sponsored by the nonprofit organization Kids Are Waiting found When I first moved in, the that states are allowed to use only 10 percent of federal child welfare director toured me around funding for prevention or reunification services. This means dependency the place and said, “I’m not court officials, faced with serious gaps in necessary services, are often here to be your mother. I’m forced to advocate for more funding for services to support vulnerable here to get you through the children and families. system.” We know that every one of the children in foster care in California has It was a wake-up call for multiple hearings before a juvenile court. Yet we found that despite the me to realize that in the efforts of judicial officers doing their best to make the right decision for foster care system you do each of these children, placement does not necessarily ensure an not have a parent. You do improved situation for them or for their families, even when removal is not have somebody who you required. Far too many of these foster children experience multiple can count on, who is there placements; changes in schools; and separation from siblings, friends, for you when you fall off and other family members. your skateboard – you know, somebody to hug you We found that African-American and American Indian children are and say, “Are you OK?” disproportionately in the system. They are more likely than other children to be reported for abuse, more likely to be removed, and less —Tony Thompson likely to be reunified or adopted. Former foster youth And we learned that as many as 5,000 youth in California reach the age of 18 every year without reunifying with their own families or being placed in another permanent family. National research shows that young people who “age out” of the system are more likely to drop out of school, to have serious mental health needs, to experience homelessness and unemployment, and to end up in the criminal justice system. These are the children who have all too often languished in a foster care limbo. This first set of recommendations is the commission’s road map to respond to the challenge posed by these problems. Recommendation 1 Because families who need assistance should receive necessary services to keep children safely at home whenever possible, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council, the California Department of Social Services, and local courts and child welfare 11 agencies implement improvements to ensure immediate, continuous, and appropriate services and timely, thorough review for all families in the system. Recommendation 1A Children and families need access to a range of services to prevent removal whenever possible. All reasonable efforts should be made to maintain children at home in safe and stable families. The courts should make an informed finding as to whether these efforts actually have been made. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The courts and partnering agencies tailor resources to make sure they have sufficient information and time to establish that all reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal. All children and families receive timely and appropriate mental health, health care, education, substance abuse, and other services, whether children reside with their own parents or with relatives, foster parents, guardians, or adoptive parents or are in another setting. At the earliest possible point in their involvement with the family, child welfare agencies engage family members, including extended family wherever they may live, to support the family and children in order to prevent placement whenever possible. Child welfare systems should develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members. The courts and partnering agencies work to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system. Judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals who serve foster children and their families increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce. The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to advocate for greater flexibility in the use of federal, state, and local funding for preventive services. Recommendation 1B If foster care placement is necessary, children, families, and caregivers should have access to appropriate services and timely court reviews that lead to permanency as quickly as possible. Service delivery and court review should ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to return children home, to make sure families and workers comply with case plans, and to achieve timely and stable transitions home or, if necessary, to place with relatives or in another permanent, stable family. 12 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to advocate for changes in law and practice to increase and encourage more relative placements, including: Addressing funding disparities; o Developing greater flexibility in approving relative o placements whereby relatives would not, by virtue of federal law, be held to the same standard as nonrelatives; and Formulating protocols to facilitate swift home assessments o and placement with family members when appropriate. The courts and child welfare agencies expedite services for families and ensure that foster children maintain a relationship with all family members and other important people in their lives. The courts ensure that children who cannot return home receive services and court reviews to enable them to successfully transition into a permanent home and into adulthood. This includes paying attention to each child’s language, development, and cultural needs in making decisions about home and school placements, visitation, education, and mental health needs. It also means making sure they have consistent community ties and help from supportive adults, such as mentors, as they grow up. All court participants continuously review and make extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co-placement. Children and families receive continuous and comprehensive services if a child enters the delinquency system from foster care. The Judicial Council and the state Department of Social Services work together to urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies to ensure that THP-Plus programs for transitional housing sustain a level of funding sufficient to maintain and expand program capacity to meet the demonstrated need of youth aging out of the foster care system. The Judicial Council work with federal and state leaders to support or sponsor legislation to extend the age when children receive foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. This change should apply to those children who at age 18 cannot be returned home safely, who are not in a permanent home, and who choose to remain under the jurisdiction of the court. If the court terminates jurisdiction before a youth’s 21st birthday, the youth should have the right to reinstatement of jurisdiction and services. The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to develop practices, protocols, and enhanced services to promote both placement and placement stability of children and youth in family-like, rather than institutional, settings. 13 Recommendation 2: Court Reform We know that California’s dependency court system is overstressed and Overwhelming underresourced. Because of staggering caseloads, judicial officers, caseloads, crowded attorneys, and social workers are often forced to limit the time and dockets, and inadequate attention they give to each child. Even if they do give each case a information mean that thorough review, we learned they often cannot meet the statutory the best of judges and 2 timeline for the case. Either way, children and their families lose. attorneys struggle to meet the needs of each Dependency cases represent the most intrusive form of governmental child and parent who intervention into the lives of families, so we believe that it is essential for come before the bench. the court system to have sufficient resources to appropriately oversee these cases. It is also essential that the local trial courts make these cases Because of these a priority and allocate the resources that are needed. challenges, children and parents do not always We learned that many families and children appear at the courthouse but participate meaningfully wait for hours before their hearing, only to receive a few minutes with in court, and we are the court and with their attorneys. In fact, the median time for a juvenile often not able to meet dependency hearing in California is just 10–15 minutes, far short of the our federal and state recommended 30–60 minutes needed to give appropriate attention to a mandates for timely case. hearings. Dependency court attorneys, who represent foster children and their —Hon. Leonard P. families, and social workers, suffer from similar time and caseload Edwards pressures. These systemic problems inhibit the courts’ ability to meet Retired Judge their statutory requirements, as well as their obligation to ensure that all of the Superior Court participants in the hearings understand their rights and responsibilities of California, and the decisions made in court. County of Santa Clara; Member, California We found that dependency courts are able to gather only limited data on Blue Ribbon Commission their ability to meet statutory timelines for hearings and requirements on Children in Foster Care regarding safety, permanency, and well-being. Currently, uniform statewide court data is limited to the number of filings and dispositions. Without more advanced data systems and court performance measures, the courts are not able to track children’s progress, measure compliance with statutes, and identify sources of delay and other areas of reform needed in juvenile dependency court cases. After hearing from many stakeholders through testimony, focus groups, written comments, and other means of communication, the commission crafted the following blueprint for reform of the court system. We believe that implementation of these recommendations will bring fundamental change to a court system charged with serving our state’s most vulnerable children and families. Ћ See Appendix I, Backgrounder: California Dependency Courts and the Hearing Process 14 Recommendation 2 Because the courts are responsible for ensuring that a child’s rights to safety, permanency, and well-being are met in a timely and comprehensive manner and that all parties are treated fairly in the process, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council and the trial and appellate courts make children in foster care and their families a priority when making decisions about the allocation of resources and administrative support. Recommendation 2A The trial and appellate courts must have sufficient resources to meet their obligations to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Consistent with Judicial Council policy, judges—not subordinate judicial officers—hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate judicial officers to juvenile court. The Judicial Council work with bar organizations, the Governor’s office, and state and local leadership to ensure that juvenile law experience is given favorable consideration during the judicial appointment and assignment process and well- qualified subordinate judicial officers and attorneys with juvenile law experience are encouraged to apply for vacant judicial positions. Presiding judges follow standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration and assign judges to juvenile court for a minimum of three years and give priority to judges who are actively interested in juvenile law as an assignment. The Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The study should take into account the court’s unique oversight and case management responsibilities and address the use of case managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. Pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and statutory requirements. The Administrative Office of the Courts helps courts comply with the judicial standard outlining the knowledge, commitment, 15 and leadership role required of judicial officers who make decisions about children in foster care (see standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration). Presiding judges of the superior courts should receive training in the role and duties of juvenile court judicial officers as outlined in the standard. Recommendation 2B All participants in dependency hearings and subsequent appeals, including children and families, should have an opportunity to be heard and meaningfully participate in court. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Judicial officers identify and engage all parties in each case as early as possible. A particular emphasis should be placed on finding fathers and identifying Indian tribes where applicable. Judicial officers and other stakeholders remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caregivers from attending hearings. This includes addressing transportation and scheduling difficulties, as well as exploring telephonic appearances and other technological options. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders develop and implement laws and policies to promote relative finding, funding, assessment, placement, and connections. The Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. The Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. Recommendation 2C Judicial officers should ensure that local court practices facilitate and promote the attendance of children, parents, and caregivers at hearings. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Hearings be available at times that do not conflict with school or work or other requirements of a family’s case plan. To the extent feasible, hearings be set for a specific date and time. Delays should be minimized, and hearings should be conducted on consecutive days until completed. A concurrent criminal proceeding not delay a dependency case. All parties, including children, parents, and social workers, have the opportunity to review reports and meet with their attorneys before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings. 16 Hearings be timely and meet all federal and state mandated timelines. Continuances be minimized, and the reasons for systemic continuances be addressed by the local court and child welfare agency. All participants leave court hearings with a clear understanding of what happened, why decisions were made, and, if appropriate, what actions they need to take. The Administrative Office of the Courts provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, that takes into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. The same judicial officer hear a case from beginning to end, when possible. Courts explore telephonic appearance policies and new technology options to ensure participation in juvenile court hearings. Recommendation 2D The court’s ability to make fair, timely, and informed decisions requires attorneys, social workers, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who are well qualified and have the time and resources to present accurate and timely information to the courts. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including a stable funding source, necessary to implement the council’s recently adopted attorney caseload standards, to implement caseload standards for social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. The Judicial Council take active steps to promote the advancement of juvenile law as a sought-after career. Accomplishing this recommendation requires: Fair and reasonable compensation for court-appointed o attorneys; Adoption and implementation of a methodology for o determining attorney effectiveness; Forgiveness of student loans for attorneys who commit a o substantial portion of their careers to juvenile law; That public and nonprofit law offices hire and retain o attorneys based on their interest in the field and encourage them to build careers in juvenile law; and Collaboration with State Bar of California leaders to o include juvenile dependency law as a mandatory area of 17 study for the California Bar exam and create a State Bar juvenile law section. The Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. Training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. The Judicial Council continue to support the development and expansion of CASA programs and to help make available CASA volunteers for all foster children in the dependency system. State funding for CASA programs should be expanded to allow for appointments in all cases. Local or regional legal advocacy resource centers be established to ensure that the nondependency legal needs of dependent children and their parents are appropriately addressed. This includes education, immigration, tribal enrollment or other requirements to receive the benefits of tribal membership, tort issues, and other issues. Recommendation 2E All courts should have nonadversarial programs available as early as possible and whenever necessary for children and families to use to resolve legal and social issues when appropriate. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution be available in all courts at any time in the proceedings. Families in all counties have access to other types of court proceedings—drug, mental health, and unified courts, for example—that can help them remain together or, if the children are removed, to stabilize and reunify the family as soon as possible. Presiding judges work with agencies to ensure that families in all counties have access to specific nonadversarial child welfare– based practices such as family group conferencing, team decision-making, and family team meetings. 18 Recommendation 2F The Judicial Council should establish and implement a comprehensive set of court performance measures as required by state law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16545). The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council adopt and direct the Administrative Office of the Courts to work with local courts and state agencies to implement a rule of court that embodies the commission’s following recommendations: Court performance measures include those for safety, o permanency, timeliness of court hearings, due process, and child well-being; Court performance measures align with and promote the o federal and California Child and Family Services Review outcome measures and indicators; The California Court Case Management System collect o uniform court performance data and have the capability to produce management reports on performance measures; and Trial court performance measures be included in a separate o Judicial Council-approved Administrative Office of the CourtsImplementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. These performance measures and management reports be used for the following: To promote court accountability for ensuring fair and o timely hearings and to inform improvements in local case processing; To provide stakeholders and the public with an aggregate o picture of the outcomes for children before the court and to increase the public’s understanding of the court’s role in the child welfare system; and To measure compliance with statutory mandates and o effective practices. The Judicial Council work with the Child Welfare Council and local courts and state agencies to develop uniform child well- being performance measures. Based on these measures, the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts should work with local courts to develop and implement educational tools that help courts improve child well-being outcomes. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate at the federal, state, and local levels for the funding necessary to implement recommended court performance measures. 19 Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Their Child Welfare Partners In California, the courts share responsibility for the safety and well-being Collaboration can be of children and youth in foster care with a range of agencies, including very difficult. There are child welfare, education, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health, such different cultures public health, and Indian tribal councils. across state and county departments and This means that families are often involved with more than one agency at agencies, and there is a time. These agencies have independent and sometimes conflicting such a scarcity of policies and regulations that inhibit communication and sharing of data resources that and information. We learned that because of this problem, judges and collaboration alone is attorneys sometimes lack full knowledge of a child’s health, mental not enough. We need health, education, language, or citizenship. This means the courts must real transformation. sometimes make decisions without a complete or accurate picture of the That will mean forming child and his or her family. meaningful partnerships and looking at things in We found that this leads to a situation where court-ordered services to new ways. benefit families and children sometimes conflict with other court orders or mandated services from other agencies. And the courts and child —Phillip Crandall welfare agencies do not always know what services exist in the Director of Health and community. Often there is limited availability of essential services. Human Services, Humboldt County The commission adopted the following recommendations to solve this problem. We believe that collaboration is a critical piece of the foster care puzzle. We know that together we can serve children and families more effectively. Recommendation 3 Because the courts share responsibility with child welfare agencies and other partners for the well-being of children in foster care, the courts, child welfare, and other partnering agencies must work together to prioritize the needs of children and families in each system and remove barriers that keep stakeholders from working together effectively. Recommendation 3A The Judicial Council, trial courts, and California Department of Social Services should work cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decision-making that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council continue its efforts to fully develop and implement the California Court Case Management System and other data exchange protocols, so that the judicial branch, the California Department of Social Services, and other trusted 20 partners will be able to exchange essential information about the children and families they are mandated to serve. California Case Management System permit judicial officers in dependency courts to access information about children and families who are involved in cases in other courts. California Case Management System and the state Child Welfare Services/Case Management System promote coordinated data collection, data exchange, and filing of documents, including electronic filing, between the courts, social service agencies, and other key partners and track data that permits them to measure their performance. The Child Welfare Council prioritize solutions to federal and state statutory and regulatory policy barriers that prevent information sharing between the courts and their partners and that cause delays in the delivery of services and, hence, delays in permanency for children. Data systems in the various agencies evolve to capture the growing complexity of California demographics, including issues such as limited English proficiency, use of psychotropic medications, and disabilities. Recommendation 3B The presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and resolve local system concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: These multidisciplinary local commissions include participation from the courts; local government officials; public and private agencies and organizations that support children and families; children, parents, and families with experience in the system; caregivers; and all other appropriate parties to the process. These commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including: Undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing o services available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency; Identifying and resolving barriers to sharing information o among the courts, agencies, and schools; Communicating local needs and concerns to the Child o Welfare Council; and 21 Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster o care issues in their communities. The Administrative Office of the Courts support local commissions in their efforts to collaborate and to avoid duplication with other efforts to achieve positive child welfare outcomes (including county efforts to develop system improvement plans as required by state law). All participating agencies prioritize children in foster care, and their families, when providing services. Recommendation 3C Courts, child welfare agencies, and other agencies should collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that the rights of children, families, and tribes are protected and that Indian children and families have access to all appropriate services for which they are eligible. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Administrative Office of the Courts work with state trial courts and tribal courts to establish protocols for identifying and sharing jurisdiction between state and tribal courts and for sharing services, case management, and data among superior courts, tribal courts, and county and tribal service agencies. The protocols established should encourage a mutual understanding of and respect for the procedures in both the state and tribal courts and the challenges that all communities face in providing services for children and families. The Administrative Office of the Courts collaborate with the state to develop and offer judicial education and technical assistance opportunities to tribal court officers and staff and legal education to tribal attorneys, lay advocates, and service providers. The Administrative Office of the Courts work with the California Department of Social Services to offer ongoing multidisciplinary training and technical assistance to judges, court staff, attorneys, social workers, and other service providers on all of the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Indian children and families have access to the same services as other families and children regardless of whether their cases are heard in state court or tribal court. 22 Recommendation 4: Resources and Funding During our three-year investigation, we found that financial support for Simply put, current children and families in the child welfare system is built on a patchwork federal funding of funding streams, each with its own rules and restrictions. In addition mechanisms for child to state and county funding, child welfare dollars come from at least a welfare encourage an half-dozen federal sources, some of which require matching funds from over-reliance on foster state, county, and local agencies. Delays in services result when care at the expense of providers, social service agencies, and the courts struggle to determine other services to keep the pertinent funding source for services. Delays are compounded when a families safely together child is moved to a new county or state. and to move children swiftly and safely from Even when services are available, agencies and the courts do not always foster care to permanent give priority to foster children and their families in the delivery of these families, whether their services. For example, children have a right to certain educational and birth families or a new transition-to-independent-living services but often are not able to benefit adoptive family or legal from these services because there are no resources or funding supports to guardian. help these children access the services. This lack of prioritization of, and accountability to, children and families in the delivery of services —Pew Commission on deprives them of the comprehensive and concentrated services that are Children in Foster Care critical to family reunification and permanency. The commission offers the following recommendations to respond to the challenge of resources and funding. Recommendation 4 In order to meet the needs of children and families in the foster care system, the Judicial Council, Congress, the Legislature, the courts, and partnering agencies should give priority to children and their families in the child welfare system in the allocation and administration of resources, including public funding – federal, state, and local – and private funds from foundations that support children’s issues. Recommendation 4A The Judicial Council should urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies – including agencies and organizations that provide health, mental health, education, substance abuse, domestic violence, housing, employment, and child care services – to prioritize the delivery and availability of services to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Congress and the state Legislature fund dissemination of evidence-based or promising practices that lead to improved outcomes for foster children and their parents. Examples include therapeutic foster care and drug courts. 23 Recommendation 4B States and counties should be given permission to use federal funding more flexibly. Flexible funding should be used to address the needs of children and families in a timely manner that recognizes the child’s developmental needs and relationship with his or her parents, guardian, and extended family. The commission supports key financial recommendations of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and encourages innovative funding strategies at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council urge Congress to adopt the following federal financing reform recommendations, based on those advocated in 2004 by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a national panel of experts that issued proposals around financing child welfare and court reforms: Creation of an incentive model for permanency. Based on o the adoption incentive, this model would encompass all forms of permanency, including reunification and guardianship, and would offer equal payment levels; Federal adoption assistance for all children adopted from o foster care; Federal guardianship assistance for all children who leave o foster care to live with a permanent, legal guardian; Elimination of the income limit for eligibility for federal o foster care funding; Flexibility for states and counties to use federal funds to o serve children from Indian tribes and children living within U.S. territories; Extension of federal title IV-E funding to children in o Indian tribes and the U.S. territories; Reinvestment of local, state, and federal dollars saved o from reduced foster care placements into services for children and families in the child welfare system; Reinvestment of penalties levied in the federal Child and o Family Services Review process into program improvement activities; and Bonuses when the state demonstrates improved worker o competence and lighter caseloads. Recommendation 4C No child or family should be denied services because it is unclear who should pay for them. Funding limitations that prohibit or delay the delivery of services to children and families should be addressed through coordinated and more flexible funding. 24 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding for services and to develop solutions. The Judicial Council should urge Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. Recommendation 4D The Judicial Council, along with other stakeholders, should work to improve the foster care system by supporting those who provide care to dependent children. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for increasing foster care rates and supports to enable foster parents to care for their foster children. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for funding and other resources to provide statewide legal and informational support for caregivers so they understand the dependency process and know what to expect in court. Recommendation 4E The Judicial Council, the executive and legislative branches of federal and state government, local courts, businesses, foundations, and community service organizations should work together to establish a fund to provide foster youth with the money and resources they need to participate in extracurricular activities and programs to help make positive transitions into adulthood. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Children in foster care and partnering agencies have access to reliable funding to support their access to extracurricular activities and transitional programs. These activities should include music and dance lessons, sports, school events, and independent living activities. Systemic barriers that prevent foster children from participating in the above events be eliminated, including transportation, licensing restrictions, and confusion regarding waivers and consents. 25 Recommendation 4F Educational services for foster youth and former foster youth should be expanded to increase access to education and to improve the quality of those services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Courts and partnering agencies ensure that foster children receive the full education they are entitled to, including the support they need to graduate from high school. This includes tutoring and participation in extracurricular activities. The courts should require other agencies to justify any denial of such services to foster youth in school. The Judicial Council urge Congress and the state Legislature to strengthen current education laws to explicitly include all foster children and to fill funding gaps, such as the lack of support for transportation to maintain school stability. The Child Welfare Council prioritize foster children’s educational rights and work with educators to establish categorical program monitoring to oversee compliance with education laws and regulations that support foster youth in school. The California Department of Education designate foster youth as “at-risk” students to recognize that foster care creates challenges and obstacles to a child’s education that other children do not experience and to increase the access of foster youth to local education programs. Foster Youth Services grants be expanded to include all children age five or older, including those in kinship placements, because close to half of foster children are placed with kin and Foster Youth Services is not currently funded to serve those children. The Judicial Council urge legislative bodies and higher education officials to expand programs, such as the Guardian Scholars, statewide to ensure that all current and former foster youth who attend college have access to housing and other support services and to waive tuition and other educational fees for current and former foster youth. 26 Chapter 2: A Roadmap to Reform: The Blue Ribbon Commission’s Action Plan Commissioners kept implementation in mind throughout our We realize that our deliberations. We were determined from the beginning that our recommendations have recommendations not sit on a shelf gathering dust, but be implemented as financial implications. soon as possible in the hope of improving the lives of children and That goes without saying. families, and bringing some relief to the state’s chronically overstressed And we acknowledge that juvenile court and child welfare systems. our state is experiencing difficult financial times. When the Judicial Council unanimously accepted our final But not everything needs recommendations on August 15, 2008, it directed that work get to happen at once. We underway immediately on the 26 specific recommendations that are are taking the long view. under its purview. It also directed us to develop an action plan in keeping with our principles and values for those recommendations that required These recommendations, collaboration with court partners. We met in San Francisco on October when implemented, will 21, 2008 to begin work on the action plan that is included in this chapter. bring significant change to our juvenile court and The commission believes that each one of our recommendations is child welfare system, to important and indispensible to the sweeping reform of the foster care and the benefit of California’s dependency court systems that we envision. For this initial action plan, most vulnerable children we took a pragmatic approach, identifying practical first steps that we and families. believe are fiscally responsible and realistically achievable. We also believe that these initial reforms will provide an important and improved —Hon. Carlos R. foundation for the remaining recommendations and reforms that will Moreno follow. Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California; We organized our action plan around the key recommendations in each of Chair, California Blue the four overall categories of recommendations: Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 1.Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2.Court reform; 3.Collaboration between the courts and their child welfare partners; and 4.Resources and funding. We have highlighted key recommendations within each of these categories and outlined our action steps to make them a reality. 29 REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL AND ACHIEVE PERMANENCY Increasing the Number of Relative Placements (Kinship) I was placed in foster care when I was six years Nearly half of the children in foster care have been in care for old and had multiple over two years, 17 percent for three years or more. Too often placements in the first these children are in foster care limbo, shifted from placement to three years. Growing up, placement, separated from siblings, friends, and schools. Often it was really difficult they could be placed with relatives if the system knew who and because you would have where the relatives were. to make family trees in school, and on my family Key Recommendations tree it was just me and That, at the earliest possible point in their involvement with the my brother. I had no idea family, child welfare agencies engage family members, who my parents were. I including extended family wherever they may live, to support the had no idea of any family and children in order to prevent placement whenever genetics or any family possible. Child welfare systems should develop and improve history. I had no idea of internal protocols for finding family members. who I was until I was 17. The Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to With the limited advocate changes in law and practice to increase and encourage information I had, I more relative placements, including: searched on the internet Addressing funding disparities; o for my family and was Developing greater flexibility in approving relative o able to locate my placements whereby relatives would not, by virtue of grandmother who said federal law, be held to the same standard as nonrelatives; she had not been and contacted when I was Formulating protocols to facilitate swift home assessments placed in foster care. o and placement with family members when appropriate. —Sean Guthrie That all court participants continuously review and make Former foster youth extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co-placement. Action Steps To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, we urge that the following steps be taken to improve the availability of relatives to care for foster children: That the Judicial Council work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, the California Department of Social Services, and other appropriate partnering agencies to evaluate and determine whether California should opt into the kinship provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (hereinafter “Fostering Connections to Success Act”). These provisions would provide more support for relative caregivers. If it is determined that California should opt in, the Judicial Council should support appropriate legislation. That local and statewide child welfare agencies develop and improve internal protocols for finding, engaging, and supporting family relationships. The efforts and forthcoming recommendations of the Child Welfare Council Permanency 30 Committee and the implementation of California’s Program Improvement Plan will support this work. That local foster care commissions support the expansion of family finding in their counties by developing information- sharing protocols among public and private agencies to enhance the ability of the child welfare agency to locate family members. The Blue Ribbon Commission’s local teams committee and Administrative Office of the Courts staff will provide support for this effort. Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African Americans and American Indians in Foster Care African-American children constitute 6% of the state’s child population, but represent more than 26% of the children in foster care. More than three times as many American Indian children are in the foster care system compared to the state’s population of American Indian children. These statistics sharply profile the enormity of the problem of disproportionality in California’s foster care system. We recommend a strong, determined response to this systemic inequity. Key Recommendations That the courts and partnering agencies work to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system, and That judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals who serve foster children and their families increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce. Action Steps We recommend addressing the problem on multiple fronts through the following steps: That the Judicial Council and partnering agencies support as appropriate Indian tribes opting into the provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act to get federal title IV-E funds and to access grants. That the Administrative Office of the Courts provide training and support to trial courts on how these courts may contribute to the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indian children and provide tools for eliminating this effect. That the Administrative Office of the Courts and other statewide stakeholders, including Casey Family Programs, set up a task force to develop the basics of a training template to reduce disproportionality that can be provided to each county. That the Judicial Council, partnering agencies, and local commissions work collaboratively to develop a strategy to increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce at every level. 31 That the California Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members to help avoid nonrelative placement whenever possible. That courts and partnering agencies identify how policies and practices interact to create disproportionality and work to ameliorate this effect. That the Judicial Council support efforts to involve courts in local collaborations to reduce disproportionality, including in counties that are participating in Casey Family Programs’ California Disproportionality Project. That the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, trial courts, and county child welfare agencies develop a statewide dependency court standard for determining predetention reasonable efforts to find alternative placements or provide intensive services to prevent detention. Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth I started my work in The fact that more than 5,000 of our youth in foster care “age out” of the child welfare services system every year without reunifying with their own families or being over 20 years ago, placed in other permanent families is an enormous problem for this state. providing group care to We know that these young people are more likely to drop out of school, neglected teenagers. have serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and And I have to say that unemployment, and end up in the criminal justice system. We the most troubling recommend aggressive action to provide needed support for transitioning aspect of that youth. experience was 18th birthdays. I watched far Key Recommendation too many young people celebrate their 18th That the Judicial Council work with federal and state leaders to birthday with nowhere support or sponsor legislation to extend the age when children to go because their receive foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. This change funding for foster care should apply to those children who at age 18 cannot be returned services was terminated home safely, who are not in a permanent home, and who choose on that day. to remain under the jurisdiction of the court. If the court terminates jurisdiction before a youth’s 21st birthday, the youth —Professor Mark should have the right to reinstatement of jurisdiction and Courtney services. Ballmer Chair in Child Well-Being, School Action Steps of Social Work, Implementation of this recommendation is imminently possible because University of Washington; the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act, passed in 2008, now Former social worker permits states to use federal funding to extend foster care assistance to age 21. We urge that the following steps be taken to ensure that California opts in to the provisions in this act that would permit federal funding for foster care through age 21: That the Judicial Council work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, California Department of Social Services, and the 32 Legislature to ensure that California is able to secure federal funding to extend foster care to age 21. That the Judicial Council develop rules of court as necessary to implement the federal and/or state legislation, and provide continuing court oversight for youth transitioning to adulthood. That the California Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies develop protocols for working with transitioning youth who may want continued services beyond age 18. That the Judicial Council and trial courts develop protocols to address any changes to caseloads for the courts and attorneys that are created by extending juvenile court jurisdiction to age 21. That the Judicial Council and partnering agencies work with state and federal leadership to ensure adequate funding for transitional housing. That the Administrative Office of the Courts, in the absence of new legislation, provide training to trial courts on the authority of courts to order services to youth to age 21 under current law. 33 Spotlight on Early Implementation: Fostering Connections to Success Act Late in 2008, Congress passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351). Hailed as the most Hailed as the significant federal legislation for foster youth in more than a decade, the new law provides important new resources for foster youth and most the families who care for them. significant The new law is directly responsive to 20 of the Blue Ribbon federal Commission’s recommendations, which were shared with members of Congress prior to the new law’s passage. legislation for Commission recommendations addressed by the new law include: foster youth in more than a Increased supports for relative caregivers (kin); Improved outreach and communication with relatives who may decade, the be able to assist with care for foster youth; Fostering More flexible use of federal funds to support child abuse prevention efforts; Connections to Supports for foster youth until age 21, including housing and Success Act other transitional services; Requirements that siblings be placed together; provides Requirements that child welfare agencies coordinate with important new educational agencies to ensure that children are enrolled in school full-time and can remain in the same school whenever resources for possible; foster youth Extension of federal funding for foster care to tribal governments; and and the Use of federal child welfare training funds for court personnel, families who attorneys, relative caregivers and others working with children in the child welfare system. care for them. State legislation to implement a number of these provisions has already been introduced in California. Commission members are helping to support these efforts under the auspices of the Judicial Council. Once enacted in state statute, local foster care commissions will be able to assist with implementation. 34 COURT REFORM Reducing Caseloads for Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers The dependency system Staggering caseloads for attorneys and judicial officers in juvenile is blessed with many dependency court sharply limit the time and attention that either an caring and dedicated attorney or the court can give to any one case. When the average hearing social workers, time devoted to each case is 10 to 15 minutes instead of the attorneys, and judicial recommended 30 to 60 minutes, it is no wonder that parents and children officers. However, no consistently report that they did not understand what happened in court. one, no matter how We believe that lowering caseloads is a necessary first step towards dedicated and caring, implementing our recommendations for more meaningful hearings. (This can do a complete and section discusses judicial caseloads. Attorney and social worker thorough job if they caseloads are addressed later in the section on Resources and Funding.) have four times as many cases as they should. Key Recommendations That the Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload Clear standards for study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The each of these professions study should take into account the court’s unique oversight and and a source for funding case management responsibilities and address the use of case to ensure that there are managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. enough social workers, That, pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate attorneys, and judicial their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make officers are essential. adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional —Hon. Margaret Henry funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and Judge of the statutory requirements. Superior Court, County of Los Angeles Action Steps The first step in addressing judicial caseloads is to determine the appropriate caseload for judicial officers. This determination will then enable the courts to determine the appropriate allocation of judicial resources to juvenile courts and will give the judicial branch the ability to advocate more effectively for additional resources. We recommend the following implementation steps: That the Judicial Council continue its ongoing statewide assessment of judicial needs based on caseload data and continue to seek the resources to implement recommendations from the study. That the Judicial Council, in conjunction with the trial courts, undertake a judicial juvenile court caseload study tailored to take into account the court’s unique oversight, case management and community responsibilities. That the Judicial Council explore the use of case managers to support judges with their caseloads and consider the effect of case managers when determining the appropriate caseload. 35 Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings As we studied the juvenile court process, we sought first-hand accounts from participants about their experiences in dependency court through a Spotlight on Early variety of settings: focus groups, public forums, formal testimony at Implementation: commission meetings, public hearings, youth summits, and social worker Youth Participation in symposia. We learned that participants have an earnest desire to be heard Hearings that Affect Their and understood by the judge and to offer their personal perspectives to Lives the court on the issues that could have a profound impact on their future. Ensuring that foster youth have a Whether they appear in person at a hearing, submit written information, voice in court – a key commission or are effectively represented by an attorney, participants want to tell recommendation – was the impetus their side of the story. The desire to share their own voice -- their behind recently signed state concerns, aspirations, and personal perspectives -- was echoed by all legislation. participants in the legal process. This finding echoed a 2005 Survey of Trust and Confidence in the California Courts and identified the Assembly Bill 3051 requires courts opportunity to be heard as a critical component of procedural fairness. to ensure that children over age 10 have the opportunity to attend In response to the legislation and the clear message we heard about the hearings on their dependency case desire for meaningful participation in court hearings, we prioritized the (including provision of transportation, if necessary) and following recommendations for early action. that they are permitted to address the court when they are present at a Key Recommendations hearing. Some counties, most That judicial officers and other stakeholders identify and remove notably Los Angeles, have already barriers that prevent children, parents, and caregivers from made great strides in this area. And, attending hearings. several of the newly forming local foster care commissions have That the Judicial Council provide judicial officers and court targeted getting children to court as participants with education and support to create courtroom one of their top priorities. environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, and that this take Our commission frequently heard into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. from foster youth who expressed a sincere and real desire to be present That the Judicial Council require the appointment of independent when decisions are made regarding counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. their young lives. Often youth are That the Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all not aware of hearings, and even if juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule they are, transportation and 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. scheduling issues can present major roadblocks. Action Steps Related commission To implement these recommendations, we must engage the Judicial recommendations call for removing Council, trial courts, local foster care commissions, appellate courts, other barriers that prevent both local child welfare agencies, appellate representation projects, attorneys youth and parent participation in representing parents, children and agencies and other partnering hearings, including scheduling agencies. The Judicial Council has already referred appellate counsel and hearings that do not conflict with expedited appeal recommendations to appropriate internal committees school and work, setting hearings for the development of rules of court. We believe the following for specific dates and times, and additional steps should be taken to ensure dependency court participants exploring telephonic and other new a voice in court: technology options to ensure full participation. That local foster care commissions identify and assess county barriers to parties’ attendance at hearings and tailor local strategies to overcome these barriers. This is one of the four 36 priority areas that the Blue Ribbon Commission asked local commissions to consider at the local summit meeting in December 2008. The Administrative Office of the Courts staff will provide support for these efforts. That state level child welfare stakeholders develop strategies to reduce barriers to participation, including legislation as necessary, and support local foster care commission efforts to remove the barriers to attendance and participation at hearings. The Child Welfare Council should provide leadership and support in this area. That trial courts make use of established procedures to increase parties’ attendance and participation at hearings, including the setting of time certain hearings that are available at times that do not conflict with school, employment or other case plan or court obligations. Trial courts should also act to reduce unnecessary delays and cancellations of hearings. That the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court implementing the Assembly Bill 3051 (Jones) to facilitate attendance of children at hearings. The rule of court will include information on implementation steps that will ensure meaningful participation. That the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court providing for alternative ways for parties to participate in court, such as telephonic appearances, and standards by which these alternatives may be used. This step has already been referred to the Judicial Council’s Rules and Projects Committee. Ensuring Adequately Trained and Resourced Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) I didn’t know that we Making sure that parties can attend hearings is only the first step toward could write a letter to the meaningful hearings. Once in court, participants in dependency court are judge. I didn’t know that mystified by the process – they often feel frustrated, overwhelmed or we could do something to rushed as they attempt to navigate the court system, to understand their let our voice be heard and rights, and to participate in a meaningful way in court. The commission let the judge see that saw these issues as crucial and slated for initial action recommendations there was a to increase resources to reduce caseloads and expand training. family…approved and waiting for him. Key Recommendations That the Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including —Foster parent and stable funding, to implement caseload standards for attorneys focus group participant and social workers, and to develop and implement caseload San Francisco standards for social services agency attorneys. That the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. 37 Action Steps To implement these recommendations we need the help of the Judicial Spotlight on Early Council, trial courts, tribes and/or tribal courts, state legislative Implementation: leadership, local child welfare agencies, dependency court attorneys, New Training Resource for CASA, and other partnering agencies or organizations. We urge the Courts, Attorneys, & Social following steps be taken to implement our recommendations: Workers In line with Blue Ribbon That the Administrative Office of the Courts continue its Court Commission recommendations Appointed Counsel Study and Dependency Representation, calling for improved training for the Administration, Funding & Training (DRAFT) project to reduce courts, juvenile dependency caseloads and provide training for attorneys representing parents attorneys, and social workers, the and children in juvenile dependency proceedings. Administrative Office of the Courts’ Center for Families, That the Judicial Council work with partnering agencies and Children & the Courts recently other state leadership to advocate for resources to implement launched the California existing caseload standards for all attorneys who provide Dependency Online Guide, a free representation in juvenile court and for social workers. technical assistance Web site for That the Judicial Council work with trial courts, partnering juvenile dependency judicial agencies, and local foster care commissions to determine what officers, attorneys, social workers, type of multidisciplinary training and support is needed in local and other professionals working in child welfare or related fields. jurisdictions and the opportunities that exist to provide the training and support. This new training resource provides That the Administrative Office of the Courts develop educational a variety of legal and educational programs and technical support for judicial officers that address resources including a searchable the efficient and optimal use of existing resources. dependency case law database, a conference calendar, sample briefs, That the Judicial Council establish pilot projects in small, motions and writs, county-by- medium, and large courts to test various approaches to making county listings of service providers hearings more meaningful and use the lessons learned to develop and experts, and a large number of policies and practices that can be implemented statewide. publications and training materials. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommended improved training for court and other personnel because the court’s ability to make fair, timely, and informed decisions requires well qualified attorneys, social workers, and other child welfare professionals who can present accurate and timely information to the courts about the children and families in the child welfare system. Those wishing to subscribe to this important new resource should visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/dependency onlineguide. Contact: dependencyguide@jud.ca.gov, or call AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 415-865- 4563. 38 Spotlight on Early Implementation: Early Support for Court Performance Measures Early in the commission’s three-year process, we embraced the collection and reporting of performance measures in juvenile dependency court and developed draft court performance measures that The were adopted in 2008. Several factors contributed to our momentum: implementation The courts were already in the process of developing a California of performance Case Management System and were beginning to design the juvenile dependency court module. measures will The California Department of Social Services was about to redesign and upgrade their statewide Child Welfare Services help automated case management system. California’s The California Legislature also expressed its support for court- based performance measurement through passage of the Child courts improve Welfare Leadership and Performance Accountability Act of 2006, outcomes for Assembly Bill 2216. This bill directed the Judicial Council to adopt performance measures that enable the courts to establish our most benchmarks and track their progress “in improving safety, permanency, timeliness and well-being of children and to inform vulnerable 3 decisions about the allocation of court resources.” families. In one of our first actions, the commission drafted a resolution about the need for gathering better and more complete data related to dependency cases and for the electronic sharing of appropriate information between the courts and child welfare agencies. This resolution was adopted by the Judicial Council at its October 20, 2006 meeting. (See the resolution in Appendix B.) Two of our committees then developed draft court performance measures, which were incorporated into a draft rule of court, which was circulated for comment as part of the Judicial Council’s rule making process. On October 24, 2008, the Judicial Council adopted rule 5.505 of the California Rules of Court and its companion guide: Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures, with an effective date of January 1, 2009. With the adoption of performance measures for California, the Judicial Council took a significant step to implement our recommendation calling for the Judicial Council to “establish and implement a comprehensive set of court performance measures.” When the California Case Management System goes online with its family and juvenile law case module, the performance measures will begin to help the courts improve outcomes for the state’s most vulnerable families. Ќ C.W.&I.C§16545(West 2008). ALELFNSTODE 39 COLLABORATION BETWEEN COURTS AND THEIR CHILD WELFARE PARTNERS Facilitating Data and Information Exchange One of the greatest challenges to reforming the juvenile dependency and If attorneys are not foster care systems is the difficulty of exchanging data and information trained in everything among courts and their partner agencies. The difficulty results from a from child development variety of factors, including confidentiality laws, and in many instances to understanding the way in which they are interpreted and implemented; automated case children’s’ linguistic management systems that are unable to communicate with each other; stages to special and a lack of communication and collaboration among agencies and education to mental between agencies and the courts. health to health to substance abuse to Key Recommendation domestic violence – all of The Judicial Council, trial courts, and the California Department those things – they of Social Services should work cooperatively with all cannot do a good job as departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal attorneys in dependency sharing of information to promote decision-making that supports court. the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. There is a lot more that you need besides a Bar Action Steps card to really represent To achieve that goal, we focused on the following implementation steps: children well in this system. And very little of That the Judicial Council continue to develop and implement the it is taught in law school. California Case Management System, which will include information-sharing capabilities with other partners’ data —Leslie Heimov systems. Executive Director, That statewide stakeholders work to reduce or remove barriers to Children’s Law Center of Los Angeles sharing information, through Memoranda of Understanding or through legislation, where needed. Support is being provided for this work through the ongoing efforts of the Child Welfare Council Data Linkage Committee. That the Judicial Council and partnering agencies, in conjunction with the Child Welfare Council, hold a summit of agency and county counsel to identify and resolve barriers to sharing information. That local commissions develop tailored strategies to reduce or remove local barriers to sharing information. When information-sharing capabilities have progressed sufficiently to warrant coordinated implementation, that the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court addressing information and data sharing and provide support with an implementation guide. 40 Collaboration in Action: Helping Foster Youth through Data-sharing One of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s central recommendations focuses on sharing information and data among the courts and agencies that serve foster children and their families. The issue of sharing information as a barrier The commission heard repeatedly about the problems, delays and is self-imposed. There are other consequences of agency systems not communicating with one no real barriers to the another, whether it was a judge not having all of the relevant sharing of information. information about a youth in order to make informed decisions on Honestly, it is a little tiny his or her behalf, foster youths’ educational records not following fence that can be kicked them from one school to another, or a foster parent encountering over. Make it work. repeated roadblocks when trying to ensure adequate medical care for a young person who is in their charge. —Hon. Colleen Nichols Judge of the Superior Court, We also heard about several good examples of local agencies and County of Placer officials tearing down administrative barriers to information and data-sharing, and applaud the efforts of those who are “just making it happen.” One good example at the local level is in San Diego County, where the Office of Education spearheaded the collaboration of nine agencies and the juvenile court to set up a system to share foster youths’ education and health records. They created an interagency agreement that permits participant agencies to access foster youth information on a web-based secure database. The database receives daily and weekly downloads from child welfare and education offices, including all 42 of San Diego’s school districts, ensuring that the information is current for those who need access to it. Data include foster youths’ grades, attendance, unofficial transcripts, immunization records, school placement history, and various test scores and other data. Strong leadership from the county’s juvenile court paved the way for this level of information and data sharing, which enables all stakeholders to have the information necessary to comply with legislative mandates that require a foster child’s health and educational records follow the child when there are school transfers or foster care placement changes. Collaborative partners in San Diego include health and human services, child welfare services, the juvenile court, probation, CASA, the public defender, the alternate public defender, education, and the county school districts. 41 Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions Though we are a statewide commission, we realize that change for children and families in the foster care system will take place only if there are changes at the county level and in the local juvenile courts. Key Recommendation The courts can no longer That the presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county afford to be silent social services or human services director should convene partners, or unheard multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and partners in the child address local systemic concerns, address the recommendations of welfare system. The court the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide can and should be a a continuum of services. moving force in collaboration…we all Action Steps jointly share The local commissions are designed to provide leadership on foster care responsibility for making issues in their communities. They will also be a forum for addressing the system better. systemic barriers to improving the lives of foster children and for establishing communication protocols among individuals, agencies, and —Frank Ospino courts. We agreed on the following implementation steps to get the local Supervising Attorney, commissions up and running: Public Defender’s Office, Orange County That the Judicial Council will convene a summit of county teams to start the process of establishing local commissions. (This step is complete. The summit, held in December 2008, is discussed on page 43.) That county teams develop concrete steps to set up local commissions or identify existing committees or workgroups that could be expanded to become local commissions and adopt action plans to address local concerns and Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. (This step is underway. See page 43 for more information.) That local commissions assess, develop, and coordinate the delivery of services; identify barriers to information sharing; communicate with the California Child Welfare Council; and, raise public awareness of foster care issues and the needs of children in foster care. That the Administrative Office of the Courts provide support to local commissions. These local foster care commissions will likely be the keystones to statewide implementation of our recommendations. We see them as crucial partners in meeting the challenge of better safeguarding our children, reducing the need for foster care, and improving the foster care system. 42 Spotlight on Early Implementation: Summit Launches Local Foster Care Commissions The Blue Ribbon Commission believes that the key to effective implementation of our recommendations lays in the counties, where families live, where our judges preside in dependency courts, where services are delivered and major decisions made. We know that bringing our recommendations to life requires teamwork and collaboration between the courts and the local public and private agencies that serve foster children and their Formation of families. That’s why the creation of local foster care commissions is one of our central recommendations. local foster care To encourage the quick formation of these local commissions, commissions is a we hosted a summit on December 10, 2008 and invited the critical step in presiding judge and the child welfare director from each county in the state to send a team. More than 400 participants from 50 implementing counties enthusiastically rose to the challenge of developing local foster care commissions focused on identifying and many of the Blue addressing local child welfare systemic concerns, addressing Ribbon and implementing the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and building the capacity to provide a continuum Commission’s of services. (A copy of the county team workbook used to focus team discussions is attached as Appendix C.) recommendations and making The summit’s success was exciting. With nearly all California counties and juvenile courts participating, there was consensus reform of the among the courts and their partner agencies that foster children juvenile court and and their families deserve better services from the courts and the agencies that serve them. foster care Following the summit, most county teams have now taken systems a reality. concrete steps to create their own local commissions or retool existing collaborations to address foster care issues. These newly formed local commissions have targeted a number of Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations to focus on, including: access to services, visibility of foster care as an issue, getting children to court, information sharing, disproportionate representation of minorities, and educational opportunities. Formation of these local foster care commissions is a critical step in implementing many of our recommendations and making reform of the juvenile court and foster care systems a reality. Our children, our families, and our communities will all benefit from the dedication and hard work of these new local commissions. 43 Improving Indian Child Welfare As noted earlier, there is a significant disparity between the percentages of American Indian children in foster care compared to the percentage of American Indians in the general population in California. In addition, there is often a chasm in terms of resources, policies, trust, and communication between tribes or tribal courts and the state trial courts. One key to collaboration is Hon. William Thorne, the Associate Presiding Judge of the Utah Court real participation – not of Appeal and a tribal court judge, noted in testimony before the just consultation, but commission that “\[t\]he only children in the country who are not covered culturally appropriate by title IV-E are Indian children in tribal court custody, so that there is a partnerships. And for tremendous difference in resources, especially for the poor tribes, about Indian communities that what services are available...” means equality. You cannot do it on a big In many counties there is an historic distrust between tribes and child brother, little brother basis welfare agencies and trial courts. Much of this distrust is due to a lack of – that simply will not understanding or mutual respect for each other’s cultures and institutions. work. You build a history American Indian children and their families suffer because of the lack of of working together in a resources and the lack of trust and coordination between tribes and way that each person at counties and state courts. the table knows that they are valued. The recent passage of the Fostering Connections to Success Act provides a timely boost of resources in this area by offering Indian tribes, for the —Hon. William Thorne first time, direct access to title IV-E funds, which provide federal Associate Presiding Judge, Utah Court of Appeal; assistance through the federal foster care and adoption assistance Tribal court judge programs; hundreds of thousands of other children have had access to these federal funds for years. The act also requires the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance and implementation services to help tribes set up child welfare services that qualify for title IV-E funding. Key Recommendation The commission selected the following recommendation for early action in this area: That the Administrative Office of the Courts work with state trial courts and tribal courts to establish protocols for identifying and sharing jurisdiction between state and tribal courts and for sharing services, case management, and data among superior courts, tribal courts, and county and tribal service agencies. The protocols established should encourage a mutual understanding of and respect for the procedures in both the state and tribal courts and the challenges that all communities face in providing services for children and families. The Administrative Office of the Courts should collaborate with the state to develop and offer judicial education and technical assistance opportunities to tribal court officers and staff and legal education to tribal attorneys, lay advocates, and service providers. 44 Action Steps We identified the following implementation steps to improve communication and collaboration between tribal courts and state trial courts: That local foster care commissions work with tribes, tribal courts, and tribal service agencies in their jurisdictions to determine the needs of tribal children and families and the resources available to meet their needs. That teams, both local and statewide, work together to develop models and protocols for sharing jurisdiction, data, and services. That the Judicial Council evaluate current projects in the judicial branch for opportunities to address Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations related to tribal issues. That the Administrative Office of the Courts provide education on Indian child welfare issues where needed. RESOURCES AND FUNDING Prioritizing Foster Care One of the most compelling values that drove our work as a commission I learned that I just was the strong, powerful voice of the children and youth whose lives could not expect a have been shaped by California’s foster care system. Those individual nurturing home while I voices were convincing and cannot be ignored. The commission believes was in the system. that foster children and youth in this state must be able to count on our Social workers are courts, child welfare agencies, and other stakeholders to care for them as overloaded, attorneys they would be cared for in any loving family. We must take early action. have too many clients, the judges are getting Key Recommendation tired at the end of the In order to meet the needs of children and families in the foster day, and it feels like care system, the Judicial Council, Congress, the Legislature, the there is really no time courts, and partnering agencies should give priority to children for anyone to talk to the and their families in the child welfare system in the allocation child about how it’s and administration of resources, including public funding – going. federal, state, and local – and private funds from foundations that support children’s issues. —Lanette Scott Former foster youth Action Steps Implementation of this recommendation can be accomplished by the following steps: That the Judicial Council and trial courts lead by example, by Assigning judges (not subordinate judicial officers) to o hear dependency cases, Setting 3-year minimum judge’s rotations in o dependency courts, 45 Implementing performance measures and using them to o determine resource allocation to juvenile dependency court, Implementing the California Case Management System o for dependency court, and Conducting a judicial juvenile court workload study and o setting caseload standards for judges based on the workload study. That partnering agencies identify existing mandates where services to families in dependency are already prioritized and ensure that they are being followed. That local foster care commissions and partnering agencies identify additional programs where foster youth and families should be given priority for services. Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Services Financial support for children and families in the child welfare system is Under what circumstance built on a patchwork of funding streams, each with its own rules and is any expenditure restrictions. In addition to state and county funding, child welfare dollars deserving of higher come from at least a half-dozen federal sources, some of which require priority than the care of matching funds from state, county, and local agencies. Delays in services the court’s own children, result when providers, social service agencies, and the courts struggle to for whom they are legally determine the pertinent funding source for services. and morally responsible? Key Recommendations —Children’s Advocacy That the Judicial Council work with other branches of federal, Institute state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding for May 13, 2008 services and to develop solutions. That the Judicial Council urge Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. Action Steps The passage of the Fostering Connections to Success Act carries with it some options for changing the way federal funds are used. In light of this new legislation, we identified the following implementation steps: That the Judicial Council join the Child Welfare Council and partnering agencies to continue to assess the Fostering Connections to Success Act and identify which Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations should be met by implementation of the legislation in California. That the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Council and other stakeholders work with the executive branch and state legislative leadership to enact appropriate provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act. 46 That the Judicial Council continue to work with statewide stakeholders to advocate for increased flexibility in the use of federal funds. When we can successfully coordinate federal funding among our local and statewide agencies and can appropriately target our federal foster care funds for maximum impact, we will be well on the way to successfully implementing many of the commission’s service and funding-related recommendations. Expanding Educational Services We know that too many of our children who “age out” of foster care drop In order to improve out of school, struggle with serious mental health needs, experience academic outcomes and homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal justice level the playing field system. Education of our foster children and youth is critical to ensure a for our students in bright future for them. For that reason, our education recommendations foster care, we must are a top priority for early action. focus on their education once we have Key Recommendations ensured that they are That courts and partnering agencies ensure that foster children safe and free from receive the full education they are entitled to, including the harm. support they need to graduate from high school. This includes tutoring and participation in extracurricular activities. The courts —Michelle Lustig should require other agencies to justify any denial of such Foster Youth Services Coordinator, services to foster youth in school. San Diego Office That the Judicial Council urge Congress and the state Legislature of Education to strengthen current education laws to explicitly include all foster children and to fill funding gaps, such as the lack of support for transportation to maintain school stability. That the Child Welfare Council prioritize foster children’s educational rights and work with educators to establish categorical program monitoring to oversee compliance with education laws and regulations that support foster youth in school. That the California Department of Education designate foster youth as “at-risk” students to recognize that foster care creates challenges and obstacles to a child’s education that other children do not experience and to increase the access to local education programs for foster youth. That Foster Youth Services grants be expanded to include all foster children age five or older, including those in kinship placements. Close to one third of foster children are placed with kin, and the Foster Youth Services program is not currently funded to serve those children. That the Judicial Council urge legislative bodies and higher education officials to expand programs, such as Guardian Scholars, statewide to ensure that all current and former foster youth who attend college have access to housing and other 47 support services and to waive tuition and other educational fees for current and former foster youth. Action Steps These recommendations can be implemented through the following steps: That trial courts, local foster care commissions, local education agencies, and other stakeholders collaborate to assess and eliminate barriers to ensuring full educational opportunities for foster children. That the Judicial Council, together with other stakeholders, advocate with state and federal leaders to strengthen the educational rights of foster children and secure resources for implementation of existing education laws for all foster and former foster children. That the Judicial Council work with stakeholders, including the California Child Welfare Council and educators, to ensure compliance with laws and regulations supporting foster youth in school. That the Judicial Council work with the Child Welfare Council and other stakeholders to develop a plan to implement each individual recommendation in this area where work has not already begun. Successful implementation of these recommendations will have a profound effect on both foster and former foster children. When our foster children can be assured that they will receive the type of education to which they are entitled, we will have taken major steps toward making sure that foster children have the same opportunities as our own children to become self-sufficient and productive members of our communities. 48 Chapter 4: Conclusion: Looking to the Future In his opening speech at the first Blue Ribbon Commission meeting in Our foster care system March 2006, our chair, Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, reminded us clearly needs that California was one of the first states in the country to take on child improvement. We must abuse, some 150 years ago. The first documented case of court provide the courts with intervention, in a case that would be considered child abuse today, the tools necessary to involved three girls from the Marquesas Islands in French Polynesia, ensure that the best who were lured onto a schooner bound for San Francisco. They were interests of abused and held against their will and treated with “great cruelty” on the voyage. neglected children are They continued to be held after arriving in San Francisco. After they served by our child made an unsuccessful attempt to escape, a deckhand filed a writ of welfare system. habeas corpus petition on their behalf. The girls and the captain were brought before the California Supreme Court. The court freed the girls The state assumes and sent them back to their home in the Marquesas. parental responsibility for these children when California’s history of support for abused children and youth progressed they enter the foster over the years, and we have often been a leader in the country in child care system, and the welfare reform. But we know that too many children are still at risk of courts are charged with abuse and neglect in our state, and that families sometimes do not get the overseeing their care. services they need to provide safe and stable homes for them. We also Children are our future. know that too many children languish in our foster care system for years, Reform is a matter not separated from siblings and relatives, schools and communities. And we only of legal obligation, know that our juvenile dependency courts and child welfare agencies do but of moral obligation not always have the resources to do the jobs they are charged to do. as well. That’s why Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the commission. —Chief Justice Now, three years later, we have our recommendations, our action plan, a Ronald M. George much stronger understanding of the needs of this state’s foster children State of the Judiciary and their families, and an even stronger commitment to make the needed Address to the changes to our overstressed juvenile dependency courts and child welfare California Legislature, March 10, 2009 system. We have been gratified by the enthusiasm that has greeted our recommendations. As we prepare to cease our formal existence as a commission, we are heartened by the work that we have helped to bring about as a commission and pleased to report the work that has occurred since our recommendations were unanimously accepted by the Judicial Council in August 2008: The Judicial Council directed that work begin and/or continue on implementing the commission’s recommendations that are within the purview of the judicial branch to implement. The Council also directed the commission to develop an action plan for our remaining recommendations that require collaboration with court partners, which we have done and included in this report. 49 The Judicial Council made implementation of the commission’s recommendations on foster care one of its top four legislative priorities for 2009, signaling its commitment to supporting key reforms and mobilizing the judiciary to help implement our recommendations. The Judicial Council also appointed several commissioners to its legislative workgroup to help advance foster care legislation in line with the commission’s recommendations. Federal legislation – the Fostering Connections to Success Act– has been passed that directly advances 20 of the commission’s Many of the recommendations, including increased support for relative commission’s caregivers, continued supports for foster youth until age 21, and increased educational and other supports. recommendations A key commission recommendation – ensuring youth are already being participation in court – has begun to be addressed through implemented, passage of AB 3051 and a number of local foster care commissions are working to support its implementation. bringing needed Court performance measures, another of the commission’s key relief to recommendations, have been approved and will be implemented California’s in courts across the state. overstressed The Administrative Office of the Courts recently launched the California Dependency Online Guide, a free technical assistance juvenile Web site for juvenile dependency judicial officers, attorneys, dependency social workers, and other professionals working in child welfare or related fields. courts and child Local foster care commissions are forming in counties welfare system. throughout the state to implement the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations and other related reforms at the county level. To begin the process of formation, more than 50 counties attended a December summit to get planning and formation efforts underway. The Blue Ribbon Commission formed a public education committee to give support as needed, including a speaker’s bureau, to the newly forming local foster care commissions. The Child Welfare Council has discussed the implementation of many of the commission’s recommendations. Blue Ribbon Commission Chair Justice Carlos R. Moreno, co-chairs the Council with Kimberly S. Belshé, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will help to ensure that the commission’s recommendations are addressed by the Council. The Judicial Council will continue to monitor the status of all commission recommendations. 50 When the Blue Ribbon Commission began our work, we made a promise to the children and families in our state’s foster care system. We were inspired by the hundreds of people – foster youth, parents, caregivers, social workers, judges, attorneys, CASAs, and many more – who shared their stories and their suggestions for improvement. We pledged to develop fiscally responsible, realistically achievable recommendations to improve outcomes related to safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness. We believe we have done that. Our recommendations offer a coordinated plan for reform that ties together state and federal foster care initiatives with local commissions to implement them. Our action plan offers a blueprint for collaborative success. Formally, as a commission, we now turn our work over to the Judicial Council and its chair, Chief Justice Ronald M. George who appointed us. The Judicial Council has ongoing responsibility for our recommendations and specifically is overseeing implementation of the The Judicial commission’s 26 recommendations that are under its purview. The Council also has oversight for the commission’s other recommendations Council has that involve collaboration with court partners and will receive annual updates on the status of these recommendations. ongoing responsibility for We also turn a portion of our work over to the Child Welfare Council, which was created after the inception of the Blue Ribbon Commission the commission’s and has important ongoing responsibility for ensuring collaboration recommendations among the state agencies that serve children and their families. The Council is in a powerful and unique position to help coordinate many of and will continue the reforms we are recommending. Under the shared leadership of Blue Ribbon Commission Chair Carlos R. Moreno and California Health and to monitor their Human Services Agency Secretary Kimberly S. Belshé, we know and implementation trust that our recommendations will move forward. We also take heart in the fact that many of our commissioners sit on the Council and will status. continue to press for these and other needed reforms. Finally, we also turn our work over to the local foster care commissions that are forming in counties across California. We know that it will be at the local level – with courts and child welfare agencies and other stakeholders working together – where much of our commission’s true reform will occur. We are excited about early efforts to form local commissions and eager to hear about their progress in fostering a new future for California’s children. Our commissioners will stay engaged. Many of us in our individual roles will continue to assist with implementation efforts. We feel confident that California can continue to be a national leader when it comes to child welfare reform in general and most particularly when it comes to reform of our juvenile dependency courts. 51 EPILOGUE: BRIGHTER FUTURES The Blue Ribbon Commission believes in our recommendations and in their ability to bring about significant change in the lives of children and families served by our courts and child welfare system. The real measure of our success, however, will be the changes that they do, in fact, bring about once they are implemented. Here are three stories that we believe demonstrate the impact of our recommendations once they are implemented: Jimmy’s Story Jimmy was placed in foster care at age 2. His father was incarcerated. Jimmy had been physically abused by his mother, a substance abuser with mental health challenges, who told social workers that all of his relatives were deceased. Apparently no one asked the father. But Jimmy had an uncle who had been close to him as an infant. This uncle, his father’s brother, did not even know Jimmy was in foster care for almost five years. When he found out, he and his wife brought the boy into their home, where he has lived for close to ten years. But Jimmy is still struggling with problems that developed when he was removed from his mother. Our Recommendations The Blue Ribbon Commission believes that every child deserves a permanent, safe and nurturing family in which to grow and thrive. When our recommendations are fully implemented, Jimmy would be assured of a well qualified attorney and a CASA to help him make his way through the system. He could be assured that his mother would receive services at the front end in an attempt to prevent Jimmy’s removal from her home, and there would be immediate and intense family finding efforts so that if removal was necessary Jimmy’s uncle would have been identified as a potential placement. The recommendations, when implemented, ensure a brighter future for children who face problems similar to Jimmy’s. Maria’s Story Maria, an American Indian woman, tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine while breastfeeding her baby, a significant danger to the infant’s health and well-being. Maria was brought before the Hoopa tribal court for child neglect. Although Maria lived on the Hoopa reservation, she was not from that tribe, so the Hoopa tribal court judge could not order Maria into a Hoopa social services plan and, because Maria’s tribe did not have a tribal court or social services, he had to transfer the case to the county superior court, 70 miles from the reservation. Because of a lack of communication between the state court 52 system and the tribal court, the county child welfare agency did not understand that it had jurisdiction, so it refused to take Maria’s case. In the meantime, the mother and her baby failed to receive badly needed services. Only when the Hoopa judge took the initiative to contact the superior court judge and iron out the jurisdictional complications did the family get help. Our Recommendations When the commission’s recommendations are implemented, tribal courts and state courts all over the state will collaborate to solve such jurisdictional issues and will develop formal protocols for sharing jurisdiction in cases like Maria’s. This process is already beginning in some counties through their newly formed local foster care commissions. As communication gaps are filled through greater understanding of the two systems, both the tribal courts and the state courts will work effectively together to coordinate services for Indian families and children. Rochelle’s Story Rochelle was only two when she was removed from her mother and placed in care. She was also separated from her older sister. The court ordered parenting, anger management, and substance abuse services for the mother, but the wait for services was more than five months. By this time, Rochelle was already in her third placement. One of her foster parents had physically abused her, and she began to exhibit serious behavioral problems. The mother was unsuccessful in her reunification plan, and the agency was unsuccessful in finding a potential adoptive family. By the time Rochelle “aged out” of the foster care system at 18, she had been in 31 different placements over 16 years. She was reading at a fifth grade level. She had no job and became homeless. She had no contact with her birth family, nor did she have a close relationship with any of her foster families. Our Recommendations The commission is committed to preventing the dismaying outcomes that Rochelle experienced in her long history with foster care and her difficult transition to adulthood. We believe families should not have to wait for services. Our recommendations call for greater flexibility in funding to help parents like Rochelle’s mother get needed services quickly. We also recommend keeping siblings together whenever possible and maintaining family relationships while children are in care. Finally, we know that few teenagers are prepared to live productively on their own at age 18. Thus under our recommendations, Rochelle would be able to continue receiving foster care assistance until age 21. ΫΫΫ As the commission comes to an end, we look ahead to a brighter future – a new future – for California’s children in foster care. 53 APPENDICES 55 dependency cases differ significantly from other case types in the court system Whereas and therefore present unique requirements for data gathering and analysis; be it resolved Now, therefore, That the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care strongly endorses the need for better and more complete data gathering in dependency cases and recommends that the Judicial Council and other government and child welfare leaders work together to en- sure That the California Case Management System incorporate data gathering mechanisms spe- cifically designed to allow analysis of court procedures, any court-based delays, and child and family outcomes in dependency cases consistent with the national standards established by NCJFCJ, the ABA, and NCSC in ; and Building a Better Court That the development of the dependency component of the California Case Management System and the redesign of the California Child Welfare Services/Case Management System, to the extent possible, be jointly developed to allow for appropriate data exchange that maximizes the information available regarding how the courts and the child welfare system are serving children and families and meeting the federal outcome measures specified in the Child and Family Services Reviews and the California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System. Executed at San Francisco, California, this _____ day of ______, 2006 59 Recommendation 3B of the final recommendations of California’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care reads: The presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and resolve local system concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: These multidisciplinary local commissions include participation from the courts; local government officials; public and private agencies and organizations that support children and families; children, parents, and families in the system; caregivers; and all other appropriate parties to the process. These commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including: Undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services o available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency; Identifying and resolving barriers to sharing information among the o courts, agencies, and schools; Communication of local needs and concerns to the Child Welfare o Council; and Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues o in their communities. The AOC support local commissions in their efforts to collaborate and to avoid duplication with other efforts to achieve positive child welfare outcomes (including county efforts to develop system improvement plans as required by state law). All participating agencies prioritize children in foster care, and their families, when providing services. 2 61 USING THIS WORKBOOK This workbook is designed to help you leave today’s Summit with a plan for the first meeting of your local county team, including: Who is on the team Who is responsible for convening and staffing the first post-summit team meeting What are the key topics for the team to address This workbook leads you through the following discussions and decisions: Time Task Page 12:45 – 1:00 Review the workbook and choose a recorder 3 1:00 – 1:15 Review the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission for local county teams and choose 2 or 3 key topics to address 4 1:15 – 2:00 Review and brainstorm approaches to at least two of the key topics you chose Meaningful participation in court 6 Exchanging data and information 8 Raising the visibility of foster care10 Availability of necessary services 12 Other topics 14 2:00 – 2:15 Break 2:15 – 3:00 Create a meeting agenda from the topics you discussed16 3:00 – 3:30 Choose the membership and structure for the team 18 3:30 – 3:45 Create a plan for holding the first local meeting 20 3 62 FOCUS OF THE LOCAL TEAM The Blue Ribbon Commission identified a set of systemic issues that local teams are especially well placed to address. Review those issues, listed below, and the other issues in your community to identify broadly the issues the local team will begin to address. These are systemic issues whose resolutions require a commitment to collaboration and the time necessary to make changes. Do not hesitate to choose or identify just one or two issues at this time. Fostering the meaningful participation of children, parents, caregivers and others in court Exchanging data and information among courts, agencies and others Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in the community Ensuring that necessary services are available in the community ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ 4 63 FOCUS OF THE LOCAL TEAM Creating Approaches Now use the following section of the workbook to review and brainstorm approaches to at least one of the key topics you chose. Meaningful participation in court 6 Exchanging data and information 8 Raising the visibility of foster care10 Availability of necessary services 12 Other topics 14 5 64 FOSTERING THE MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN, PARENTS, CAREGIVERS AND OTHERS IN COURT The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends: (2B) Judicial officers and other stakeholders remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caretakers from attending hearings. This includes addressing transportation and scheduling difficulties, as well as exploring telephonic appearances and other technological options. Review and identify the challenges to attendance and participation in your county: Children not transported to court Incarcerated parents not transported to court Relatives and caregivers reside out-of-state or out-of-country Problems providing notice Hearing times conflict with school, jobs, and case plan requirements Lack of time for adequate preparation of court participants Lack of time for adequate participation of court participants Lack of time for explanation of court process and orders List other challenges: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ 6 65 FOSTERING THE MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN, PARENTS, CAREGIVERS AND OTHERS IN COURT Approaches for local team to address meaningful participation Non-traditional (evening or weekend) court hours Time-certain hearings Educational videos for parents and children on the court process Plain language in court proceedings Time and space available for attorneys to meet with clients before hearings Collaborative agreements with county sheriff for transportation of incarcerated parents Telephonic appearances Children’s waiting rooms Brainstorming (add your own approaches) : _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 7 66 EXCHANGING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION AMONG COURTS, AGENCIES AND OTHERS The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends: (3A) The Judicial Council, trial courts, and state Department of Social Services should work cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decisionmaking that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. Review and identify the challenges to information sharing in your county: Court reports and case plans are incomplete because partners will not share information Children experience health and education problems because key information is not shared Local partners do not share information and exchange data because of concerns about confidentiality Lack of information on legal provisions addressing information sharing and data exchange Court and other agency case management systems do not support data exchange Lack of infrastructure to support information sharing – no agreements about the who, what, when, where, and how of information sharing List other challenges: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ 8 67 EXCHANGING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION AMONG COURTS, AGENCIES AND OTHERS Approaches for local team to address information exchange Daily electronic exchange of petition and calendar information between court and child welfare Data warehouse in county for information on children involved in juvenile court Local rules facilitating sharing of information County statistical reports covering all agencies involved with children in foster care Interagency agreements addressing releases of information and barriers to information sharing Multidisciplinary education on legal provisions that address information sharing Brainstorming (add your own approaches) : _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 9 68 RAISING THE VISIBILITY AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF FOSTER CARE ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that local commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including … Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in their communities. Review and identify the challenges to raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care in your county Lack of participation of court and other stakeholders on policy making bodies Lack of quality information and statistics on foster children to distribute to policy makers, the press and the public Lack of partnerships with non-profit agencies and foundations Lack of community participants to serve as foster parents, CASAs, mentors and in other roles List other challenges: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ 10 69 RAISING THE VISIBILITY AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF FOSTER CARE ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY Approaches for local team to address foster care issues visibility Use materials from the Administrative Office of the Courts (such as the Adoption and Permanency Guide) or Department of Social Services (technical assistance for System Improvement Programs) to guide raising visibility Hold Adoption Saturday or Foster Care Awareness Month Form or support a local foster youth council Form alliances with community foundations and service clubs to broaden community commitment to children in foster care Hold a media training for stakeholders Brainstorming (add your own approaches) : _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 11 70 ENSURING THAT NECESSARY SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that local commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including … undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency. Review and identify the challenges to increasing service availability: Funding restrictions and caps on in-home services Lack of coordination among agencies, including tribes, assessing and providing services for foster children Lack of communication with local funders, including board of supervisors and philanthropic community Inefficient information sharing on new and existing service providers Lack of research on which services are evidence-based practice Continual turnover of service providers List other challenges: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 12 71 ENSURING THAT NECESSARY SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY Approaches for local team to address service availability Identify services available in the community Make assessment information available to team participants to support reasonable efforts, reasonable services and case plan development. Establish service information kiosk or electronic bulletin board Develop appropriate services not currently available. Identify 2-3 areas of concerns in your county that require development of services. Coordinate local service needs with available tribal services and transitional services Develop infrastructure for the timely identification and explanation of service needs and requirements at all stages of proceedings Brainstorming (add your own approaches) : _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 13 72 SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL TOPICS Name the topic: ____________________________________ Review and identify the challenges: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 14 73 SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL TOPICS Name the topic: ____________________________________ Approaches for local teams: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ 15 74 PLANNING THE DISCUSSION AT THE FIRST COUNTY TEAM MEETING Use the table below to create concrete agenda items for your first county team meeting, addressing the topics you have identified EXAMPLE TOPIC I Blue Ribbon Meaningful participation recommendation: Specific topic: Ensuring the participation of incarcerated parents at hearings Subject matter experts and Juvenile Presiding Judge key stakeholders to invite: County sheriff County counsel Child protective services Department of corrections Presenter at meeting: Juvenile Presiding Judge Suggested outcomes: MOU with sheriff, CPS and court detailing responsibilities in notice and transportation of parents Background material: Rules of court Current notice forms Statistics on hearing delays 16 75 PLANNING THE DISCUSSION (continued) TOPIC II TOPIC III Blue Ribbon recommendation: Specific topic: Subject matter experts and key stakeholders to invite: Presenter at meeting: Suggested outcomes: Background material: 17 76 YOUR LOCAL TEAM Your local team can be a newly formed commission, or an existing commission (see next page). In either case, the members of the team should be the decisionmakers in the court, agencies and other bodies who have the ability to bring stakeholders to the table and break down barriers to collaboration. Use this checklist to identify who should be on your local team. From the court: Legal representatives Presiding judge County Counsel Presiding juvenile judge Parent’s counsel Judges and commissioners Child’s counsel Other __________________ Other __________________ From health and human services: Other key participants Agency director Tribes Child welfare director CASA Other __________________ Probation Community foundations School boards Other __________________ From local government County supervisors City council Other __________________ Stakeholders: Youth in foster care Parents or parents’ advocates Caregivers or advocates Other __________________ 18 77 IDENTIFY EXISTING PARTNERSHIPS Most counties have existing teams and commissions working on issues related to children. Courts and agencies may also have effective committees and working groups. Identify the existing partnerships that will have a role on local team – either through coordination or through taking on the role of your local team. Name of group Check all that apply Should May use this Need more coordinategroup as information with this local team group System Improvement (AB 636) Team Child Abuse Prevention Council First 5 Commission Citizens Review Panel Juvenile Justice Commission Juvenile Court Systems groups Other (list below) ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ 19 78 CONVENING THE LOCAL TEAM Challenge yourselves to make a concrete plan for the first meeting of the local team. Take a minute to review the steps to form your team and hold the first meeting. Who will convene the meeting? Presiding judge Presiding juvenile judge County Human Services Director Other: _____________________________________________ Target date for the first meeting: __________________________ Where will the meeting be held? __________________________ Who can staff the local team? __________________________ Keep membership contact information Invite members and other participants to meetings Provide information to the public and press Keep and distribute the minutes Other points on team structure and logistics ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ What is the proposed agenda for the first meeting: ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 20 79 8. The Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. 9. Hearings be available at times that do not conflict with school or work or other requirements of a family’s case plan. 10. To the extent feasible, hearings be set for a specific date and time. Delays should be minimized, and hearings should be conducted on consecutive days until completed. 11. A concurrent criminal proceeding should not mean delay of a dependency case. 12. All parties, including children, parents, and social workers, have the opportunity to review reports and meet with their attorneys before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings. 13. Hearings be timely and meet all federal and state mandated timelines. Continuances should be minimized, and the reasons for systemic continuances should be addressed by the local court and child welfare agency. 14. All participants leave court hearings with a clear understanding of what happened, why decisions were made, and, if appropriate, what actions they need to take. 15. The AOC provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, that takes into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. 16. The same judicial officer hear a case from beginning to end, when possible. 17. Courts explore telephonic appearance policies and new technology options to ensure participation in juvenile court hearings. 18. The Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including a stable funding source, necessary to implement the council’s recently adopted attorney caseload standards, to implement caseload standards for social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. 19. The Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. Training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. 20. The Judicial Council continue to support the development and expansion of CASA programs and to help make available CASA volunteers for all foster children in the dependency system. State funding for CASA programs should be expanded to allow for appointments in all cases. 21. Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution be available in all courts at any time in the proceedings. 22. Families in all counties have access to other types of court proceedings—drug, mental health, and unified courts, for example—that can help them remain together or, if the children are removed, to stabilize and reunify the family as soon as possible. 82 23. The Judicial Council adopt and direct the AOC to work with local courts and state agencies to implement a rule of court that embodies the commission’s following recommendations: Court performance measures include those for safety, permanency, o timeliness of court hearings, due process, and child well-being; Court performance measures align with and promote the federal and o California Child and Family Services Review outcome measures and indicators; The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) collect uniform o court performance data and have the capability to produce management reports on performance measures; and Trial court performance measures be included in a separate Judicial o Council–approved AOCImplementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. 24. These performance measures and management reports be used for the following: To promote court accountability for ensuring fair and timely hearings and o to inform improvements in local case processing; To provide stakeholders and the public with an aggregate picture of the o outcomes for children before the court and to increase the public’s understanding of the court’s role in the child welfare system; and To measure compliance with statutory mandates and effective practices. o Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Partnering Agencies 25. The Judicial Council continue its efforts to fully develop and implement the California Court Case Management System, as well as other data exchange protocols, so that the judicial branch, the California Department of Social Services, and other trusted partners will be able to exchange essential information about the children and families they are mandated to serve. 26. CCMS permit judicial officers in dependency courts to access information about children and families who are involved in cases in other courts. 3 83 Commission Subcommittees Four subcommittees supported the work of the commission and helped develop recommendations for the commission’s consideration. The subcommittees and their areas of focus included: Court Oversight —Issues related to policies and procedures in the trial and appellate courts and the overall role of the juvenile court in the child welfare system. Funding and Resources —Measures to ensure that adequate resources are available to reach the goals for families set by the courts, child welfare agencies, and the commission. Accountability for Better Outcomes —Current and future initiatives to ensure accountability by courts and agencies throughout the foster-care system on both the local and state levels. Case Management and Data Exchange Systems —Case management and data needs in courts and agencies and effective communication and sharing of data between systems. Page 2 of 2 85 There are dependency drug courts in 26 counties to assist substance abusing parents in reunifying xii and/or maintaining custody of their children at home. Most California dependency courts do not have a designated place where children and families can meet with their attorneys or wait for their hearings. Sources: i Needell, B., Webster, D., et. al., (2009). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved \[January 2, 2009\], from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research Web site. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare. Children in child welfare and probation supervised placements on July 1, 2008. This number may be inflated due to data quality issues surrounding the probation counts. ii California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment, Administrative office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, June 2005 (does not include trials). iii California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment, Administrative office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, June 2005. iv http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Delinq-ResUpdJO2006.pdf. v Private Communication, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Court Improvement Project, March 2007. vi http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Delinq-ResUpdJO2006.pdf. vii California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families. viii Dependency Counsel Caseload Study and Service Delivery Model Analysis, June 2004, prepared for the Administrative Office of the Courts, by The American Humane Association, Denver, Colorado, the Spangenberg Group, West Newton, Massachusetts. ix Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) Pilot Program, Administrative office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, October 2007 report to the Judicial Council. x Private Communication, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Court Improvement Project, March 2007. xi Ibid. xii Ibid. Page 2 of 2 88 The court may decide not to offer the parents family reunification services in a number of circumstances, including: The child or a brother or sister has been seriously abused or killed. The parent had another child taken away by the court. The parents tried family reunification services previously and they were unsuccessful. The parents have serious drug problems that are not being treated. Six-Month Review Hearing The court must review all cases every six months to see: How the child is doing. How the parents are doing with court-ordered services. If the child lives with a parent, the court can: 1)Dismiss the case. 2)Keep supervising the child with family maintenance. If the child does not live at home, the court can: 1)Reunify the family while continuing family maintenance services or dismiss the case. 2)Keep the child in placement and order continued family reunification services. Permanency Hearing Within 12 months of the date the child enters foster care, there must be a hearing in which the court decides: If the child will be able to return home safely in the near future or to continue reunification services for another six months. If the court determines the child cannot return home, reunification services will be terminated and a hearing will be set to determine the most appropriate permanent plan for the child, which may be adoption, legal guardianship, or another planned, permanent living arrangement. Selection and Implementation Hearing If reunification services have been terminated, a selection and implementation hearing must be held within 120 days. This includes an assessment of whether the child is likely to be adopted and identifies any prospective adoptive parent or guardians. At this hearing, the court can terminate parental rights if the child is likely to be adopted. Ongoing Review Hearings The court must continue to review all open cases at least every six months to monitor the child’s progress and needs. This continues until the child is adopted, legal guardianship is established, or the case is dismissed for some other reason. The information for this fact sheet was adapted from “Caregivers and the Courts: A Primer on Juvenile Dependency Proceedings for California Foster Parents and Relative Caregivers,” published by the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Administrative office of the Courts, Judicial Council of California Web site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/caregive.pdf and from the Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara Self Service Center’s Web site: www.scselfeservice.org/juvdep/nature.htm. Page 2 of 2 90 2006 Congress establishes two new grants available for each state’s Court Improvement Project. The first grant must be used to enhance data collection and analysis. The second grant must provide multidisciplinary training for judges, attorneys, and child welfare staff. These grants are given to the states for projects that improve juvenile courts. 2005 The Judicial Council’s Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC) Court Improvement Project releases its Reassessment Report, which provides a comprehensive review of California’s dependency courts and makes recommendations for further improvements. The Reassessment Report is a follow-up report to the first Court Improvement Project report that was issued in 1997. 2005 In collaboration with the California Department of Social Services, CFCC initiates the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Project and its Permanency Project to provide education and technical assistance to local courts, child welfare agencies, attorneys and others on ICWA compliance and expanding approaches to permanency for dependent children. 2004 The Judicial Council creates the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) pilot program, which focuses on improving the quality of attorney representation for parents and children in dependency cases by testing caseload standards, providing attorney training, adopting attorney performance standards, and improving attorney compensation. 2004 The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a national, bipartisan panel of experts, issues a report with recommendations for improving the nation’s foster care system, including expanding federal court improvement grants and strengthening court oversight of juvenile cases. 2001 Assembly Bill 636 requires the California Department of Social Services and the counties to measure and improve outcomes for children in California’s child welfare system. 2001 The Judicial Council adopts a rule of court that specifies that an attorney should be appointed for a child in dependency court unless the court finds that a child would not benefit. In those few cases in which an attorney is not appointed a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) must be appointed as the child’s Guardian Ad Litem. 2000 Senate Bill 2160 directs the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court that specifies when an attorney should be appointed to be a child’s Guardian Ad Litem in juvenile dependency cases. 2000 The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) creates the Center for Families Children & the Courts (CFCC) through a merger of the AOC’s Statewide Office of Family Court Services and its Center for Children and the Courts. 1998 Assembly Bill 2773 directs California to implement the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act and shortens timeframes for reunification. 1997 The Administrative Office of the Courts creates the Center for Children and the Courts. Juvenile court projects, including the Court Improvement Project and the Juvenile Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) project, are part of the center. 1997 U.S. Congress adopts the Adoption and Safe Families Act which emphasizes child safety and provides financial incentives to states to promote permanency planning and adoption. Page 2 of 4 92 1997 The Administrative Office of the Courts releases the Court Improvement Project Report based on California's initial court improvement assessment that took place in 1995-1996. The report includes recommendations to improve California’s juvenile court system. An improvement plan is created to implement the recommendations. 1995 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establishes the Court Improvement Project. Congress created a grant program in 1994 in recognition of the expanded role of courts in achieving stable, permanent homes for children in foster care. Grants are made available directly to courts for court improvement programs. 1995 In collaboration with the California Department of Social Services, the Administrative Office of the Courts creates the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) project in response to California’s failure of the 1992 Title IV-E audit. The JRTA team provides training and technical assistance to judicial officers, court staff, attorneys, and child welfare department staff to improve compliance with Title IV-E requirements. California passes the subsequent Title IV E federal audit and the report cites the work of the JRTA project as a strength that contributed to the state's compliance. 1994 The 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act authorizes HHS to establish Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). 1992 California does not pass the Title IV-E federal audit of foster care cases. Federal auditors determine that 39 percent of the cases reviewed were not eligible for Title IV-E funding, and California faces a potential sanction of $51.7 million. 1988 Legislation is enacted encouraging the development of Court Appointed Special Advocate programs (CASA) in all counties. The Judicial Council is directed to provide grant funds to these programs. 1987 Senate Bill 243 implements recommendations from the Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth including providing for termination of parental rights in juvenile dependency proceedings. The legislation also establishes specific jurisdictional definition for court intervention. SB 243 was double-joined to a trial court funding bill, which made court appointed counsel for parents and children a court cost rather than a county cost. 1982 Senate Bill 14 requires the state, through the California Department of Social Services and county welfare departments, to establish a statewide system of child welfare services. 1980 Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act provides funding stream for out-of-home care and establishes a preference to maintain and reunify families. 1978 The Los Angeles Superior Court establishes the first Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program in California. CASA provides volunteers to work with children in the dependency system and provide reports back to the court. 1974 Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) mandates states to establish child abuse reporting laws, defines child abuse and neglect, and defines when juvenile courts can take custody of a child. 1961 Congress establishes foster care payment under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) to help states pay for children who live in foster care. Page 3 of 4 93 1937 Prior California juvenile court law is rolled into the newly created Welfare and Institutions Code, creating a more fully developed mechanism for declaring a child free from the custody and control of his or her parents. 1930 California Supreme Court holds that the juvenile court cannot withhold the custody of a child from the parents without a specific finding of abuse or neglect as required by the relevant statutes. 1909 Laws establish that a child has a right to a private hearing in dependency and delinquency matters, and a child cannot be taken from a parent or guardian without consent, unless the court makes a finding that the custodian is incapable, or has failed or neglected to provide for the child properly. 1903 California establishes its juvenile court. The law applies to children under 16 and defines dependent and delinquent children. Page 4 of 4 94 The Judicial Council will support efforts to involve courts in local collaborations to reduce disproportionality. Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth Recommendation: That the age for children to receive foster-care assistance be extended from 18 to 21. Action Steps: The Judicial Council is working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, California Department of Social Services, and the Legislature to ensure that California is able to secure the federal funding to extend foster care to age 21, as authorized in the 2008 federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. The Judicial Council and partnering agencies are working with state and federal leadership to ensure adequate funding for transitional housing. 2) Court Reform Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers Recommendation: That the Judicial Council reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. Action Steps: The Judicial Council will assess judicial needs based on caseload data and seek resources to implement recommendations from this study. In conjunction with the trial courts, the Judicial Council will undertake a judicial juvenile court caseload study. The Judicial Council will work with partnering agencies and other state leaders to advocate for resources to implement existing caseload standards for all attorneys who provide representation in juvenile court and for social workers. Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings Recommendation: That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. Action Steps: Local foster care commissions and state child welfare stakeholders will identify and assess barriers to parties’ attendance at hearings and tailor local strategies to overcome these barriers. The Judicial Council has referred a rule of court providing for alternative ways of participation in court, such as telephonic appearances, to the Judicial Council’s Rules and Procedures committee. The Judicial Council and many local foster care commissions are working to implement the mandates of Assembly Bill 3051, which requires trial courts to ensure every child over 10 has the opportunity to attend hearings in his or her case, and has the opportunity to address the court. Ensuring that All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Are Adequately Trained and Resourced Recommendation: That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards and that the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. Page 2 of 4 96 Action Steps: The Administrative Office of the Courts will continue its Court-Appointed Counsel Study and DRAFT (Dependency Representation, Administration, and Funding & Training) project to reduce caseloads and provide training for attorneys representing parents and children in juvenile dependency proceedings. 3) Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners Facilitating Data and Information Exchange Recommendation: That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council will implement court-performance measures to improve foster-care outcomes as mandated by state law. Action Steps: Court performance measures are being implemented in courts across the state. The Judicial Council will continue to develop and implement the California Case Management System, which will include information sharing capabilities with our partners’ data systems. Statewide stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, and the trial courts, will work to reduce or remove barriers to sharing information. Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions Recommendation: That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child-welfare concerns and to help implement the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations and related reforms. Action Steps: In December 2008, the Blue Ribbon Commission convened a summit of teams from 50 counties to start the process of establishing local foster care commissions. Those teams returned home with concrete steps to set up local commissions or identify existing committees or workgroups that could be expanded to become local commissions. These local foster care commissions will adopt their own action plans to address local concerns and enact the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations. Improving Indian Child Welfare Recommendation: That the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the services for which they are eligible. Action Steps: The local foster care commissions will work with tribes, tribal courts, and tribal service agencies in their jurisdictions to determine the needs of tribal children and families and the resources available to meet their needs. Teams, representing both local foster care commissions and statewide agencies and leadership, will work together to develop models and protocols for sharing jurisdiction, data, and services. Page 3 of 4 97 4) Resources and Funding Prioritizing Foster Care Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. Action Steps: The Judicial Council and trial courts will lead by example, by 1) assigning judges (as opposed to subordinate judicial officers) to hear dependency cases, 2) setting 3-year minimum rotations in dependency courts, 3) implementing performance measures and using them to determine resource allocation to juvenile dependency court, 4) implementing the California Case Management System for dependency court, and 5) conducting a judicial juvenile court workload study and setting caseload standards for judges based on that workload study. Local foster care commissions and partnering agencies will identify any additional programs where foster youth and families should be given priority for services. Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child-Abuse Prevention and Services Recommendation: That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child-abuse prevention and to eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child-abuse prevention and services. Action Steps: The Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, the Child Welfare Council and other stakeholders are working with the executive branch and state legislative leadership to opt into appropriate provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act to increase flexibility of federal funding. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders will continue to advocate for increased flexibility to use federal funds for preventive services. Expanding Educational Services Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all of its related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. Action Steps: Trial courts, local foster care commissions, local education agencies, and other stakeholders will collaborate to assess and eliminate local barriers to ensuring full educational opportunities for foster children. The Judicial Council, together with other stakeholders, will advocate with state and federal leaders to strengthen the educational rights of foster children and secure resources for implementation of existing education laws for all foster and former foster children. Page 4 of 4 98 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care AUGUST 2010 About the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care On March 9, 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care and appointed as its chair Associate Jus- tice Carlos R. Moreno of the Supreme Court of California. The commission was charged with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on the ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fair- ness for children and families in the child welfare system. The commission developed sweeping recommendations to reform the juvenile de- pendency court and foster care systems, and the Judicial Council unanimously accepted them in August 2008. The commission released to the public its recommendations and an action plan for their implementation in May 2009. In June 2009, the Chief Justice ex- tended the commission for three years and added implementation activities to its charge. The commission consists of members from a variety of disciplines, including judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, former foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and others providing leadership on the issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. The establishment of the commission and its ongoing work builds on ongoing Judicial Council efforts to improve Californias juvenile courts and is consistent with goals and objectives adopted by the Judicial Council. - forts of local and statewide collaborations to advance the commissions recommenda- tions and to begin the process of implementing sweeping reforms to the juvenile depen- dency court and child welfare systems in California. California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care BUILDING A BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIAS CHILDREN Making Progress in ough Economic TT T Times AUGUST 2010 Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3688 www.courtinfo.ca.gov Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies are distributed at or below cost and credit the copyright holder. For more information on the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care or to view this report and other commission materials online, please visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. To order copies of the report, please call 415-865-7739. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper. Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Chief Justice Ronald M. George Chair of the Judicial Council William C. Vickrey Administrative Director of the Courts Ronald G. Overholt Chief Deputy Director Center for Families, Children & the Courts Diane Nunn Director Charlene Depner Assistant Director Carolynn Bernabe Staff Analyst Chris Cleary Attorney Katie Howard Supervisor Sonya Tafoya Senior Research Analyst Don Will Manager Leah Wilson Manager Christopher Wu Supervising Attorney Executive Director to the Commission Fran Haselsteiner Editor Executive Office Programs ii Members of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, 2006–2010 Hon. Carlos R. MorenoCurtis L. Child Raul A. Escatel Chair Director Tax Counsel Associate Justice AOC Office of GovernmentalCalifornia Franchise Tax Board Supreme Court of California Affairs Deborah Escobedo Robin Allen Miryam J. Choca Staff Attorney Executive Director Senior Director Youth Law Center California CASA California Strategic ConsultationHon. Terry B. Friedman (Ret.) Hon. Michael D. Antonovich Casey Family Programs Member Member Judicial Council of California Joseph W. Cotchett Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Fifth Attorney at Law Robert E. Friend Supervisorial District Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy Director California Permanency for Hon. Lucy M. Armendariz Michael S. Cunningham Youth Project JudgeChief Deputy Director Center for Family Finding State Bar Court, State Bar of Program Services Division and Youth Connectedness— California California Department of Seneca Center Alcohol and Drug Programs Mary L. Ault Hon. Richard D. Huffman South Lake Tahoe Manager Hon. Kathryn Doi Todd Associate Justice El Dorado County DepartmentAssociate Justice Court of Appeal, Fourth of Human ServicesCourt of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Appellate District, Division One Hon. Karen Bass Two Former Speaker of the Assembly Hon. Susan D. Huguenor California State Assembly Jill Duerr Berrick Presiding Judge of the Professor Juvenile Court Hon. Richard C. Blake School of Social WelfareSuperior Court of California, Chief Judge of the Hoopa, Smith Co-director, Center for Child County of San Diego River Rancheria, and Redding and Youth Policy Rancheria Tribal Courts University of California at Teri Kook Berkeley Senior Program Officer, Lawrence B. Bolton Child Welfare Chief Counsel Hon. Leonard P. Edwards (Ret.) Stuart Foundation California Health and Human Judge-in-Residence Services AOC Center for Families, Miriam Krinsky Children & the Courts Lecturer University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Affairs iii Amy Lemley Derek Peake Alan Slater Policy Director PartnerSpecial Consultant John Burton Foundation forCostly Grace AOC Southern Regional Office Children Without Homes Jonathan Pearson Joseph L. Spaeth Will Lightbourne Former Foster Youth Public Defender Director Marin County Office of the Linda Penner Santa Clara County Social Public Defender Services Agency Chief Probation Officer Hon. Todd Spitzer Fresno County Probation Hon. Bill Maze Department Former Member Former MemberCalifornia State Assembly California State Assembly Anthony Pico Hon. Darrell S. Steinberg Legislative Assistant Donna C. Myrow Office of Assembly Member President pro Tempore Executive Director Fiona Ma California State Senate L.A. Youth Patricia S. Ploehn, LCSWHon. Dean T. Stout Hon. Michael Nash Director Presiding Judge Presiding Judge of theLos Angeles County Superior Court of California, Juvenile Court Department of Children and County of Inyo Superior Court of California, Family Services County of Los Angeles John Wagner Pat Reynolds-Harris Director David Neilsen Family to Family Permanency California Department of Deputy Director Consultant Social Services Program Services Division Founder, California California Department of Permanency for Youth Project Jacqueline Wong Alcohol and Drug Programs Consultant Jennifer Rodriguez Foster Youth Services Program Diane Nunn Staff Attorney California Department of Director Youth Law Center Education AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts Maria D. Robles, R.N. EX OFFICIO Sacramento John O’TooleHon. John Burton Executive Director David Sanders Former President pro Tempore National Center for Youth Law Executive Vice President for of the California State Senate Systems Improvement John Burton Foundation for Ken Patterson Casey Family Programs Children Without Homes Managing Director Child and Family Services Gary Seiser Casey Family Programs Senior Deputy County Counsel San Diego County Office of the County Counsel iv Contents Message From the Chair1 ............................................................................................................... Introduction: Making Progress in Tough Economic Times .....................................................3 Why We Needed the Blue Ribbon Commission ..............................................................................4 Principles and Values that Guided the Commission’s Process ................................................. 5 The Commission’s Action Plan and Priorities for Implementation .................................................6 Implementation Progress Highlights and Challenges ......................................................................6 Chart: Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations & Action Plan Highlights ..........................11 Chapter 1: Action Plan Highlights and Priorities, 2009—201012 .............................................. Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency ..............................................12 Court Reform .................................................................................................................................14 Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners ............................................................15 Resources and Funding ..................................................................................................................17 Chapter 2: A New Focus on Prevention and Permanency19 ...................................................... Implementation Progress ...............................................................................................................20 Early boost from federal legislation ........................................................................................ 20 Celebrating Reunification ....................................................................................................... 21 Increasing the number of relative placements ........................................................................ 22 Engaging family members ...................................................................................................... 22 Public Policy Institute Report on Foster Care in California Notes Remarkable Advances in Last Decade ......................................................................... 24 Advocating changes in law to address funding disparities and develop greater flexibility to approve relative placements .............................................. 25 Making extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co-placement .................................................................................... 25 Reducing the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indians in foster care ......................................................... 26 Providing extended support for transitioning youth ............................................................... 27 vi Chapter 3: A New Focus on Court Reform30 .............................................................................. Implementation Progress .............................................................................................................. 31 Reducing caseloads ................................................................................................................. 31 Ensuring a voice in court ........................................................................................................ 32 Providing adequate training .................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 4: A New Focus on Collaboration35 ............................................................................... Implementation Progress ...............................................................................................................36 Facilitating data and information exchange ............................................................................ 36 Establishing local foster care commissions ............................................................................ 38 Improving Indian child welfare .............................................................................................. 39 Chapter 5: A New Focus on Resources and Funding43 .............................................................. Implementation Progress ...............................................................................................................44 Prioritizing foster care ............................................................................................................. 44 Advocating for flexible funding for child abuse prevention and services .............................. 45 Expanding educational services .............................................................................................. 47 Foster Youth to College Days: Aging Out of Foster Care . . .Into College ............................ 51 Chapter 6: Other Efforts Advancing Recommendations52 ........................................................ Statewide Efforts Advancing Prevention and Permanency .......................................................... 52 Statewide Efforts Advancing Court Reform ................................................................................. 54 Statewide Efforts Advancing Collaboration ................................................................................. 55 Statewide Efforts Advancing Resources and Funding .................................................................. 55 Conclusion: Reaching for a Brighter Future56 ............................................................................ Appendices59 .................................................................................................................................... A. About the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care ..........................61 B. Final Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission ......................................................65 C. Judicial Council Resolution in Creating Blue Ribbon Commission ........................................77 D. Reappointment and New Charge Documents ..........................................................................79 E. Source Documents ....................................................................................................................83 vii Message from the Chair I am pleased to present the first implementation progress report from the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. The report documents, through June 30, 2010, statewide and local efforts to implement the commission’s comprehensive recommendations to help California’s overstressed juvenile dependency courts do a better job of safeguarding children, reducing the need for foster care, and improving the foster care system. Last June, Chief Justice Ronald M. George extended our charge to include implementation activities and reappointed most of the commissioners. We, along with many statewide and local partners, have been actively working on implementation for the past year. I am impressed by how much has been accomplished at the federal, state, and local levels that significantly advances our goals of changing the way juvenile courts do business and reforming the foster care system in California— accomplishments that have occurred despite the serious budgetary and economic challenges. I believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration, as all of the state’s child welfare partners—courts, social services, education, health, mental health, philanthropic organizations, CASA, tribes, collaborative advisory bodies, and others—both statewide and locally, have taken up the challenge of making a difference for our children in foster care. The Public Policy Institute of California recently released its report, Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges, which noted that California’s foster care system “has made some remarkable advances in the last decade.” Specifically it documented great progress in moving children out of foster care. In fact, California has seen a 45 percent drop in share of children in the system, mainly by shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. But the report noted significant challenges that remain; we have our work cut out for us as we move forward into another year of implementation. Though we are having some success at the backend of the foster care process— reducing the length of stay and the number of placement changes, we still have much to do at the front end— preventing placements when possible and finding permanent placements when removal cannot be avoided. On behalf of the commission, I thank all of our statewide and local partners in this effort to build a brighter future for California’s children—your work has been remarkable. Thanks also to our commissioners for their continued unflagging commitment to improving the lives of California’s children and families. Finally, thanks to Chief Justice Ronald M. George; William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of the Courts; and the Judicial Council for making significant reform of the juvenile dependency courts and the child welfare system a high priority for California’s judicial branch and for offering continued support of this extraordinary attempt to make a real difference in the lives of this state’s most vulnerable children and families. Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California Chair, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 1 Introduction: Making Progress in Tough Economic Times After an unparalleled three-year collaborative effort, the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care submitted to the Judicial Council, in August 2008, a comprehensive set of recommendations for improving California’s juvenile dependency courts and child welfare system. In May 2009, the commission released its final report on the recommendations, along with an 1 action plan for implementing them. At the commission’s meeting in San Francisco on June 30, 2009, Chief Justice George announced that he was extending the work of the commission until 2012 to help ensure implementation of the commission’s recommendations for reform of the state’s juvenile dependency courts and foster care system. He was taking that step, as he noted, because the stakes were so high for children and youth who have suffered abuse and neglect, particularly in these difficult economic times when families stand to suffer even more challenges than usual. This document describes statewide and local implementation efforts to advance the commission’s recommendations, and provides a point-in-time progress report on those efforts. The commission anticipates releasing annual implementation progress reports during the remainder of its tenure. This report highlights the following: Legislation, passed and pending, that advances the commission’s recommendations; Statewide initiatives and collaborative efforts focused on improving the juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems; and Local county collaborative efforts to respond to the needs of vulnerable children and their families. 1 See www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/documents/brc-finalreport.pdf. See also Appendix A, for more information on the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, and see Appendix B for the Commission’s final set of recommendations. 3 Why We Needed the Blue Ribbon Commission When Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care on March 9, 2006, the foster care system and dependency courts were underresourced and overstressed. California had more than 80,000 children in foster care. Most of those—almost 80 percent—had been removed for neglect. Nearly half—45 percent—had been in care for more than two years, 17 percent for more than three years. African-American and American Indian children were disproportionately represented in the system. Fewer than 150 full-time and part-time judicial officers presided over the entire dependency court system. Full-time juvenile dependency judges carried an average caseload of 1000, directly affecting the amount of time and attention that could be given to any one case. Juvenile dependency court attorneys, who represent children and parents in court, had an average caseload of 273—in some counties caseloads rose to 500 or 600—far exceeding the recommended maximum caseload of 188 adopted by the Judicial Council. Children and parents sometimes did not meet their attorneys until moments before their hearings, which limited their opportunity to speak in court, and meant that their attorneys often had inadequate information about a child’s life. The median time for a hearing was only 10 to 15 minutes, far less than the recommended 30 to 60 minutes. Judges were often assigned to juvenile court for short rotations instead of the recommended three years. Families were often involved with more than one system, but courts and other agencies did not easily share data or information that might be critical to a family’s circumstances. Concerned that the courts and their child welfare partners, who share responsibility for the safety and well-being of children while they are in foster care, were not always being a very good “parent” to these children, Chief Justice George appointed as commission chair Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the California Supreme Court and charged the commission with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council on ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well- 4 being, and fairness for children and families in the child welfare system. Principles and Values that Guided the Commission’s Process The Blue Ribbon Commission was guided by a set of overarching principles, which were adopted early in its deliberations. Those principles and values have continued to inform its work on implementation: All children are equal and deserve safe and permanent homes; Efforts to improve the foster care system must focus on improving safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness outcomes for children, and services should be integrated and comprehensive; Collaboration is essential for achieving the best possible outcomes for children and families; Courts play an important statutory role in overseeing children, families, and services in the dependency system; Children and families should have a say in decisions that affect their lives; and Government agencies need adequate and flexible funding to provide the best outcomes for children in the foster care system. A set of values informed the commission’s work throughout. Those values were: Collaboration; Shared responsibility; Accountability; Leadership; Children and families; Child safety; Inclusion; Permanency; and Youth voice. The overarching value was that the voices of the children and youth who were or had been in California’s foster care system should be consistently heard and should inform decision-making at all levels. Those voices became the engine that drove the commission’s work on developing its recommendations and continues to drive its efforts to implement those recommendations. 5 The Commission’s Action Plan and Priorities for Implementation Commissioners kept implementation in mind throughout their deliberations. They were determined from the beginning that their recommendations not sit on a shelf gathering dust but be implemented as soon as possible in the hope of improving the lives of children and families and bringing some relief to the state’s chronically overstressed juvenile court and child welfare systems. When the Judicial Council unanimously accepted the commission’s final recommendations on August 15, 2008, it directed that implementation of the 26 specific recommendations under its purview get underway immediately. It also directed the commission to develop an action plan in keeping with its principles and values for those recommendations requiring collaboration with court partners. The commission released its action plan for implementation in May 2009. The commission endorses each of its recommendations as being important and indispensible to the sweeping reform of the foster care and dependency court systems that it envisions. But for its initial action plan the commission took a pragmatic approach, identifying practical first steps that it believed were fiscally responsible and realistically achievable. It also believed that the initial reforms would provide an important and improved foundation for the remaining recommendations and reforms that would follow. Chapter 1 of this report contains the commission’s blueprint for foster care reform in California: its action plan highlights and priorities. Implementation Progress Highlights and Challenges The commission has been pleased and impressed by how much has been accomplished at the federal, state, and local levels that significantly advances its goals of changing the way juvenile courts do business and reforming the foster care system in California—accomplishments that have occurred despite serious budgetary and economic challenges. Early indications suggest that active court oversight and better representation in the juvenile dependency courts makes a significant difference for the children and families who enter the child welfare system. Members believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration, as all of the state’s child welfare partners—courts, social services, education, health, mental health, court-appointed special advocates (CASA), tribes, philanthropic organizations, and 6 others—both statewide and locally, have taken up the challenge of making a difference for our children in foster care. Nevertheless, challenges remain, and the commission will redouble its efforts in the coming years to make progress on some of the more difficult challenges. Highlights Some highlights of implementation progress include the following: Drop in number of children in foster care is encouraging. Numbers of children in foster care in California have dropped dramatically over the last decade, attributed in part to a “more intense focus by local and state policymakers on the problems of foster care, which in turn led to innovations in child welfare policies and practices.” In fact, California has seen a 45 percent drop in share of children in the system, mainly by shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. That decline is “most pronounced among black children, who have long been overrepresented in the child welfare system.” Only 2.7 percent of African-American children were in foster care in 2009, compared to 5.4 percent in 2000—certainly still too high a percentage, but 2 encouraging. Boost from federal Fostering Connections to Success Act initiates implementation. The federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, which is directly responsive to 20 of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations, gave an early boost to implementation efforts. Offering increased supports for relative caregivers, improved family finding support, more flexibility in the use of federal funds, and support for foster youth until age 21, the legislation provides matching funds to states that opt into its provisions. Some state legislation to implement these provisions has already been passed and chaptered in California, while other legislation is still pending, most notably AB 12, which would provide federally subsidized relative guardianships and extend foster care jurisdiction to age 21. The federal legislation will facilitate the expansion of California’s Kin-GAP program and also gives support for expanded title IV-E waiver projects in the state. 2 See Public Policy Institute of California, Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges, (May 12, 2010), at p.1; available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_510CDR.pdf. 7 Successful statewide collaborative work is underway. Statewide collaborative efforts to reform the foster care system and reduce “I believe that this the number of children in foster care have been impressive. The progress Blue Ribbon Commission has worked closely with the Child demonstrates the Welfare Council (co-chaired by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who transformative power also chairs the Blue Ribbon Commission, and Kimberly Belshé, of collaboration, as Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency), all of the state’s child the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Co-Investment welfare partners— Partnership, the Statewide Interagency Team, and the California courts, social Department of Social Services to prioritize children and families in services, education, the foster care system in the allocation of resources and services. health, mental health, philanthropic Local foster care commissions are active. There are now more organizations, CASA, than forty counties with active local foster care commissions, tribes, collaborative which formed or expanded in response to the Blue Ribbon advisory bodies, and Commission’s recommendation encouraging their formation. others—both Those local commissions are working in their communities to statewide and locally, identify and resolve local systemic concerns, to address the have taken up the Commission’s recommendations, and to build the capacity to challenge of making a provide a continuum of services to children and families in the difference for our foster care system. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) children in foster hosted two summits (in 2008 and 2010) to support the work of care.” these local commissions, and is providing ongoing support through its Juvenile Court Assistance Team (JCAT). —Hon. Carlos R. Moreno Tribal court/state court forum has been established. In May Associate Justice, 2010, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Supreme Court of Tribal Court/State Court Coalition (now called the California California; Chair, Tribal Court/State Court Forum), the first organization of its kind California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in the state, to work on areas of mutual concern. Under the in Foster Care leadership of co-chairs Judge Richard Blake, Chief Judge of the Hoopa, Smith River Rancheria, and Redding Rancheria Tribal Courts; and Justice Richard D. Huffman, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, the coalition will develop measures to improve the working relationship between California’s tribal and state courts. There are already promising tribal court/state court collaborations in a number of counties. Rapidly expanding educational services give immediate benefit. There has been significant implementation activity in the area of expanding educational services, including a state legislative requirement that college campuses in California give priority for housing to current and former foster youth and remain open for occupation during school breaks; expansion of the California Department of Education, Foster Youth Services Program to 57 8 counties; and continued statewide collaboration on educational issues through the Foster Youth Education Task Force. Training for court-appointed counsel is making a difference. The AOC has continued the work of providing support and training for court-appointed counsel representing parents and children in the juvenile dependency system. Recently, the Judicial Council adopted a competitive solicitation policy applicable to courts participating in the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training program, with a goal of maximizing the funding for the court-appointed counsel program and providing transparency and objectivity to the process. The AOC also provides ongoing support and resources through the California Dependency Online Guide, which is offered for free by subscription to attorneys, judicial officers, and other child welfare professionals. Initial design for court/child welfare data exchange has been completed. The AOC, working closely with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), has completed the initial design of the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) to ensure that information used in both the court and child welfare systems will be exchanged in real time and accessible to all authorized users. CDSS has incorporated the same data exchange and integration rules into its guidelines for the new Child Welfare Services Web design (CWS/Web). CWS/Web will also incorporate relevant exchanges with other systems, including health and education providers. Although these systems are still some years from full implementation, this level of collaboration in the design of information systems is extremely promising and almost unprecedented, either in California or nationally. Challenges Despite this encouraging progress, there are challenges to address before it will be possible to fully implement the commission’s recommendations. Some of the most pressing challenges include the following: Caseload improvements are stalled due to economy. Even with a drop in the number of children in foster care, caseloads for judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers remain unacceptably high in most counties. Economic conditions and budget challenges have slowed progress on lowering these caseloads. The Administrative Office of the Courts will launch its 9 trial court staffing study in October 2010, which will estimate both judicial and staffing needs for each major case type, including juvenile. The caseload study for attorneys representing parents and children is complete and standards have been set. When resources do become available, there will need to be a strategic targeting of some of those resources to begin a significant reduction of caseloads for the benefit of the children and families in the system. Data and information exchange systems are years from full “We have our work capability. Although the initial design of the juvenile cut out for us as we dependency/child welfare CCMS module is complete and CDSS move forward into has adopted the same design for CWS/Web, it will be years before another year of the courts and their child welfare partners in social services, health, implementation. mental health, education, and other fields will be able to fully and Though we are effectively exchange critical data about the children in their care. having some success This presents continuing challenges to the courts and agencies at the backend of the serving children and parents in the foster care system: juvenile foster care process— courts unaware of a family’s involvement with other courts or reducing the length agencies; court orders meant to benefit families and children in of stay and the conflict with other court orders or mandated services from other number of placement agencies; courts and child welfare agencies unaware of services in changes, we still the community; and dependency courts unable to gather key data have much to do at on their ability to meet statutory timelines and other requirements. the front end— These challenges will gradually abate as the CCMS and CWS/Web preventing systems become fully functional. placements when possible and finding Reduction in numbers of foster children may produce permanent complacency. Although, as noted in the Highlights section, placements when California has seen a 45 percent drop of share of children in the removal cannot be foster care system, mainly by decreasing their time in foster care, it avoided.” is important that this movement out of care not be seen as a victory negating the need for further work. In fact, the courts, social —Hon. Carlos R. workers, and attorneys in the system are still staggering under the Moreno weight of high caseloads, ensuring that the issues leading to the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations will not be easily resolved by a drop in numbers of children in foster care. As foster care caseloads decrease, one challenge will be to effectively reinvest those savings into ensuring more meaningful hearings and services for the children and families remaining in the system. The following chapters summarize the commission’s initial action plan for implementation (in blue), document significant progress and challenges in each of its areas of focus, and provide an updated action plan for the coming year. 10 Chapter 1: Action Plan Highlights and Priorities, 2009— 2010 Listed below are the commission’s four overall recommendations, along with highlights of specific recommendations targeted for early implementation and a summary of action steps recommended by the commission. To read the full set of recommendations and the commission’s final report to the Judicial Council, see www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. The recommendations are also in the Appendices to this report. Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency Increasing the Number of Placements With Relatives (Kinship Placements) Recommendation: That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case and that the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when removal from the home is necessary. Action Steps: Key stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, are working to support appropriate legislation to opt into new federal benefits to support kinship placements available in the federal Fostering Connections for Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-351) (hereinafter “Fostering Connections to Success Act”). Local and statewide child welfare agencies will develop and improve internal protocols for finding, engaging, and supporting family relationships. Local foster care commissions will support the expansion of family finding in their counties by developing protocols for information sharing among public and private agencies. 12 Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African-American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System Recommendation: That courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. Action Steps: The Judicial Council and partnering agencies will support Indian tribes opting into funding and grants available under the Fostering Connections to Success Act. The Administrative Office of the Courts will provide training and support to trial courts to assist in eliminating the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indian children. The Judicial Council will support efforts to involve courts in local collaborations to reduce disproportionality. Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth Recommendation: That the age for children to receive foster-care assistance be extended from 18 to 21. Action Steps: The Judicial Council is working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, California Department of Social Services, and the Legislature to ensure that California is able to secure the federal funding to extend foster care to age 21, as authorized in the 2008 federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. The Judicial Council and partnering agencies are working with state and federal leadership to ensure adequate funding for transitional housing. 13 Court Reform Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers Recommendation: That the Judicial Council reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. Action Steps: The Judicial Council will assess judicial needs based on caseload data and seek resources to implement recommendations from this study. In conjunction with the trial courts, the Judicial Council will undertake a judicial juvenile court caseload study. The Judicial Council will work with partnering agencies and other state leaders to advocate for resources to implement existing caseload standards for all attorneys who provide representation in juvenile court and to develop caseload standards for social workers. Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings Recommendation: That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court- Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. Action Steps: Local foster care commissions and state child welfare stakeholders will identify and assess barriers to parties’ attendance at hearings and tailor local strategies to overcome these barriers. The Judicial Council has referred a rule of court providing for alternative ways of participation in court, such as telephonic appearances, to the Judicial Council’s Rules and Projects Committee. The Judicial Council and many local foster care commissions are working to implement the mandates of Assembly Bill 3051, which requires 14 trial courts to ensure that every child over age 10 has the opportunity to attend hearings in his or her case and to address the court. Ensuring that All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court-Appointed Special Advocates Are Adequately Trained and Resourced Recommendation: That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards and that the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. Action Steps: The Administrative Office of the Courts will continue its Court-Appointed Counsel Study and DRAFT (Dependency Representation, Administration, and Funding & Training) project to reduce caseloads and provide training for attorneys representing parents and children in juvenile dependency proceedings. Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners Facilitating Data and Information Exchange Recommendation: That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council will implement court-performance measures to improve foster care outcomes as mandated by state law. Action Steps: Court performance measures are being implemented in courts across the state. The Judicial Council will continue to develop and implement the California Case Management System, which will include information-sharing capabilities accessible to partners’ data systems. Statewide stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, and the trial courts, will work to reduce or remove barriers to information sharing. 15 Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions Recommendation: That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child-welfare concerns and to help implement the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations and related reforms. Action Steps: In December 2008, the Blue Ribbon Commission convened a summit of teams from 50 counties to start the process of establishing local foster care commissions. Those teams returned home with concrete steps to set up local commissions or identify existing committees or workgroups that could be expanded to become local commissions. These local foster care commissions will adopt their own action plans to address local concerns and enact the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations. Improving Indian Child Welfare Recommendation: That the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the services for which they are eligible. Action Steps: The local foster care commissions will work with tribes, tribal courts, and tribal service agencies in their jurisdictions to determine the needs of tribal children and families and the resources available to meet their needs. Teams, representing both local foster care commissions and statewide agencies and leadership, will work together to develop models and protocols for sharing jurisdiction, data, and services. 16 Resources and Funding Prioritizing Foster Care Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. Action Steps: The Judicial Council and trial courts will lead by example by (1) assigning judges (as opposed to subordinate judicial officers) to hear dependency cases; (2) setting 3-year minimum rotations in dependency courts; (3) implementing performance measures and using them to determine resource allocation to juvenile dependency court; (4) implementing the California Case Management System for dependency court; and (5) conducting a judicial juvenile court workload study and setting caseload standards for judges based on that study. Local foster care commissions and partnering agencies will identify any additional programs in which foster youth and families should be given priority for services. Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child-Abuse Prevention and Services Recommendation: That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child-abuse prevention and to eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child-abuse prevention and services. Action Steps: The Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, the Child Welfare Council, and other stakeholders are working with the executive branch and state legislative leadership to opt into appropriate provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act that increase the flexibility of federal funding. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders will continue to advocate for increased flexibility to use federal funds for preventive services. 17 Expanding Educational Services Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. Action Steps: Trial courts, local foster care commissions, local education agencies, and other stakeholders will collaborate to assess and eliminate local barriers to ensuring full educational opportunities for foster children. The Judicial Council, together with other stakeholders, will advocate with state and federal leaders to strengthen the educational rights of foster children and secure resources for implementation of existing education laws to benefit all foster and former foster children. 18 Chapter 2: A New Focus on Prevention and Permanency When, after more than two years, the Blue Ribbon Commission completed its information-gathering and began drafting sweeping recommendations to reform the juvenile dependency and foster care systems in California, it faced gaping systemic holes in need of immediate attention. Some prime areas demanding action were embedded in the commission’s first overarching recommendation: the need for reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency. First, commissioners knew that the courts and their child welfare partners were unified in a fundamental belief that all children deserve a safe, stable family in which to grow up and thrive. There is universal acknowledgment that interrupting a child’s bond to a parent, even when necessary and temporary, is a destabilizing event. Yet the commission found that while child welfare agencies wanted to offer more services to at-risk families to prevent placement in foster care, funds to support preventive services had not been given priority at the local, state, or federal level. The historical use of federal child welfare funding for prevention or reunification services has been restricted to only about 10 percent. This put dependency court officials and child welfare professionals in the untenable position of not being able to provide key preventive support at the front end to vulnerable children and families. Second, commissioners learned that despite the best efforts of juvenile dependency judicial officers, when removal from the home was necessary, placement in a foster home did not necessarily improve the situation for children or their families. Foster children were experiencing multiple placements; changes in schools; and separation from their siblings, friends, and other family members. They found that 50 percent of the children were in foster care for two years or more and 17 percent for three years or more. Third, they found that African-American and American Indian children were disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. They were more likely than other children to be reported for abuse, more likely to be removed, and less likely to be reunified or adopted. 19 And finally, they discovered that as many as 5,000 youth in “Two key conditions California “age out” of the system every year without reunifying have shaped the with their own families or being placed in another permanent legislative climate in family. They knew from national research that those young people this 2009-10 who transition out of the system at age 18 without a permanent legislative session: home or adequate support are more likely to drop out of school, to first, the many fiscal have serious mental health needs, to experience homelessness and challenges; and unemployment, and to end up in the criminal justice system. second, passage of the federal Fostering The commission showed its concern about these conditions by Connections to targeting them for early action. It focused on three Success Act. The recommendations to begin turning things around. First, increasing federal legislation has the number of relative placements; second, reducing the resulted in some disproportionate representation of African-Americans and encouraging activity American Indian children in foster care; and, third, providing that we probably extended support for transitioning youth. would not have seen without it.” The commission’s action steps for each of the targeted recommendations can be found in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The —Curt Child following is a point-in-time (as of June 30, 2010) implementation Director, Administrative progress report for each of these recommendations. Office of the Courts, Office of Governmental Affairs Implementation Progress Early boost from federal legislation An early boost for the possibility of progress on these recommendations came in the form of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act, which was signed into law in October 2008. Hailed as the most significant federal legislation for foster youth in more than a decade, the legislation is directly responsive to 20 of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations, which were shared with members of Congress prior to the new law’s passage. The Fostering Connections to Success Act advances specific recommendations in the commission’s initial prevention and permanency action plan by offering: Increased supports for relative caregivers (kinship placements); Improved outreach and communication with relatives who may be able to assist with care of foster youth; More flexible use of federal funds to support child abuse prevention efforts; Supports for foster youth until age 21, including housing and other transitional services; and Requirements that siblings be placed together. 20 Some state legislation to implement these provisions has already been passed and chaptered in California, while other legislation is still pending. That legislation will be discussed below. Celebrating Reunification With support from the National Project to Improve Representation for “We need to place 1 Parents Involved in the Child Welfare System, organizations from greater emphasis around the country planned National Reunification Day activities. The project promoted June 19, 2010 as the first National Reunification Day, on reunification, with a goal of celebrating families and communities coming together, perhaps through while raising awareness about the importance of family reunification to children in foster care. offering incentives, much like those In California, Judge Michael Nash, Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles provided for County Juvenile Court; the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS); and other child welfare partners planned a adoption.” reunification celebration week for March 1–7, 2010, which included the following activities: —Hon. Michael The Board of Supervisors recognized seven “reunification heroes” at a breakfast and reception celebrating their accomplishments. Nash Each of five DCFS offices hosted a celebration highlighting a Presiding Juvenile program key to reunification (for example, one celebration Court Judge, Los highlighted the Parents in Partnership Program that provides peer parent mentors to parents new to the child welfare system). Angeles County A community mental health center and a church visitation center held open house receptions. In the future, each reunified family will receive a certificate to acknowledge their accomplishment. Judge Nash is an enthusiastic proponent of this new focus on reunification. “We need to place greater emphasis on reunification, perhaps through offering incentives, much like those provided for adoption,” he stated. The Blue Ribbon Commission, at Judge Nash’s urging, decided at their meeting in May 2010 to put renewed focus on reunifying families. ——————— 1 www.abanet.org/child/parentrepresentation See or contact Mimi Laver at (202) 662-1736 or laverm@staff.abanet.org. The project is a collaboration between the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, Casey Family Programs, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Child Welfare Fund, and the Steering Committee for the National Parents’ Counsel Organization. 21 Increasing the number of relative placements Too often children who have been removed from their homes find themselves shifted from placement to placement, separated from siblings, friends, and schools, in a kind of foster care limbo. Often they can be placed with relatives if the system knows who and where the relatives are. Significant activity, both statewide and locally, has been undertaken to promote and implement the recommendation to increase the number of relative placements through three strategies: engaging family members, advocating changes in law to address funding disparities and developing greater flexibility to approve relative placements; and making extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co-placement. Engaging family members Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered AB 938(Comm. on Judiciary; Stats. 2009, ch. 261) Relative caregivers and foster parents. Requires social workers and probation officers to immediately investigate the identities and location of all grandparents and other adult relatives of a child after the child is detained, and to notify the relatives that the child has been removed from his or her parents, and inform them of the means by which they might participate in the child’s care. State Legislation—Pending AB 12 (Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Implements federal foster care reform legislation to provide federally subsidized relative guardianships, and extend foster care jurisdiction to age 21. The bill would also expand the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by allowing it to adjudge a child placed voluntarily in an approved home of a relative a dependent of the court for not more than 180 days, if prescribed conditions are met. Judicial Council As of April 2010, submitted for public comment proposal creating new rules and forms to implement the mandates and legislative intent of AB 938. 22 California Department of Social Services Implemented the notice requirements of AB 938 that all counties must follow in notifying and engaging relatives; created a reader-friendly letter with FAQ for relatives to encourage them to get involved with the child in foster care. Child Welfare Council Adopted a recommendation for a statewide commitment to increase the number of children in all 58 California counties who have achieved permanency through implementation of Family Finding and Engagement (FFE). California CASA Working on family finding initiatives with local collaborations in a number of counties. Casey Family Programs/Administrative Office of the Courts Piloting a local commission project in Sacramento County to initiate an FFE program and to prioritize foster care at the community level. California Co-Investment Partnership Supports, through its Integration Team, local family engagement efforts, including FFE and Team and Family Group Decision Making. Local Efforts A number of counties are engaged in local collaborative family finding initiatives, including the following: Several counties have scheduled long-term family finding trainings with Kevin Campbell, an internationally known youth permanency expert and founder of the Center for Family Finding and Youth Connectedness, and a number are developing family finding protocols. Some county probation departments are receiving title IV-E training that includes family finding information on identifying a caring adult as a potential caregiver and choosing a permanent plan. Local commissions in several counties are working with their local CASA organization on family finding efforts. 23 Public Policy Institute Report on Foster Care in California Notes Remarkable Advances in Last Decade In March 2010, the Public Policy Institute of California released its report, 1 Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges. The report noted that California’s foster care system “has made some remarkable advances in 2 the last decade.” Specifically it noted that the state has made great progress in moving children out of foster care. In fact, California has seen a 45 percent drop in share of children in the system, mainly by shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. That decline is “most pronounced among black children, who have long been overrepresented in the child welfare system.” In 2009, 2.7 percent of African-American children were in foster care, compared to 5.4 percent in 2000—certainly still too high a percentage but encouraging. The report also noted that more children were remaining in their first out-of-home placement, rather than experiencing multiple 3 placements, and more children are eventually being placed with relatives. California’s foster care The institute attributed these reductions, “which far outpaced those across the rest of the country,” in part to a “more intense focus by local and state system has policymakers on the problems of foster care, which in turn led to innovations 4 in child welfare policies and practices.” Thus, the collaborative efforts of the made courts and their child welfare partners through the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Child Welfare Council, philanthropic efforts, and the work of the local remarkable county foster care commissions are all paying off. advances in But the report notes the significant challenges that remain: the last Payments to foster families and other out-of-home care providers have decade. not kept up with inflation. Despite the reduction in the proportion of black children in the system, they are still substantially overrepresented. The number of children who enter foster care more than once during their childhoods has increased. And, despite significant reductions, the number of children who age out of the system into an uncertain future, often with little adult guidance, has 5 actually risen since the beginning of the decade. What this all seems to indicate is that we are having some success at the backend of the foster care process—reducing the length of stay and the number of placement changes, but we still have much to do at the front end— preventing placements when possible and finding permanent placements when removal cannot be avoided. Efforts must also continue toward reducing the length of time in care, particularly for specific populations, including African-American and American Indian children and children with complex needs. ————— 1 www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_510CDR.pdf Available at . 2 Id. at 1. 3 Ibid. 4 Id. at 2. 5 Ibid. 24 Advocating changes in law to address funding disparities and develop greater flexibility to approve relative placements Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending AB 12(Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act. Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Opting into provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act that allow states to waive nonsafety-related licensing standards for relatives on a case-by-case basis. (The federal legislation also requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report to Congress on ways to further eliminate licensing barriers so that more children can be placed with relatives in foster care and become eligible for federal support.) CDSS/Casey Family Programs/Co-Investment Partnership Participating in a joint initiative to create and lead the Federal Financing Reform and Waiver Extension Workgroup to advocate for more flexibility in the use of federal funding. Making extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co-placement Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending AB 743 (Portantino) Foster care: sibling placement. Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would require any order placing a dependent child in foster care and ordering reunification services to provide for visitation between the child and any sibling unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child. If siblings have not been placed together, the social worker would be required to explain why those efforts are contrary to the safety or well-being of any sibling. Would also require reasonable efforts to be made to provide for ongoing and frequent sibling interaction; would require placing agency to make a specified notification to the child’s attorney and the child’s sibling’s attorney when a planned change of placement will result in the separation of siblings currently placed together. 25 Reducing the disproportionate representation of African- American and American Indians in foster care When the Blue Ribbon Commission began its work, African- American children represented more than 26 percent of the children in foster care, but only 6 percent of the state’s child population. The proportion of American Indian children in the foster care system was more than three times their total population in California. There has been a 50 Recognizing that this issue required early and determined action, the commission addressed the problem on multiple fronts, focusing percent drop on its recommendations to reduce the disproportionate number of in African- African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system and to improve the diversity and cultural American competence of professionals who serve foster children and their children in families. In its recent report on foster care in California (see box on page 24), the Public Policy Institute of California noted a 50 foster care in percent drop in African-American children in foster care over the California in last decade, attributing it in part to the collaborative efforts of local and state policymakers, including the Blue Ribbon Commission the last and the Child Welfare Council. decade, but However, despite active and enthusiastic efforts to reduce the share of disproportionality, this issue will remain a significant challenge in African- this state for years to come. Budget limitations have severely hampered movement on improving the diversity and cultural American competence of child welfare and court professionals; and even children in the with a 50 percent drop in African-American children in foster care, the share of African-American children in foster care in California foster care remains disproportionately high. system in the Statewide Efforts state is still too high. California Co-Investment Partnership The California Disproportionality Project/Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Disproportionality Initiative involving 13 local county child welfare agencies with the aim of sharing ideas, raising awareness and developing solutions to the problem of disproportionality and disparities for children and families of color in the child welfare system. A study found that a similar national project effectively mobilized child welfare agencies in improvement efforts to reduce the number of children of color in the foster care system. In addition, it helped agencies test and implement strategies to equalize how the system treats these children and their families. Sponsored by the Co-Investment Partnership, the project’s principal funders include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, California 26 Department of Social Services, Casey Family Programs, and the Stuart Foundation. State Interagency Team Workgroup to Eliminate Disparities Participating in the California Disproportionality Project is one of the Workgroup’s strategies to decrease racial disproportionality and disparities in outcomes across systems; workgroup members have initiated “courageous conversations” about disproportionality in each of their departments. Strengthening collaboration across state agencies is another strategy to address disproportionality. American Indian Enhancement Team With active participation from the AOC Tribal Projects Unit, the American Indian Enhancement Team, an effort of the California Disproportionality Project (CDP), provides technical assistance and support for five county teams focusing on improving outcomes for American Indian children and families and eliminating racial disproportionality and disparities in child welfare. The initial phase of the American Indian Enhancement effort will be completed September 30, 2010, and will have: Provided technical assistance to counties to assist them with their plans for reducing disproportionality, focusing particularly in helping enhance working relationships among tribes, courts, and county child welfare services; Provided technical assistance for the Bay Area Collaborative of American Indian Resources (BACAIR) to further collaborations among probation, social services, and Native agencies; and Created tools to form an online accessible toolkit that will assist in addressing disproportionality within the dependency system. Local Efforts Several counties participated in the Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Disproportionality. Providing extended support for transitioning youth With more than 10 percent of our youth in foster care “aging out” of the system every year without reunifying with their own families or being placed in other permanent families, this state faces an enormous problem. These young people are more likely to drop out of school, have serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal 27 justice system. That is why the Blue Ribbon Commission targeted for early action its recommendation to support or sponsor legislation to extend foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, that recommendation got a tremendous boost when the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act was signed into law in October 2008. Federal Efforts Federal Legislation—Chaptered “The extension of foster care services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. No. to age 21 needs to 111-148) be combined with a Allows the state to extend Medicaid health care to former stronger move to foster youth through age 26. achieve permanence before Statewide Efforts age 18, not just moving the cliff to State Legislation—Pending 21.” AB 12(Beall &Bass) California Fostering Connections to —Hon. Michael Success Act Nash Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Opting into provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act extending services for older youth. Helps youth who turn 18 in foster care without permanent families to remain in care to age 21 with continued state and federal support to improve their opportunities for success as they transition to adulthood. State Legislation—Chaptered AB 719 (Lowenthal, Bonnie; Stats. 2009, ch. 371), Transitional food stamps for foster youth Advanced by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the legislation requires CDSS to propose a Transitional Food Stamps for Foster Youth demonstration project, effective July 1, 2010. The demonstration project would make independent foster care adolescents, who are not eligible for CalWORKs or SSI benefits, eligible for food stamps without regard to income or resources. 28 California Department of Social Services Submitted, in May 2010, its official request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the demonstration Transitional Food Stamps for Foster Youth project provided for in AB 719. Worked with the federal Social Security Administration (SSA) to seek a solution to helping disabled foster youth apply for disability (SSI) benefits before transitioning out of foster care at age 18 so that they would have some income after leaving the system. The proposal became law through AB 1331 (Evans) in October 2007, adding section 13757 to the Welfare and Institutions Code. As a result of the CDSS efforts, California became the first state in the nation to obtain federal approval of a new way to treat disabled foster youth in applying for SSI benefits. SSA rolled the process out nationwide in January 2010. 29 Chapter 3: A New Focus on Court Reform Because this was California’s first statewide effort to look at the role of the courts in child welfare reform, commissioners were particularly interested in gauging the effectiveness of the courts and their child welfare partners in carrying out their legal responsibility for the safety and well-being of children in foster care—in effect, how they were “parenting” this state’s most vulnerable children. What the commissioners found was an overstressed and underresourced dependency court characterized by staggering caseloads that often forced judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers to limit the time and attention they could give to each child. Even in those cases that were given a thorough review, statutory timelines were often not being met. Children and their families were suffering from an overburdened system unable to meet their needs. Children and families appeared at the courthouse and had to wait hours for hearings that often lasted only 10 to 15 minutes—far short of the recommended 30 to 60 minutes—giving them little time with the court or their attorneys. Parents and children consistently reported that they did not understand what happened in court. The commission set three court reform priorities for urgent action: first, reducing caseloads for judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers; second, ensuring a voice in court and meaningful hearings; and, third, providing adequate training for attorneys, social workers, and CASA volunteers. The commission’s action steps for each priority can be found in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following is a report on implementation progress as of June 30, 2010. 30 Implementation Progress Current economic and budget challenges have severely hampered progress on court reform recommendations; nevertheless, commissioners have been pleased to see some significant movement in this area. Reducing caseloads As foster care One of the first serious conditions of which the Blue Ribbon caseloads Commission became aware during its three-year review was the staggering caseloads of attorneys and judicial officers in juvenile decrease one dependency court. Those caseloads sharply limited the time challenge will devoted to each case, so commissioners believed that lowering caseloads was a necessary first step towards implementing their be to recommendations for more meaningful hearings. Though budget effectively cuts have affected the timing of progress on this recommendation, it has been encouraging to see a reduction in the numbers of reinvest those 1 children in foster care. As foster care caseloads decrease one savings into challenge will be to effectively reinvest those savings into ensuring more meaningful hearings. There has not been a similar decline in ensuring more court workload, in part because there has not been a significant meaningful drop in entries into the juvenile dependency system. hearings. Statewide Efforts Administrative Office of the Courts Initiated collaboration between AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC) and Office of Court Research (OCR) to develop juvenile sections of the new AOC Trial Court Workload Study, which estimates both judicial and staffing needs for each of the major case types. The judicial needs study ran from early May to early June 2010 and the consultant is presently analyzing the results in preparation for a preliminary presentation for the working group meeting in late August. The staffing study is tentatively scheduled to begin in October 2010; CFCC, OCR, and court operations staff are developing and refining the data collection instruments to ensure that all relevant staff tasks are captured in the study. _____________________ 1 See information on PPIC report, page 24. 31 Continued work of the DRAFT (Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding and Training) program that launched after the Court Appointed Counsel study, completed in June 2004, which identified performance and caseload standards for attorneys appointed to represent parents and children in juvenile dependency cases. The identification and implementation of court-appointed counsel caseload standards will help ensure quality attorney service for both children and parents subject to the state’s dependency adjudication process. Ensuring a voice in court The Blue Ribbon Commission heard loudly and clearly—from focus groups, public forums and hearing, formal testimony at commission meetings, youth summits, and social worker symposia that participants in juvenile dependency proceedings have an earnest desire to be heard and understood by the judge and to offer their personal perspectives to the court on the issues that could have a profound impact on their future—they want to tell their side of the story. The work of ensuring a voice in court and meaningful participation in court hearings has seen much implementation activity over the past year, both at the statewide and local levels, despite challenging economic conditions. One reason is that many procedural changes can be implemented with few or no new resources. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending AB 12(Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Implements federal foster care reform legislation to expand the availability of federal training dollars, on a phased-in basis, to reach more of those caring for and working with children in the child welfare system, including relative guardians, staff of private child welfare agencies, court personnel, attorneys, guardian ad litems, and CASAs. SB 962 (Liu) Prisoners: adjudication of parental rights: participation Status: As of 6/30/10, Assem. Appropriations Com. Would provide that an incarcerated parent who has either waived the right to be physically present at the proceeding or who has not been ordered by the court to be present at the proceeding may be given the opportunity, at the discretion of the court, to participate in the proceeding by videoconference 32 or teleconference, if that technology is available, as long as the San Luis Obispo Superior parent’s participation otherwise complies with the law. This Court Judge Garrett bill would provide that a prisoner may lose job placement Gives Up Chambers for opportunities, be removed from a court-ordered course, or be Children's Waiting Room denied earned privileges only if the prisoner’s participation in When the San Luis Obispo the proceedings causes the prisoner to be absent from the County local foster care custodial institution for more than 10 days. The bill would commission decided the court permit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to needed a children's waiting establish a pilot program to facilitate the participation of room where attorneys, judges, incarcerated parents in dependency court hearings, provided and CASA advocates could that the project is funded by private funds, as specified. interview young children in a non-intimidating environment, it found a shortage of Judicial Council appropriate space in the court Amended rule 5.534(p) of the California Rules of Court building. That is, until Judge to bring it into compliance with Welfare and Institutions Ginger Garrett offered up her Code section 349, which includes revised provisions personal chambers for the regarding a child’s presence at and participation in a project. According to Judge juvenile court hearing if the child is the subject of that Garrett, she “wanted to create a hearing. (Assem. Bill 3051 \[Jones\]; Stats. 2008, ch. 166.) child-friendly space to reduce stress for children who come to Section 349(c) states that if the child is present at the court.” The room has been hearing, the court must allow the child to address the painted in a calming underwater court and participate in the hearing if the child desires to theme by a local muralist and do so. filled with educational toys and books. The waiting room, the Administrative Office of the Courts local commission's first project, opened in May 2009. Created Juvenile Delinquency Court Orientation video and posted it on the California Courts Self-Help Center (June 2010) The local commission chose to to help youth, including youth in the foster care system, and focus on two key Blue Ribbon their parents understand the delinquency court process. The Commission recommendations video is also available on the California Dependency Online for its initial work: meaningful Guide website, and courts and justice partners may obtain participation in court and copies of the DVD by mail. exchanging data. Other projects to increase meaningful Developing Juvenile Dependency Court Orientation video. participation in court, in Like the delinquency video, it will assist parents and children addition to the children's in understanding the purpose of the juvenile court and their role waiting room (which garnered in the process. front page coverage in the local Continuing support and provision of technical assistance to paper), include an informational CASA programs with a goal of making CASA volunteers parent orientation DVD. available for all foster children in the dependency system. 33 Local Efforts Many of the local foster care commissions are working on projects to ensure a voice in court and more meaningful hearings. Some local commissions are developing orientation videos or packets for parents, while others are setting up voluntary parent mentors. Several counties have developed children’s waiting rooms. Providing adequate training Making sure that parents and children can attend hearings is only the first step toward meaningful hearings. Often participants at dependency court hearings are mystified by the process—they commonly feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or rushed as they attempt to navigate the system, to understand their rights, and to participate in a meaningful way in court. This recommendation, too, has seen significant implementation efforts. Administrative Office of the Courts Conducting ongoing training for judicial officers and court participants on creating courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, at local and regional sites. Ran juvenile court administration broadcasts targeted at judicial officers on this issue in April 2010. Expanded Juvenile Court Assistance Team (JCAT) trainings in many counties. Offered many training opportunities at Beyond the Bench conference in June 2010. Created the Tribal Projects Unit to assist the state judicial branch with the development of policies, positions, and programs to ensure the highest quality of justice and service for California’s Native American communities, including curriculum development and training for state court judges and making available existing AOC training to tribal court judges and personnel. Continued building of online training resources on the California Dependency Online Guide website. 34 Chapter 4: A New Focus on Collaboration The courts’ partners in California’s foster care system span a wide range of agencies and entities, including child welfare, education, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health, public health, Indian tribes, and tribal agencies. All share with the courts responsibility for the safety and well-being of the state’s children and youth in foster care. Families are often involved with more than one agency at a time and might have cases in both dependency court and family court or dependency court and delinquency court. These state, local, and tribal governments and agencies have independent and often conflicting policies and regulations that inhibit communication and the sharing of critical data and information. The Blue Ribbon Commission learned that this problem sometimes leads to judges and attorneys lacking full information about a child’s health, mental health, education, language, or citizenship, with the result that the state or tribal courts have to make decisions without a complete or accurate picture of the needs of the child and his or her family. Lack of information can also cause situations where court-ordered services meant to benefit families and children conflict with other court orders or mandated services from other agencies. Moreover, courts and child welfare agencies do not always know what services exist in the community and often the availability of essential services is limited. There also has been a historical lack of trust, coordination, and collaboration between Indian tribes or tribal courts and the state trial courts and other child welfare partners. That condition has been harmful to American Indian children and their families. A further complication is that courts have been unable to gather key data on their ability to meet statutory timelines for hearings and requirements regarding safety, permanency, and well-being. Uniform statewide data has been limited to the number of filings and dispositions. It was clear to the commission that the courts needed more advanced data systems and court performance measures to track children’s progress, measure compliance with statutes, and identify sources of delay and other areas of needed reform. Recognizing these impediments helped the commission focus its action plan on collaboration between courts and their child welfare partners. The commission chose three recommendations for early 35 implementation efforts: first, facilitating data and information exchange; second, establishing local foster care commissions; and, third, improving Indian child welfare. The proposed action steps for these three priorities can be found in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following represents implementation progress on those priorities as of June 30, 2010. Implementation Progress One of the most Facilitating data and information exchange The Blue Ribbon Commission recognized early in the process that challenging one of the most challenging impediments to reforming the juvenile impediments to dependency and foster care systems was the difficulty of exchanging data and information among courts and their partner reforming the agencies. The difficulty results from a variety of factors, including juvenile confidentiality laws, and in many instances the way in which they are interpreted and implemented; automated case management dependency systems that are unable to communicate with each other; and a lack and foster care of communication and collaboration among agencies and between agencies and the courts. This area, too, has seen some progress systems is the despite serious economic deterrents, but it will be years before the difficulty of courts and their child welfare partners in social services, health, mental health, education, and other fields will be able to fully and exchanging effectively exchange critical data about the children in their care. data and Statewide Efforts information among courts Judicial Council and their Continuing efforts to finish developing and implement the California Case Management System (CCMS) and other data partner exchange protocols. agencies. Administrative Office of the Courts Collaborating with California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Center for Social Services Research (CSSR) at University of California, Berkeley: Pending completion of CCMS—while the courts continue to rely on the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) child welfare data—providing data reports with frequently requested statistics to meet the data needs of all local courts. Collaborated with CDSS and CSSR to develop a data tool to provide courts with county-specific aggregate statistics on child welfare (using publicly available data from the CSSR archive) from their foster care and family maintenance 36 caseload. The tool will be accessible to courts along with training on its use. Drafted briefs on the challenge and promise of confidentiality law and policy in the areas of education, health care, substance abuse, and mental health. Hosted focus groups of county counsel from across the state to review the confidentiality briefs and to discuss issues of confidentiality and information sharing in dependency cases. The AOC is planning to conduct expanded focus groups including state and county agency staff regarding confidentiality and information sharing. The goal is to find effective strategies to increase collaboration among stakeholders, while still preserving and protecting the confidentiality that is so important for children in the foster care system. Through its AOC Judge-in-Residence, Leonard Edwards, providing training across the state on Judicial Ethics in data exchange and information sharing—issues that often are a barrier for local efforts. California Department of Social Services Conducting CWS/Web procurement, which will lead to implementation of a web services based technical architecture for CWS/CMS that meets county and state business requirements, including data management and reporting solutions consistent with federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) requirements. This system is meant to enhance the safety, well-being and permanent placement of at-risk children by improving the ability of CWS staff to provide services in an effective and efficient manner. Child Welfare Council Created the Data Linkage and Information Sharing Committee, chaired by John Wagner, Director, California Department of Social Services, which recommended and has worked on making the CWS/Web statewide automated child welfare ( information systemsSACWIS) procurement as integrated with other child-serving systems as possible, building on the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendation for CCMS. Adopted data and information sharing recommendations in March 2010, including a policy statement on data sharing. (See recommendations: www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/Co mmitteeDraftRecommendations.aspx 37 Local Efforts Some counties have informal protocols or more formal memoranda of understanding to allow data sharing for the benefit of children in the foster care system. For example, in San Diego County, the Office of Education spearheaded the collaboration of nine agencies and the juvenile court to set up a system to share foster youth’s education and health records. An interagency agreement permits participant agencies to access foster youth information on a web- based secure database, allowing judicial officers to access the children’s education records from their desks. Collaborative partners in this endeavor include health and human services, child welfare services, the juvenile court, probation, CASA, the public defender, the alternate public defender, education, and the county school districts. Work in this area is still in the fledgling stages in most counties, but there does seem to be interest in tearing down administrative information sharing barriers to better serve children and families in the child welfare system, while still providing critical protection for the confidentiality rights of each child and family. Establishing local foster care commissions “Leadership is The Blue Ribbon Commission knows that change for children and more meaningful families in the foster care system will take place only if changes than money in occur at the county level and in the local juvenile courts. forming these Establishing local multidisciplinary commissions to identify and local address local systemic concerns, address the recommendations of collaborations.” the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services thus was the commission’s lynchpin —Hon. Gary T. recommendation. Ichikawa Presiding Juvenile The Blue Ribbon Commission’s vision of local commissions was Court Judge, Solano that they would provide leadership on foster care issues in their County communities and also serve as forums for addressing systemic barriers to improving the lives of foster children and for establishing communication protocols among individuals, agencies, and courts. The work in this area over the last year and a half has been both gratifying and deeply encouraging. Statewide Efforts Administrative Office of the Courts Hosted the 2008 summit for local county teams, where teams from 50 counties began planning local collaborations or 38 expanding those already in existence and started to set foster “California’s juvenile care priorities based on local needs. court judges have taken Hosted the 2010 summit for both local county juvenile and the Blue Ribbon family court teams to continue foster care work plans initiated Commission at the 2008 Summit and to collaborate on crossover child safety recommendations to issues. heart—they have truly Providing ongoing technical assistance and training to local taken the lead in collaborations through assigned Juvenile Court Assistance improving outcomesfor Team liaisons assigned to each county. California’s abused Providing ongoing support through publication of the Foster and neglected Care Reform Update, an online bi-monthly briefing for children.” statewide and local collaborations featuring news, resources, and other information with a foster care focus. —Hon. Leonard P. Launched a local commission website in June 2010 to provide Edwards support to local collaborations by providing them with an Retired Superior Court online location to share information with their members, as Judge, Santa Clara County; well as a means to collaborate and share information with local Member, California Blue Ribbon Commission on collaborations in other counties. The website is free and Children in Foster Care available to all local commission members. Child Welfare Council Providing ongoing statewide support for improving the collaboration and processes of the multiple agencies and courts that serve children and youth in the child welfare and foster care systems and for prioritizing foster care in the allocation and administration of resources. Local Efforts As of the 2010 summit, close to 50 active local collaborations were working to implement the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations at the county level. Some have been working collaboratively for many years while others are new to county- level collaboration. All have plans for meeting locally on a regular basis and have made it a priority to focus on their community foster care needs as they work on implementing the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. Improving Indian child welfare As discussed in the section on disproportionality, a significant disparity exists between the percentage of American Indian children in foster care compared to the percentage of American Indians in the general California population. There has also been an historical chasm in terms of resources, policies, trust, and communication between tribes or tribal courts and the state trial courts. And, in many parts of the state, there is distrust between 39 tribes and child welfare agencies and state trial courts—often because of a lack of understanding or mutual respect for each other’s cultures and institutions. This distrust, together with a lack of resources and coordination, can cause suffering for American Indian children and their families. Passage of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act took a “We have much to step in the right direction to help balance the resource equities: the learn from tribal act offered Indian tribes, for the first time, direct access to title IV- traditions.” E funds that provide federal assistance through the federal foster care and adoption assistance programs; and the act required the —Hon. Juan Ulloa U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide Presiding Juvenile technical assistance and implementation services to help tribes set Court Judge, Imperial up child welfare services that qualify for title IV-E funding. Those County same Congressional initiatives advance the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations in this area. This support, together with a commitment by the Blue Ribbon Commission and other statewide and local partners to improve communication and collaboration between tribes or tribal courts and state trial courts, has resulted in significant activity toward making the commission’s recommendations a reality. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered AB 770 (Torres; Stats. 2009, ch. 124), Indian tribes: foster care and adoption programs Makes it the policy of the state to maximize the opportunities for Indian tribes to operate foster care programs for Indian children pursuant to the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. It requires the California Department of Social Services to negotiate in good faith with the Indian tribe, organization, or consortium in the state that requests development of an agreement with the state to administer all or part of the programs under specified provisions of federal law relating to foster care and adoption assistance, on behalf of the Indian children who are under the authority of the tribe, organization, or consortium. AB 1325 (Cook & Beall; Stats. 2009, ch. 287), Tribal customary adoption Requires the juvenile court and social workers to consider and recommend tribal customary adoption, as defined, as an additional permanent placement option, without termination of parental rights, for a dependent child. It provides that a tribal 40 customary adoption order would have the same force and effect as an order of adoption, and requires the juvenile court and social workers to consider and recommend tribal customary adoption, as defined, as an additional permanent placement option, without termination of parental rights, for a dependent child. The bill provides that a tribal customary adoption order would have the same force and effect as an order of adoption. The bill revises existing federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and state law governing the placement of children who are or who may be Indian children, as specified. Judicial Council Established, by order of Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the California Tribal Court/State Court Coalition, the first organization of its kind in the state, to work on areas of mutual concern, and appointed as co-chairs Justice Richard D. Huffman, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, and Judge Richard Blake, Chief Judge of the Hoopa, Smith River Rancheria, and Redding Rancheria Tribal Courts. Both Justice Huffman and Judge Blake are members of the Blue Ribbon Commission. The group is now called the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum. AOC Tribal Projects Unit Provides intensive training and technical assistance throughout the state on all aspects of ICWA through the ongoing AOC ICWA Initiative (in partnership with CDSS); Conducts community outreach to California’s American Indian citizens who reside on reservations or rancherias and in urban communities to provide information about the judicial branch—the state courts and court-connected services; Collaborates with tribes in California and California’s American Indian communities, organizations, and service providers to gather information about the justice-related needs of California’s American Indian citizens; Provides education and technical assistance to state courts and court-connected services on Public Law 280, Indian law issues relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and indigenous justice systems; Acts as a liaison between the state and tribal courts to build professional relationships and to improve access by tribal courts to education, technical assistance, and other resources; 41 Serves on the American Indian Enhancement Team, providing support to five counties as they collaborate to improve outcomes for American Indian children and families; and Maintains a clearinghouse of AOC and other resources to assist state courts in handling child welfare and other cases involving Native Americans (for example, a directory of Native American family resources in California; information on California tribal courts; and resources relating to compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in juvenile, family, and probate cases) and to support tribal justice development (a listing of tribal justice grants and making available educational and other resources available to state courts). Local Efforts At the county level, a number of local foster care commissions include tribal members and some are working collaboratively with the tribes or tribal courts to set up protocols on handling child welfare cases. 42 Chapter 5: A New Focus on Resources and Funding California’s financial support for children and families in the child welfare system, like that of most states, is built on a patchwork of funding streams, each with its own rules and restrictions. In addition to state and county funding, child welfare dollars come from at least a half-dozen federal sources, some of which require matching funds from state, county, and local agencies. Courts, social service agencies, and other providers must struggle to determine the funding sources for crucial services, resulting in delayed services for children and families in crisis. Those delays are compounded when a child is moved to a new county or state. As noted by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care in 2004, when it issued nationally focused recommendations to improve outcomes for children in foster care, “Simply put, current federal funding mechanisms for child welfare encourage an over- reliance on foster care at the expense of other services to keep families safely together and to move children swiftly and safely from foster care to permanent families, whether their birth families or a new adoptive family or legal guardian.” The Blue Ribbon Commission found that even when services were available, children and families in the child welfare system were not always given priority access to them. For example, it discovered that no resources or funding supports were available to help foster children access certain educational and transition-to- independence services that they were entitled to receive. This failure to prioritize foster children and their families in the delivery of crucial services deprives them of the comprehensive and concentrated services that are critical to family reunification and permanency. Faced with this demanding challenge, commissioners took steps to focus on prioritizing foster care and increasing the flexibility of funding in their early implementation efforts. Specifically, they chose the following recommendations for early action: first, prioritizing children and families in foster care; second, advocating for flexible funding for child abuse prevention and services; and, third, expanding educational services. The commission’s proposed action steps for each of the targeted recommendations are listed in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following documents progress on the targeted recommendations as of June 30, 2010. 43 Implementation Progress Prioritizing foster care During its work of developing recommendations to reform this state’s juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems, the Blue Ribbon Commission embraced as one of its most compelling values the need to give children and youth whose lives have been shaped by California’s foster system a strong, powerful voice in Foster reshaping the system and determining their futures. The commission believed, while setting its priorities, that foster children and children and youth in this state must be able to count on the courts, youth in this child welfare agencies, and other partners in child welfare to care for them as thoughtfully as they would be cared for in any loving state must be family. The commission was cognizant of the fact that, when a able to count child is removed from his or her home, the courts and their child welfare partners are the responsible “parents” for that child. Living on the courts, up to that responsibility required early and concerted action. child welfare The commission looked to Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies, including agencies and organizations that agencies, and provide health, mental health, education, substance abuse, other partners domestic violence, housing, employment, and child care services, to prioritize the delivery and availability of services to children and in child families in the child welfare system. And it expected the Judicial welfare to Council to implement performance measures and use them to determine resource allocation to the juvenile dependency court. care for them as Federal Efforts thoughtfully Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as they would Issued a 2010 Request for Proposals for Family Drug Court Grants: $500,000 per year for up to three years for new be cared for programs, and $350,000 per year for existing programs. in any loving Statewide Efforts family. Judicial Council Adopted Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.505 (Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures), effective January 1, 2009, and approved a companion implementation guide. Administrative Office of the Courts Analyzing pilot data from courts to test and refine the performance measures; disseminating preliminary data. Collaborating with the Child Welfare Council and Casey Family Programs to develop data and procedures to facilitate 44 inter-departmental prioritization of child welfare children and their families. AOC Collaborative Courts Project Collaborating with CDSS and Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs on a project with the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare to identify Dependency Drug Courts (DDCs) statewide as well as current and potential caseloads, funding, and outcomes. Visited most DDCs in California and developed an instrument to capture data related to the project’s focus. Will be providing technical assistance and other follow-up activities to increase caseloads, document results, and identify funding. Spearheading a project funded by the State Justice Institute focused on DDC outcome performance measures; creating a mechanism to track DDC outcomes statewide. Beginning a project aimed at tracking mentally ill court users in dependency to determine effective practices. Engaged in efforts to link drug and mental health courts with family court and child support proceedings to develop effective methods of supervision and compliance with court orders that address underlying problems of substance abuse or mental health. Supporting efforts in the courts to establish family preservation courts that are similar to DDCs, but that focus on cases that are in family court or for which a dependency filing has not occurred. Local Efforts Many of the local commissions are working on prioritizing foster care in the allocation of resources, including in some instances development of dependency drug courts. Others are identifying services, determining gaps, and similar efforts. There is widespread determination among the local collaborations to find the resources necessary to give families in crisis a fighting chance. Advocating for flexible funding for child abuse prevention and services The Blue Ribbon Commission believed that bringing some sense to the patchwork of child welfare funding streams would require the Judicial Council to work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding and develop solutions. It wanted the Judicial Council to urge Congress to 45 change any federal law that prevented federal funds from being “Ultimately, all coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. children should enjoy The commission knew that flexible funding should be used to the security and address the needs of children and families in a timely manner that comfort of a safe, recognizes the child’s developmental needs and relationship with nurturing and his or her parents, guardian, and extended family. The commission permanent family. Now supports key financial recommendations of the Pew Commission is the time for on Children in Foster Care, which advocated for the flexibility to comprehensive federal put funding into prevention at the front end and encouraged finance reform that innovative funding strategies at the federal, state, and local levels supports vulnerable of government. This area, too, received a boost from passage of the children in achieving federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. this goal.” Statewide Efforts —Casey Family Programs State Legislation—Chaptered Ensuring, Nurturing and Permanent Families for AB 154 (Evans; Stats. 2009, ch. 222), Adoption assistance: Children: The Need for federal law Federal Finance Reform; Conforms state statutes with federal Fostering Connections to May 2010 Success Act provisions on adoption assistance and directs resulting savings from changes in eligibility for adoption assistance to specified services. AB 665 (Torrico; Stats. 2009, ch. 250), State adoption services: investment Requires state to reinvest adoption incentive payments received through the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act into the child welfare system to provide legal permanency outcomes for older children, including, but not limited to, adoption, guardianship, and reunification of children whose reunification services were previously terminated. State Legislation—Pending AB 12(Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would implement federal foster care reform legislation subsidizing guardianship payments to relatives who provide permanent homes for children when they cannot be returned home; and provide direct access to federal support for Indian tribes. 46 Judicial Council Initiating coordination efforts with Casey Family Programs trustees on federal advocacy in this area. California Department of Social Services Working with National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) on a proposal that would address several of the recommendations advocated by the Pew Commission in 2004. Participating in title IV-E waiver project with Alameda and Los Angeles Counties since 2007. Child Welfare Collaborations Identifying barriers to funding for services, developing solutions, and, as appropriate, urging Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services, including concerted efforts to expand and reauthorize title IV-E waivers. Participants include the Child Welfare Council, Judicial Council, Blue Ribbon Commission, Co-Investment Partnership, State Interagency Team, and others. Expanding educational services Because too many of our children who “age out” of foster care drop out of school, struggle with serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal justice system, the Blue Ribbon Commission made it an early action priority to focus on access to education for California’s foster children and youth. This area, too, benefited from the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. Significant implementation activity occurred in this area over the last year. Federal Efforts Federal Fostering Connections to Success Act (Passed 10/08): Educational stability. Helps children and youth in foster care, guardianship and adoption achieve their educational goals by requiring that states ensure that they attend school and, when placed in foster care, they remain in their same school where appropriate, or, when a move is necessary, get help transferring promptly to a new school; also provides increased federal support to assist with school-related transportation costs. 47 Federal Fostering Success in Education (S 2801-Franken)- Pending Further defines the responsibilities of education agencies to support the educational achievement of children in foster care. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered “It is important to provide youth with AB 81 (Strickland, Audra; Stats. 2009, ch. 76), the right tools Interscholastic athletics: pupils in foster care when they Requires that a foster child who changes residences pursuant to transition out of a court order or decision of a child welfare worker be foster care . . . by immediately deemed to meet all residency requirements for improving their participation in interscholastic sports or other extracurricular access to education activities. and providing them with resources to AB 167 (Adams; Stats. 2009, ch. 223), High school be successful as graduation: local requirements: foster children independent Requires a school district to exempt a pupil in foster care from adults.” coursework adopted by the local governing board of the district that is in addition to statewide coursework requirements if the —Hon. Arnold pupil, while he or she is in 11th or 12th grade, transfers from Schwarzenegger another school district or between high schools within the Governor of California district, unless the district makes a finding that the pupil is reasonably able to complete the additional requirements in time to graduate from high school while he or she remains eligible for foster care benefits. AB 1393 (Skinner; Stats. 2009, ch. 391), Foster youth Requests or requires community college, state university, and University of California campuses to give priority for housing to current and former foster youth. The bill also requests or requires campuses that maintain student housing facilities open for occupation during school breaks, or on a year-round basis, to give first priority to current and former foster youth for residence in the housing facilities that are open for uninterrupted year-round occupation, and for housing that is open for occupation during the most days in the calendar year. Attempt to expand Foster Youth Services to youth in kinship AB 1259 and guardianship placements () failed because of budget constraints. 48 Foster Youth Education Task Force Working with 57 counties’ Foster Youth Services and numerous other organizations focused on local and statewide practice and policy improvements that support improved educational outcomes, increased collaboration, and accountability. California Department of Education, Foster Youth Services (FYS) Expanded to 57 County Offices of Education serving more than 40,000 students. Child Welfare Council Supporting the education of foster youth through its Child Development and Successful Youth Transitions committee, which is developing a strategy to provide technical assistance to school districts in awarding partial credits. California Department of Education In process of developing a “categorical program monitoring (CPM)” tool to ensure successful educational outcomes for California’s foster youth, but project has been slightly delayed because of current budget constraints. California State University System On March 16, 2010, the CSU Board of Trustees unanimously supported the Title 5 revision in the Education Code granting housing priority to current and former foster youth during the academic year, as well as during critical transitional periods such as school breaks; and establishing reasonable systems for determining priority housing when implementing the Assembly Bill 1393 (Skinner). California College Pathways Working to increase the number of foster youth in California who pursue higher education and help them achieve a positive academic outcome by expanding access to campus support programs, such as the Guardian Scholars Program, the Renaissance Scholars Program and other successful approaches to supporting former foster youth on campus. California College Pathways is a partnership of the California State University Office of the Chancellor, the California Community College System Office and the John Burton Foundation. It is funded by the Stuart Foundation and the Walter S. Johnson Foundation. 49 Campus Support Programs and Services for Foster Youth Providing support services (e.g., financial assistance, housing, academic advising) for former foster youth on 21 CSU, 9 UC, and 110 community college campuses. Programs supporting foster youth in higher education are called by various names including Foster Youth Success Initiative (FYSI), Guardian Scholars, Renaissance Scholars, CME (Connect Motivate and Educate) Society, Resilient Scholars, Court Scholars, ACE Scholars Services and EOP/EOPS (Extended Opportunity Programs and Services). Currently 51 comprehensive support programs at UC, CSU and community colleges are serving students from foster care. Local Efforts Foster Youth Services Programs Representatives from FYS programs have become key members of local foster care commissions in a number of counties that have a strong focus on education. These local collaborations have created an elevated level of awareness about the Pre-K– higher education pipeline. 50 Foster Youth to College Days Aging Out of Foster Care . . .Into College Almost nine years ago, AOC Judge-in Residence, Leonard Edwards (retired Presiding Juvenile Court Judge from Santa Clara County), organized a luncheon for foster youth in Santa Clara County who were about to age out of the child welfare system. Funded by Philanthropic Ventures Foundation and supported by court personnel, attorneys, child advocates, and social workers, the luncheon featured foster youth who were in college and people who could inform them about educational opportunities. The luncheon was a success and has been held every year since then. Five years ago San Jose State University agreed to host the luncheon on its campus, then embraced the idea of helping foster youth move to higher education. The university created CME (Connect/Motivate/Educate), a program to support foster youth interested in college. Bringing together all segments of the university, San Jose State has been able to help foster youth apply for admission, find on-campus housing, assist with financial aid, and even provide mentors. The luncheon continues, now with Judge Katherine Lucero leading the juvenile court efforts to ensure better outcomes for our foster youth. Ideas for expansion are being considered so that community and junior colleges can be a part of the program. That was only a beginning. Judges around the state have taken the initiative to improve outcomes for foster youth aging out of the child welfare system. In Siskiyou County, Judge Bill Davis has held two Foster Youth to College Days and a third is scheduled for this fall. Judge Joyce Hinrichs held a Foster Youth Higher Education event in 2008 and recently held a second event on June 29, 2009, with the presidents of Humboldt State and College of the Redwoods both present. Commissioner Charlotte Wittig brought the community together in Tulare County and held Access to Higher Education days each of the last two years, with another planned for this fall featuring Dr. David Arredondo as a speaker. Judge Jane Cardoza visited the Tulare County event two years ago and then went back to her home in Fresno and brought the community together to create an Access to Higher Education event for foster youth in Fresno County. This year’s event attracted more than 200 foster youth. Judge Tamara Mosbarger convened her community and Butte Community College to hold a foster youth to college day in Butte County last year and this October there were more than 200 foster youth in attendance. Judge Marsha Slough convened her community in San Bernardino for a College Fair in August. Representatives from the University of Redlands, UCLA, UC Merced, UC Riverside, San Bernardino Chaffey College, Cal Poly, and local colleges attended, as did more than 60 foster youth. The Orange County local blue ribbon commission, with Judge Carolyn Kirkwood at the helm, sponsored a College Fair for Foster Youth at the end of September at Orange Coast College. It attracted 111 youth, 61 caregivers, and over 90 volunteers. These events demonstrate that communities and institutions of higher learning are ready to work with the juvenile court to improve educational outcomes for foster youth. Juvenile court judges have shown once again that they can convene their communities on behalf of our most vulnerable young people. 51 Chapter 6: Other Efforts Advancing Recommendations In addition to the recommendations targeted by the Blue Ribbon Commission for early action, progress occurred on the implementation of other recommendations. The following efforts are notable: Statewide Efforts Advancing Prevention and Permanency State Legislation—Chaptered AB 295 (Ammiano; Stats. 2009, ch. 427), Children: adoption services Extending to June 30, 2010, a four-county pilot project providing funding for preadoption and postadoption services to ensure successful adoption of a targeted population, children who have been in foster care for 18 months or more. SB 597 (Liu; Stats. 2009, ch. 339), Child welfare services, foster care services, and adoption assistance Includes provisions for licensed foster family agencies; requires court, when considering termination of parental rights, to consider barriers to a parent’s ability to remain in contact with the child as a result of the parent’s incarceration or institutionalization; requires CDSS to develop a plan for the ongoing oversight and coordination of health care for a child in foster care; requires additional information in a transitioning foster child’s case plan that will help the child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living. State Legislation—Pending AB 1758 (Ammiano), County wraparound services program Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would remove the designation of this program as a pilot project and make conforming changes. Under existing law, the State Department of Social Services administers a pilot project that authorizes a county to develop and implement a plan for providing wraparound services designed to enable children who would otherwise be placed in a group home setting to remain in the least restrictive, most family-like setting possible. 52 The pilot project also imposes specified evaluation and reporting requirements for participating counties and training requirements for their staff. AB 2342 (Evans), Foster youth: outreach programs Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would require CDSS to develop a resource guide for foster youth that outlines available statewide programs and services and their eligibility standards, including, but not limited to, programs and services associated with education, housing, mental health services, independent living programs, and career and job opportunities. The bill would require the department to make the resource guide available on its website as well as in a printed format. SB 654 (Leno) Independent Living Program Status: As of 6/30/10, Assem. Appropriations Com. Would require services available under the Independent Living Program to be provided to former dependent children of the juvenile court meeting prescribed requirements. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to develop statewide standards for the Independent Living Program for emancipated foster youth established and funded pursuant to federal law, to assist these individuals in making the transition to self-sufficiency. Under existing law, a child in receipt of Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin- GAP) Program benefits is also entitled to request and receive these independent living services. SB 945 (Liu), Juvenile court jurisdiction: services and benefits Status: As of 6/30/10, scheduled for Assem. 3d reading Would require a probation officer or parole officer, whenever the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a ward or upon release of a ward from a facility that is not a foster care facility, to provide to the ward a written notice stating that he or she is a former foster child and may be eligible for the services and benefits that are available to former foster children through public and private programs, as well as information on federal and state programs that provide independent living services and benefits to former foster children for which the ward is or may be eligible. 53 California Independent Living Program Transformation Breakthrough Series Collaborative Initiated by participation in National Governor’s Association Policy Academy on Youth Transitioning Out of Foster Care in conjunction with CDSS and Casey Family Programs. Broadly represents, with nine county teams, state leadership, partners, and advocacy organizations. Changing practice to improve outcomes in permanency, education, and employment. Statewide Efforts Advancing Court Reform State Legislation—Chaptered AB 131 (Evans; Stats. 2009, ch. 413), Juvenile proceedings: costs Would provide that parents or other persons liable for the support of a minor in the dependency court shall also be liable for the cost to the county or the court for the cost of legal services rendered to the minor and provides a mechanism for collection and deposit. This could lead to a reduction of caseloads by increasing the funds available for appointed counsel in dependency cases. Judicial Council Amended, in October 2009, California Rules of Court, rule 8.416 to allow trial and appellate courts to agree to follow expedited procedures for appeals in juvenile dependency cases that are now followed in the Superior Courts of Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties was passed by the council in October 2009. The new forms took effect on July 1, 2010. Allocated special funds in 2009 to maintain court-appointed counsel budget at fiscal year 2008–2009 levels. Engaged in collaborative advocacy in Sacramento on child welfare and judicial branch budgets. Adopted, in June 2010, a competitive solicitation policy applicable to Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) program courts; directed staff to work with the Trial Court Budget Working Group, the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, and the Court Executives Advisory Committee to develop recommendations regarding whether such a policy should be adopted for non- DRAFT courts. Implementation of a standardized and universal competitive solicitation policy will enable funding of the court- appointed counsel program to be maximized and will provide 54 transparency and objectivity to a process that currently has the potential to be viewed as arbitrary. Administrative Office of the Courts Completed, in May 2010, a statewide survey of dependency attorneys that assesses and prioritizes the non-dependency legal needs of parents and children in California’s child welfare system. Providing training and technical assistance to 28 courts with current or developing mediation programs. Providing training and technical assistance to most counties on developing nonadversarial child welfare-based practices such as family group conferencing, team decision-making, and family team meetings. Statewide Efforts Advancing Collaboration Judicial Council and Partner Stakeholders Data-sharing Memoranda of Understanding between CDSS and sister agencies. Continuing significant collaborative work on interoperable systems. Statewide Efforts Advancing Resources and Funding California Department of Social Services Will release regulations regarding caregiver decisions under the “reasonable and prudent parent” standard. 55 Conclusion: Reaching for a Brighter Future When the commission began its work almost five years ago, it made a promise to the children and families in California’s foster care system. Inspired by the hundreds of people—foster youth, parents, caregivers, social workers, judges, attorneys, CASAs, and others—who shared their stories and their suggestions for improvement, it pledged to develop fiscally responsible, realistically achievable recommendations to improve outcomes related to safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness in this state’s overstressed juvenile dependency and child welfare systems. After an unprecedented three-year collaborative effort, it did just that.Its recommendations offer a coordinated plan for reform that ties together state and federal foster care initiatives with local commissions to implement them. Its action plan offers a blueprint for collaborative success that, when fully implemented, promises to help ensure every child a safe, secure, and permanent home by: Keeping children and families together whenever it is safe and possible to do so; Changing the way juvenile dependency courts do business; Increasing collaboration among the courts and their child welfare partners; and Finding the resources to get the job done. And, after more than a year of implementation activity, much has been accomplished at the federal, state, and local levels that significantly advances the commission’s recommendations to reform the juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems in California—accomplishments that have occurred despite severe budgetary and economic challenges. Commissioners believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration. The commission met in May 2010 to evaluate its progress in implementing the recommendations and to plan its priorities for the coming year. After reviewing the work of the last year and a half, the commissioners affirmed their commitment to seeing their initial action plan through until it is fully implemented. They pledged, in particular, to focus on, as a high priority, recommendations relating to prevention and permanency with a greater emphasis on reunification. The commissioners decided to 56 add to their 79 existing recommendations a new recommendation “Our children and encouraging reunification, to include incentives for reunification our families are our and post-permanency services. future. How we treat them says When the Blue Ribbon Commission’s term expires in two years, much about us as a California has in place the Child Welfare Council, a permanent society—and will collaborative infrastructure created legislatively that is already determine what our engaged in and will carry on this important work. The Blue Ribbon society will look Commission’s chair, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, co-chairs the Child like in the future.” Welfare Council with Kimberly Belshé, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. This advisory body is —Hon. Ronald responsible for improving the collaboration and processes of the M. George multiple agencies and courts that serve children and youth in the Chief Justice of the child welfare and foster care systems. It includes all three branches Supreme Court of California; Chair of the of California’s government and demonstrates this state’s Judicial Council commitment to collaboration at the highest levels. Recently, California Chief Justice Ronald M. George announced that he would retire at the end of his term after 19 years on the California Supreme Court, 14 as Chief Justice. His legacy as an advocate on behalf of this state’s most vulnerable children and families is notable. During his tenure, he established the Center for Families, Children & the Courts as a division of the Administrative Office of the Courts—California was a pioneer in having a division dedicated to improving access to justice for children and families. He has always spoken eloquently of the importance of the work of the juvenile and family law courts. And when he realized the desperate needs of this state’s juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems, he established the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. California has the largest court system in the nation, and the Blue Ribbon Commission is the first statewide body to focus on the court’s role in child welfare. The work of the commission will make a difference across the country far beyond its lifetime. The Chief Justice put this work in perspective when he addressed the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in Monterey in 2001: Our children and our families are our future. How we treat them says much about us as a society—and will determine what our society will look like in the future. It is safe to say that no family truly wishes to find itself before the courts—after all, marital dissolution, child custody, child neglect, delinquency, and criminal conduct typically are the 57 reasons that bring them there. What we do for these families in trouble—how we treat them and the resources we can bring to bear to assist them can have profound consequences not only for each affected individual, but also for our society as a whole. The implementation work of the Blue Ribbon Commission will continue over the next two years, and the commission will provide annual progress reports. During those two years, commissioners will be actively engaged in fulfilling their promise to this state’s most vulnerable children and their families—the promise of a brighter future and a real chance for success. 58 APPENDICES About the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Background on the Blue Ribbon Commission The Blue Ribbon Commission is a multidisciplinary, statewide body providing leadership on issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. It includes judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, former foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and more. A roster of commission members is included at the front of this report. The establishment of the commission builds on other Judicial Council efforts to improve California’s juvenile courts and is consistent with the goals and objectives recently adopted by the Judicial Council. These efforts include a number of programs that are designed to improve the operations of the juvenile dependency courts, including 1) expansion of the Court Improvement Project to increase the number of training programs and to enhance development of data exchanges to improve communication between the courts and child welfare agencies; 2) expansion of the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) program to include specific projects related to improving compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and increasing the number of permanent placements for children in foster care; and 3) establishment of the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) program relating to attorney representation of parents and children in juvenile dependency court. There was national impetus behind the commission’s formation as well, including the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, which was established in 2003. The Pew Commission was charged with developing nationally focused recommendations to improve outcomes for children in foster care. Former U.S. Representatives Bill Frenzel and William H. Gray III served as chair and vice-chair respectively. William C. Vickrey, California’s Administrative Director of the Courts, was one of 18 members representing a broad cross-section of organizations involved in foster care issues. In 2004, the Pew Commission issued its recommendations, which focused on federal child welfare funding mechanisms and improving court oversight of child welfare cases. The recommendations called for the courts and public agencies to collaborate more effectively by establishing multidisciplinary, broad-based state commissions on children in foster care. That recommendation, together with the reality of seriously overstressed and underresourced dependency courts and a child welfare system in crisis, led the Chief Justice of California to establish the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. 61 Blue Ribbon Commission’s mandate The commission’s charge was to develop recommendations focused on four areas: How courts and their partners could improve the child welfare system, including an implementation plan; Improved court performance and accountability in achieving safety, permanency, wellbeing, and fairness for all children and families in the child welfare system; Improved collaboration and communication among courts and child welfare agencies and others, including the development of permanent local county commissions that support ongoing efforts; and Greater public awareness of the court’s role in the foster-care system and the need for adequate and flexible funding. The Commission’s process of developing its recommendations The Blue Ribbon Commission deliberated over the course of two years, holding public meetings, hearings, focus groups and other activities. Members attended site visits to see programs and courtrooms firsthand. The commission heard from a variety of juvenile court and child welfare experts and from social workers, families, children, and youth who have been in the child welfare system. Their experiences and their suggestions for reform proved invaluable as the commission developed its recommendations and action plan. The commission also drew from significant research provided by the County Welfare Directors Association of California; the Center for Social Services Research at the University of California at Berkeley; Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago; Child Trends; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; and the Urban Institute. After nearly two years of information gathering, the commission developed draft recommendations for public comment in March 2008. It held public hearings on the proposed recommendations in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In response to the public comment and testimony, the commission reviewed and revised the recommendations at a June 2008 commission meeting. 62 The commission’s final recommendations fall under four broad categories: 1. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2. Court reform; 3. Collaboration among courts and partnering agencies; and 4. Resources and funding. The full set of recommendations can be found in the appendix to this report. They include the four overall recommendations and 79 specific recommendations. Of the specific recommendations, 26 of them are within the purview of the Judicial Council and can be accomplished within the judicial branch of government. The remaining recommendations require collaboration with child welfare and other agency partners. Highlights of the Commission’s Recommendations Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency Increasing the Number of Placements With Relatives (Kinship) That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case, and the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when necessary. Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African-American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System That the courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth That the Judicial Council urge the California Legislature to extend the age for children to receive foster-care assistance from 18 to 21. Court reform Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers That the Judicial Council work to reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys, and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. 63 Ensuring That All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Are Adequately Trained and Resourced That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards, and the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. Collaboration among courts and child welfare partners Facilitating Data and Information Exchange That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council should implement court performance measures to improve foster-care outcomes as mandated by state law. Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child-welfare concerns and to help implement the commission’s recommendations and related reforms. Improving Indian Child Welfare That the courts, child welfare agencies and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families receive the services for which they are eligible. Resources and funding Prioritizing Foster Care That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child-Abuse Prevention and Services That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child-abuse prevention and eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child abuse prevention and services. Expanding Educational Services That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all of its related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. 64 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations to the Judicial Council Recommendation 1 1 Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency Because families who need assistance should receive necessary services to keep children safely at home whenever possible, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council, the California Department of Social Services, and local courts and child welfare agencies implement improvements to ensure immediate, continuous, and appropriate services and timely, thorough review for all families in the system. Children and families need access to a range of services to prevent removal whenever possible. 1A All reasonable efforts should be made to maintain children at home in safe and stable families. The courts should make an informed finding as to whether these efforts actually have been made. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The courts and partnering agencies tailor resources to make sure they have sufficient information and time to establish that all reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal. All children and families receive timely and appropriate mental health, health care, education, substance abuse, and other services, whether children reside with their own parents or with relatives, foster parents, guardians, or adoptive parents or are in another setting. At the earliest possible point in their involvement with the family, child welfare agencies engage family members, including extended family wherever they may live, to support the family and children in order to prevent placement whenever possible. Child welfare systems should develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members. The courts and partnering agencies work to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system. Judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals who serve foster children and their families increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce. The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to advocate for greater flexibility in the use of federal, state, and local funding for preventive services. If foster care placement is necessary, children, families, and caregivers should have 1B access to appropriate services and timely court reviews that lead to permanency as quickly as possible. Service delivery and court review should ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to return children home, to make sure families and workers comply with case plans, and to achieve timely and stable transitions home or, if necessary, to place with relatives or in another permanent, stable family. 65 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to advocate changes in law and practice to increase and encourage more relative placements, including: Addressing funding disparities; o Developing greater flexibility in approving relative placements whereby relatives o would not, by virtue of federal law, be held to the same standard as nonrelatives; and Formulating protocols to facilitate swift home assessments and placement with o family members when appropriate. The courts and child welfare agencies expedite services for families and ensure that foster children maintain a relationship with all family members and other important people in their lives. The courts ensure that children who cannot return home receive services and court reviews to enable them to successfully transition into a permanent home and into adulthood. This includes paying attention to each child’s language, development, and cultural needs in making decisions about home and school placements, visitation, education, and mental health needs. It also means making sure they have consistent community ties and help from supportive adults, such as mentors, as they grow up. All court participants continuously review and make extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co-placement. Children and families receive continuous and comprehensive services if a child enters the delinquency system from foster care. The Judicial Council and the state Department of Social Services work together to urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies to ensure that THP- Plus programs for transitional housing sustain a level of funding sufficient to maintain and expand program capacity to meet the demonstrated need of youth aging out of the foster care system. The Judicial Council work with federal and state leaders to support or sponsor legislation to extend the age when children receive foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. This change should apply to those children who at age 18 cannot be returned home safely, who are not in a permanent home, and who choose to remain under the jurisdiction of the court. If the court terminates jurisdiction before a youth’s 21st birthday, the youth should have the right to reinstatement of jurisdiction and services. The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to develop practices, protocols, and enhanced services to promote both placement and placement stability of children and youth in family-like, rather than institutional, settings. 66 Recommendation 2 2 Court Reforms Because the courts are responsible for ensuring that a child’s rights to safety, permanency, and well-being are met in a timely and comprehensive manner and that all parties are treated fairly in the process, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council and the trial and appellate courts make children in foster care and their families a priority when making decisions about the allocation of resources and administrative support. The trial and appellate courts must have sufficient resources to meet their obligations to 2A children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Consistent with Judicial Council policy, judges—not subordinate judicial officers— hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate judicial officers to juvenile court. The Judicial Council work with bar organizations, the Governor’s office, and state and local leadership to ensure that juvenile law experience is given favorable consideration during the judicial appointment and assignment process and well- qualified subordinate judicial officers and attorneys with juvenile law experience are encouraged to apply for vacant judicial positions. Presiding judges follow standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration and assign judges to juvenile court for a minimum of three years and give priority to judges who are actively interested in juvenile law as an assignment. The Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The study should take into account the court’s unique oversight and case management responsibilities and address the use of case managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. Pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and statutory requirements. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) help courts comply with the judicial standard outlining the knowledge, commitment, and leadership role required of judicial officers who make decisions about children in foster care (see standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration). Presiding judges of the superior courts should receive training in the role and duties of juvenile court judicial officers as outlined in the standard. All participants in dependency hearings and subsequent appeals, including children and 2B families, should have an opportunity to be heard and meaningfully participate in court. 67 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Judicial officers identify and engage all parties in each case as early as possible. A particular emphasis should be placed on finding fathers and identifying Indian tribes where applicable. Judicial officers and other stakeholders remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caretakers from attending hearings. This includes addressing transportation and scheduling difficulties, as well as exploring telephonic appearances and other technological options. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders develop and implement laws and policies to promote relative finding, funding, assessment, placement, and connections. The Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. The Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. Judicial officers should ensure that local court practices facilitate and promote the 2C attendance of children, parents, and caregivers at hearings. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Hearings be available at times that do not conflict with school or work or other requirements of a family’s case plan. To the extent feasible, hearings be set for a specific date and time. Delays should be minimized, and hearings should be conducted on consecutive days until completed. A concurrent criminal proceeding should not mean delay of a dependency case. All parties, including children, parents, and social workers, have the opportunity to review reports and meet with their attorneys before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings. Hearings be timely and meet all federal and state mandated timelines. Continuances should be minimized, and the reasons for systemic continuances should be addressed by the local court and child welfare agency. All participants leave court hearings with a clear understanding of what happened, why decisions were made, and, if appropriate, what actions they need to take. The AOC provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, that takes into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. The same judicial officer hear a case from beginning to end, when possible. Courts explore telephonic appearance policies and new technology options to ensure participation in juvenile court hearings. The court’s ability to make fair, timely, and informed decisions requires attorneys, social 2D workers, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who are well qualified and have the time and resources to present accurate and timely information to the courts. 68 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including a stable funding source, necessary to implement the council’s recently adopted attorney caseload standards, to implement caseload standards for social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. The Judicial Council take active steps to promote the advancement of juvenile law as a sought-after career. Accomplishing this recommendation requires: Fair and reasonable compensation for court-appointed attorneys; o Adoption and implementation of a methodology for determining attorney o effectiveness; Forgiveness of student loans for attorneys who commit a substantial portion of o their careers to juvenile law; That public and nonprofit law offices hire and retain attorneys based on their o interest in the field and encourage them to build careers in juvenile law; and Collaboration with State Bar of California leaders to include juvenile dependency o law as a mandatory area of study for the California Bar exam and create a State Bar juvenile law section. The Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. Training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. The Judicial Council continue to support the development and expansion of CASA programs and to help make available CASA volunteers for all foster children in the dependency system. State funding for CASA programs should be expanded to allow for appointments in all cases. Local or regional legal advocacy resource centers be established to ensure that the nondependency legal needs of dependent children and their parents are appropriately addressed. This includes education, immigration, tribal enrollment or other requirements to receive the benefits of tribal membership, tort issues, and other issues. All courts should have nonadversarial programs available as early as possible and 2E whenever necessary for children and families to use to resolve legal and social issues when appropriate. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution be available in all courts at any time in the proceedings. Families in all counties have access to other types of court proceedings—drug, mental health, and unified courts, for example—that can help them remain together or, if the children are removed, to stabilize and reunify the family as soon as possible. Presiding judges work with agencies to ensure that families in all counties have access to specific nonadversarial child welfare–based practices such as family group conferencing, team decisionmaking, and family team meetings. 69 The Judicial Council should establish and implement a comprehensive set of court 2F performance measures as required by state law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16545). The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council adopt and direct the AOC to work with local courts and state agencies to implement a rule of court that embodies the commission’s following recommendations: Court performance measures include those for safety, permanency, timeliness of o court hearings, due process, and child well-being; Court performance measures align with and promote the federal and California o Child and Family Services Review outcome measures and indicators; The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) collect uniform court o performance data and have the capability to produce management reports on performance measures; and Trial court performance measures be included in a separate Judicial Council– o approved AOCImplementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. These performance measures and management reports be used for the following: To promote court accountability for ensuring fair and timely hearings and to o inform improvements in local case processing; To provide stakeholders and the public with an aggregate picture of the outcomes o for children before the court and to increase the public’s understanding of the court’s role in the child welfare system; and To measure compliance with statutory mandates and effective practices. o The Judicial Council work with the Child Welfare Council and local courts and state agencies to develop uniform child well-being performance measures. Based on these measures, the AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts should work with local courts to develop and implement educational tools that help courts improve child well-being outcomes. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate at the federal, state, and local levels for the funding necessary to implement recommended court performance measures. 70 Recommendation 3 3 Collaboration Among Courts and Partnering Agencies Because the courts share responsibility with child welfare agencies and other partners for the well-being of children in foster care, the courts, child welfare, and other partnering agencies must work together to prioritize the needs of children and families in each system and remove barriers that keep stakeholders from working together effectively. The Judicial Council, trial courts, and state Department of Social Services should work 3A cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decisionmaking that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council continue its efforts to fully develop and implement the California Court Case Management System, as well as other data exchange protocols, so that the judicial branch, the California Department of Social Services, and other trusted partners will be able to exchange essential information about the children and families they are mandated to serve. CCMS permit judicial officers in dependency courts to access information about children and families who are involved in cases in other courts. CCMS and the state Child Welfare Services/Case Management System promote coordinated data collection, data exchange, and filing of documents, including electronic filing, between the courts, social service agencies, and other key partners and track data that permits them to measure their performance. The Child Welfare Council prioritizes solutions to federal and state statutory and regulatory policy barriers that prevent information sharing between the courts and their partners and that cause delays in the delivery of services and, hence, delays in permanency for children. Data systems in the various agencies evolve to capture the growing complexity of California demographics, including issues such as limited English proficiency, use of psychotropic medications, and disabilities. The presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human 3B services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and resolve local system concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: These multidisciplinary local commissions include participation from the courts; local government officials; public and private agencies and organizations that support children and families; children, parents, and families in the system; caregivers; and all other appropriate parties to the process. These commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including: Undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services available in the o community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not 71 available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency; Identifying and resolving barriers to sharing information among the courts, o agencies, and schools; Communicating local needs and concerns to the Child Welfare Council; and o Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in their o communities. The AOC support local commissions in their efforts to collaborate and to avoid duplication with other efforts to achieve positive child welfare outcomes (including county efforts to develop system improvement plans as required by state law). All participating agencies prioritize children in foster care, and their families, when providing services. Courts, child welfare agencies, and other agencies should collaborate with Indian tribes 3C and tribal courts to ensure that the rights of children, families, and tribes are protected and that Indian children and families have access to all appropriate services for which they are eligible. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The AOC work with state trial courts and tribal courts to establish protocols for identifying and sharing jurisdiction between state and tribal courts and for sharing services, case management, and data among superior courts, tribal courts, and county and tribal service agencies. The protocols established should encourage a mutual understanding of and respect for the procedures in both the state and tribal courts and the challenges that all communities face in providing services for children and families. The AOC collaborate with the state to develop and offer judicial education and technical assistance opportunities to tribal court officers and staff and legal education to tribal attorneys, lay advocates, and service providers. The AOC work with the California Department of Social Services to offer ongoing multidisciplinary training and technical assistance to judges, court staff, attorneys, social workers, and other service providers on all of the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Indian children and families have access to the same services as other families and children regardless of whether their cases are heard in state court or tribal court. 72 Recommendation 4 Resources and Funding 4 In order to meet the needs of children and families in the foster care system, the Judicial Council, Congress, the Legislature, the courts, and partnering agencies should give priority to children and their families in the child welfare system in the allocation and administration of resources, including public funding—federal, state, and local—and private funds from foundations that support children’s issues. The Judicial Council should urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local 4A agencies—including agencies and organizations that provide health, mental health, education, substance abuse, domestic violence, housing, employment, and child care services—to prioritize the delivery and availability of services to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Congress and the state Legislature fund dissemination of evidence-based or promising practices that lead to improved outcomes for foster children and their parents. Examples include therapeutic foster care and drug courts. States and counties should be given permission to use federal funding more flexibly. 4B Flexible funding should be used to address the needs of children and families in a timely manner that recognizes the child’s developmental needs and relationship with his or her parents, guardian, and extended family. The commission supports key financial recommendations of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and encourages innovative funding strategies at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council urge Congress to adopt the following federal financing reform recommendations, based on those advocated in 2004 by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a national panel of experts that issued proposals around financing child welfare and court reforms: Creation of an incentive model for permanency. Based on the adoption incentive, o this model would encompass all forms of permanency, including reunification and guardianship, and would offer equal payment levels; Federal adoption assistance for all children adopted from foster care; o Federal guardianship assistance for all children who leave foster care to live with o a permanent, legal guardian; Elimination of the income limit for eligibility for federal foster care funding; o Flexibility for states and counties to use federal funds to serve children from o Indian tribes and children living within U.S. territories; Extension of federal title IV-E funding to children in Indian tribes and the U.S. o territories; Reinvestment of local, state, and federal dollars saved from reduced foster care o placements into services for children and families in the child welfare system; 73 Reinvestment of penalties levied in the federal Child and Family Services Review o process into program improvement activities; and Bonuses when the state demonstrates improved worker competence and lighter o caseloads. No child or family should be denied services because it is unclear who should pay for 4C them. Funding limitations that prohibit or delay the delivery of services to children and families should be addressed through coordinated and more flexible funding. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding for services and to develop solutions. The Judicial Council should urge Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. The Judicial Council, along with other stakeholders, should work to improve the foster 4D care system by supporting those who provide care to dependent children. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for increasing foster care rates and supports to enable foster parents to care for their foster children. The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for funding and other resources to provide statewide legal and informational support for caregivers so they understand the dependency process and know what to expect in court. The Judicial Council, the executive and legislative branches of federal and state 4E government, local courts, businesses, foundations, and community service organizations should work together to establish a fund to provide foster youth with the money and resources they need to participate in extracurricular activities and programs to help make positive transitions into adulthood. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Children in foster care and partnering agencies have access to reliable funding to support their access to extracurricular activities and transitional programs. These activities should include music and dance lessons, sports, school events, and independent living activities. Systemic barriers that prevent foster children from participating in the above events be eliminated, including transportation, licensing restrictions, and confusion regarding waivers and consents. 74 Educational services for foster youth and former foster youth should be expanded to 4F increase access to education and to improve the quality of those services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: Courts and partnering agencies ensure that foster children receive the full education they are entitled to, including the support they need to graduate from high school. This includes tutoring and participation in extracurricular activities. The courts should require other agencies to justify any denial of such services to foster youth in school. The Judicial Council urge Congress and the state Legislature to strengthen current education laws to explicitly include all foster children and to fill funding gaps, such as the lack of support for transportation to maintain school stability. The Child Welfare Council prioritizes foster children’s educational rights and work with educators to establish categorical program monitoring to oversee compliance with education laws and regulations that support foster youth in school. The California Department of Education designate foster youth as “at-risk” students to recognize that foster care creates challenges and obstacles to a child’s education that other children do not experience and to increase the access of foster youth to local education programs. Foster Youth Services grants be expanded to include all children age five or older, including those in kinship placements, because close to half of foster children are placed with kin and Foster Youth Services is not currently funded to serve those children. The Judicial Council urge legislative bodies and higher education officials to expand programs, such as the Guardian Scholars, statewide to ensure that all current and former foster youth who attend college have access to housing and other support services and to waive tuition and other educational fees for current and former foster youth. California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations to the Judicial Council—August 15, 2008 75 RSYYYYYYYYYYST U U X X X X Resolution X X Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care X X Whereas Now, therefore, all children need safe, permanent families that love, be it resolved X X nurture, protect, and guide them; That a Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care is estab- Whereas, although foster care is absolutely critical to protecting lished as a high-level, multidisciplinary body to provide leadership and children who cannot stay safely in their own homes, it is intended to be a recommendations to improve the ability of the federal government, Cal- X X short-term refuge rather than a long-term saga; ifornias state and local agencies, and the courts to protect children in Whereas, California by helping them to become part of a permanent family that will on an average day, California has approximately 97,000 provide a safe, stable, and secure home; children in foster care; Whereas, That, in its deliberations, the Commission shall develop although the number of all children in California X X recommendations account for approximately 13 percent of all children in the United States, California children in foster care comprise approximately 19 percent of Creating a set of comprehensive strategies and effective approaches the total United States foster care population;to reduce the number of children in foster care by reducing the number of Whereas children entering foster care and reducing the length of time in foster care X X in California, of the more than 491,000 referrals to while ensuring they have safe, secure, and stable homes social services of child abuse or neglect, approximately 110,000 or 22 per- cent, were substantiated by child welfare staff; Successfully implementing the Judicial Councils goals and objec- Whereas tives, including those on ensuring appropriate judicial and staff resources youth who leave the foster care system are often ill pre- X X and establishing stable funding for juvenile courts pared for what followsmore than half are unemployed, almost a third Successfully implementing the recommendations of the Pew Com- Whereas mission on Children in Foster Care, as adopted by the Judicial Council, the California Judicial Council recognizes that the including those on strengthening court oversight, improving collabora- safety, permanency, and well-being of children under court supervision is X X paramount; Whereas Advocating effective approaches to the Judicial Branch is dedicated to improving the qual- federal funding so that California can meet the critical objective of per- ity of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, X X and families in California by building partnerships with other local and ship, and adoption statewide agencies and professions that work with children and families throughout our state; Ensuring that all children health Whereas, care, education, and other services whether they reside with family, foster although there have been individual efforts to see that X X parents, relatives, adoptive parents, or in other placements children are safe in foster care, and efforts to improve the judicial process, systemic improvements are needed to meet the needs of children in foster Institutionalizing a permanent collaborative model that will ensure care and in the child welfare system, and these improvements can best be that systemic improvements are sought and achieved beyond the tenure achieved through collaboration between the courts, child welfare, educa-of this Commission X X tion, medical, and mental health partners, and other public and private Proposing other initiatives it deems appropriate; agencies and individuals; That the Commission, led by Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the Cali- Whereas institutionalization of this collaboration will ensure fornia Supreme Court, shall conduct its inquiry in a manner that broadens that systemic improvements are sought and achieved beyond the terms of X public awareness of and support for meeting the needs of vulnerable chil-X dren and families; That at the conclusion of the Commissions investigation and delib- Whereas the states ability to respond to the needs of vulnerable erations, the Commission will host a statewide conference for multidisci- X X plinary teams from each county for the purpose of establishing permanent federal guidelines on the use of funds limits Californias ability to invest foster care commissions in each county; and dren and families; California Judicial Council, recommending appropriate action to serve X X and meet the needs of children and families in Californias foster care and child welfare system. Signed at San Francisco, California, this ninth day of March, 2006 X X U U Chief Justice of California and Administrative Director of the Courts VSYYYYYYYYYYSW Chair of the Judicial Council of California 77 79 80 81 Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Implementation Progress Report – August 2010 Building a Brighter Future for California’s Children: Making Progress in Tough Economic Times Sources 1.Fostering a New Future for California’s Children – Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure and, PermanentHome. Final Report and Action Plan. Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. Administrative Office of the Courts /Center for Families, Children & the Courts. May 2009. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/documents/brc-finalreport.pdf. 2.F-A-A-G,California Dependency Courts. California Blue Ribbon ACTSTLANCE Commission on Children in Foster Care. July 2008. Available at: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/BlueRibbonCommissi ononChildrenandFosterCare.aspx 3.The Operational Plan for California’s Judicial Branch, 2008–2011. Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. 2008. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/2_annual.htm 4.The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. Website: http://pewfostercare.org/ 5.Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care. Final Report. The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. 2004. Available at: http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=47 6.Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. U.S. Government. H.R. 6893. 110th Congress (2007–2008). Public Law: 110-351. Legislation available at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/browse.html Summary available at: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/FosteringConnectionsSummary.htm 83 7.Judicial Council proposal creating new rules and forms to implement the mandates and legislative intent of Assembly 938 out for comment as of April 2010. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/invitationstocomment/documents/spr10-33.pdf 8.Permanency Committee Recommendations. California Child Welfare Council. September 10, 2009. Available at: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/CommitteeDraftReco mmendations.aspx 9.Miller, Oronde A. Reducing Racial Disproportionality And Disparate Outcomes for Children And Families Of Color In The Child Welfare System. Breakthrough Series Collaborative. Casey Family Programs. July 2009. Available at: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/BreakthroughSeries_ReducingDisproportio nality.htm 10.Danielson, Caroline and Helen Lee. Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges. Public Policy Institute of California. Supported with funding by the Stuart Foundation. May 2010. Available at: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=905 11.Juvenile Delinquency Court Orientation video. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. June 2010. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/delinq/ 12.Fact Sheet: Tribal Projects Unit. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. November 2009. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/TribalProjectUnit.htm 13.California Dependency Online Guide (CalDOG). Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. Available at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/dependencyonlineguide 84 14.AOC Briefings: Sharing Information for Children in Foster Care (draft versions). Four- part series– Education, Health Care, Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. February 2010. Available at the California Child Welfare Council, Data Linkage and Information Sharing Committee website: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/DataInformationandD ataSharingCommittee.aspx 15.Newsletters: Foster Care Reform Update. Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/bluerib-newsletter.htm 16.California Child Welfare Council. California Health and Human Services Agency. Website: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/default.aspx 17.Fact Sheet: California Tribal Court/State Court Coalition. Judicial Council of California/ Administrative Office of the Courts. Press Release: May 20, 2010. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/ 18.Clearinghouse of Resources. AOC Tribal Projects Unit. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/TribalProjectUnit.htm 19.Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, Office of Justice Programs. Website: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/index.html 20.California Rules of Court. Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (5.1 – 5.830). Rule 5.505. Juvenile dependency court performance measures. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5_505 21.Foster Youth Services. California Department of Education. Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/ 85 22.Child Development/Successful Youth Transitions Committee. California Child Welfare Council. Website: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/ChildDevelopmentSu ccessfulYouthTransitionsCommittee.aspx 23.California Rules of Court. Title Eight. Appellate Rules (8.1 – 8.1125). Rule 8.416. Appeals from all terminations of parental rights; dependency appeals in Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties and in other counties by local rule. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_416 24.Local Blue Ribbon Commissions website. Accessible via the California Dependency Online Guide (CalDOG) subscription. Available at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/dependencyonlineguide 25.Technical Assistance Tools. Family Law and Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Tribal Projects Unit. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/TribalProjectUnit.htm 86 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Community Action Guide League of California Cities California State Association of Counties California School Boards Association Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Community Action Guide Cities Counties and Schools Partnership is unique in the nation. Incorporated in 1997, it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan collaboration of associations of local elected officials. The partners that constitute CCS Partnership are the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California School Boards Association. The Board of Directors of the Partnership is comprised of the officers and executive directors of the three statewide associations. Together the board members represent the majority of local elected officials in the state. The goal of the partnership is to create a culture of collaboration among local elected officials in CaliforniaÓs 478 cities, 58 counties, and more than 1000 school districts. The purpose of local jurisdictional collaboration is to improve the conditions and quality of life for CaliforniaÓs children, families and communities. 2007 Conditions of Children Task Force In 2005 the CCS Partnership established the Conditions of Children Task Force with each association appointing members to serve one-year terms. In 2005 the task force discussed multiple issues facing children and their families. The 2006 task force had a single focus Î understanding childhood obesity and creating an action agenda for addressing it. For 2007 the task force took on a new focus, emancipating foster youth. Members of the 2007 Task Force Luan Rivera Chair, CCS Partnership Immediate Past President, California School Boards Association Stewart Bubar Board Member Culver City Unified School District Davis Campbell Board Member CCS Partnership Board of Directors Board Member Yolo County Board of Education Connie Chin Board Member Modesto City School District Janice Friesen Director, Region 7 CSBA Castro Valley Unified School District Yvonne Garrett Community Services Director City of La Mesa Sharon Jones Director, Region 17 CSBA San Diego County Office of Education Barbara Kondylis Supervisor Solano County Lynn MacDonald Board Member Placer Union High School District Jean Quan Councilmember City of Oakland Alene Taylor Supervisor Kings County Tony Thurmond Councilmember City of Richmond Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 1 The task force was supported in its efforts by staff from the three associations and CCS Partnership. They were: Willie Beaudet Administrative Assistant CCS Partnership Connie Busse Executive Director CCS Partnership Qiana Charles Legislative Analyst California State Association of Counties Genevieve Morelos Legislative Analyst League of California Cities Marguerite Noteware Research Consultant California School Boards Association Francesca Wright Consultant CCS Partnership The Process The task force met four times in 2007 to learn from experts and discuss the role and responsibility of local governments in addressing the needs of former foster youth. Speakers included: Crystal Luffberry o ; Steve Trippe, o ; Michele Byrnes, ; Karen Grace-Kaho, o ; ÐWhen a child leaves the Tad Kitada o system, they should be better ; off than when they entered .Ñ Patty Archer-Ward, o ; Crystal Luffberry, Chet Hewitt, o Project Manager ; California Connected by 25 Initiative Sam Cobbs, o ; and Kordnee-Jamilla Lee. o See Appendix A for speaker bios Following each presentation the members discussed what they had learned and developed their ideas into this action agenda The Product is the result of the groupÓs efforts. It represents the view from local government for how to best address the needs of foster youth who are aging out of the system. Glossary and resource guides are available at the end of this document. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 2 The Issue California has the largest number of children and youth in foster care of any state in the nation with approximately 83,000 children in care. Each year over 4,000 of those youth emancipate from the system as they turn 18 years old. They exit care largely unprepared for managing life on their own. Some have been in care since they were young; most have multiple foster home and/or group home placements. On average they have had six placements. No public care can Ð For many of these young people the outcome of public replace the care of family. parenting is unemployment, under-education, Children aging out of the homelessness and prison. Studies show that about two- thirds of the incarcerated population were foster youth at system are a bad outcome. some point in their lives. For all of the youth, the effects Our goal should be for the of their years in foster care are lasting. The state child not to be in the removes these youth from their homes and becomes system long enough to age their parent. As a parent the state has failed. out.Ñ Honoring Emancipated Youth, a non-profit agency Chet Hewitt , serving transitioning foster youth in San Francisco, has President and CEO 1 compiled the following statistics: Sierra Health Foundation former Director Alameda County Social Services Agency Homelessness Within 18 months of emancipation 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless 65% of emancipating foster youth need immediate housing when they exit the system Employment 50% of emancipated foster youth experience high rates of unemployment within 5 years of emancipation 60% of former foster youth earn incomes at or below $6,000 per year, which is substantially below the federal poverty level of $7,890 for a single individual Barriers Facing Foster Care Youth: National and Local Statistics About 1 Emancipating Foster Youth. www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Education 70% of teens who emancipate from foster care report wanting to go to college, 10% attend and less than 1% graduate from college 83% of foster children are held back by the third grade 75% of children and youth in foster care are behind grade level 40% of foster youth complete high school compared to 84% of the general population Mental & Physical Health 33% of all foster care alumni have no form of health insurance Former foster youth experience Post Traumatic Stress disorder at a rate 2 times the level of U.S. war veterans Nearly 50% of foster children suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay and malnutrition 50-60% of children in foster care have moderate to severe mental health problems Foster children are more likely than other children on Medicaid to have mental health or substance abuse conditions Incarceration Foster youth with multiple placements are 5-10 times more likely to become involved with the juvenile justice system than youth in the general population 25% of former foster youth will be incarcerated within the first 2 years of emancipation Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 4 Through No Fault of Their Own On average, youth who emancipate from foster care have been in the system for five years. Children are placed in foster care through no fault of their own. They are not given a choice and they have no recourse. Nothing they have done is the cause for this painful and debilitating circumstance. Most are placed in the system because of neglect by their parents or care givers. They must learn to navigate public agencies, strange adults acting as parents, unfamiliar homes, changing schools, changing neighborhoods and many other challenges adults would find daunting. Siblings are often separated and may never see each other again. Unlike other teens, foster youth are not allowed to act out their frustrations during this difficult time in their lives; acting out lands them in juvenile hall, in a group home far from all they know or in yet another home placement with an unfamiliar family. At 18 they must be ready to navigate life on their own without a family or a system to support and guide them. The trauma of losing their friends, homes, communities and often siblings; the multiple placements; the disruptions of their education and the limited access to personal resources leave many foster youth without the preparation and support needed for independent life at 18 years of age. Actually, non foster youth ages 18-26 who live with their families receive a great deal of financial and emotional support. The California Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego released a report in January 2007 stating that parents provide approximately $44,500 of financial support to their 2 ÐadultÑ offspring in the years between 18 and 26. _________ 2 ChildrenÓs Advocacy Institute. (2007) University of San Diego School of Law. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 5 Call to Action In the best of all possible worlds, all children would be loved and cared for by parents who have the resources and skills to nurture them into successful adulthood. When that is not the case and children are removed from families, every effort would be made to find that quality of care in permanent homes. Since the world is not ideal, we must ensure that youth exit our child welfare system with these minimal assets: 1. who care about them and will remain connected to them throughout their lives; 2. , including housing, employment support, educational options, and health care 3. ; 4. ; ; 5. 6. to continue their education; and 7. . If cities, counties and schools take a coordinated and committed approach, these seven assets can be made available to the more than 4,000 California youth who Ðage-outÑ of foster care each year. Children removed from their homes and placed in the care of the state belong to all of us. It is our responsibility to see that they receive the support they need to become independent adults. Cities, counties and schools all have roles to play in parenting these children into adulthood. Areas of Critical Need The task force repeatedly heard five areas of critical needs for youth leaving the system. Those areas are housing, employment, education, mental and behavioral health, and permanency. Emancipating foster youth need the same supports as our Ðhome-grownÑ children through their mid-twenties. Local government can provide leadership and partner with other agencies to provide the needed connections, guidance, access and support. Individuals and localities can also act in support of proposed federal legislation that would extend foster care benefits to youth, if they choose, up to the age of 21. (See Appendix B for information on S1512) Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 6 1.Housing Housing is perhaps the most immediate need for emancipating youth. Many have been in the system for years and have no resources to obtain housing. Additionally, affordable housing is frequently not available. ÐMany former foster youth prefer scattered What can be done? housing when they exit Cities and counties can help address this critical need by: care. This model a) Ensuring that there are a variety of affordable and allows youth to be safe housing options and choices for youth aging out integrated into the of care. larger community and b) Establishing policies to give priority for emancipated rovides a high level p foster youth in subsidized housing. of independence.Ñ c) Requiring housing agencies to leverage THP Plus Transitional Housing and Proposition 1-C funds and Michele Byrnes EPSDT funds. (See glossary for definitions) Project Manager d) Be aware of the number of youth who emancipate John Burton Foundation each year in your community their demographics and individual needs. 3 Pew Charitable Trusts (2007) Time for Reform: Aging Out and On Their Own More Teens Leavin Foster Care Without a Permanent Famil. ,gy 2.Education Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 7 Youth in foster care often have difficulty accumulating credits for high school graduation. Changes in placement mean changes in schools. Often credits from one district and/or school do not match those of another. Sometimes youth are not in a school long enough to complete a course. Other times the education they receive in a group home does not meet state standards. Although law requires the expedient transfer of student record, it frequently takes weeks or months for school records to be transferred from one district to the next. County offices of education have foster youth liaisons, as do some schools and districts. ÐIt is important to Their job is to ensure the educational needs of foster enforce existing laws youth are met. However, at the school level this is a like AB 490. If a youth duty added to many others held by a teacher or other is placed from one staff member and the time is insufficient for them to be county to another, it is fully attentive to the needs of foster youth. important for the new county and the new AB 490, passed in 2004, is intended to improve public school to be notified school procedures so that foster youth have a better and records chance to succeed in school. The bill intends to transferred quickly.Ñ minimize the need for youth changing schools unnecessarily, requires that partial credits be given for Tad Kitada work completed and that school records be transferred Director Integrated Services between schools within 2 days. The bill also requires Placer County Office of Education designation of a foster youth education liaison in each district. Unfortunately, its implementation is uneven across the state. What can be done? Schools, cities and counties can improve educational outcomes for foster youth when they: a) Comply with quality implementation of AB 490 b) Provide supplemental supportive services to foster youth. c) Coach guardians and youth on meeting high school graduation requirements, college admissions requirements and on available resources including outreach and recruitment of foster youth into AVID programs. (See glossary for definition) d) Cross train child welfare and school administrators and teachers on what information can be shared and what should remain confidential. e) Partner with institutions of higher learning to supply Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 8 mentoring/tutoring to foster youth. Consider programs such as the Guardian Scholars Program, which helps with financial aid, tutoring, preferential registration, and year-round housing. f) Give foster youth priority for enrichment and other programs. g) Ensure that non-public schools serving foster youth meet state and district educational standards. 3. Employment Many foster youth are not prepared for the world of work when they leave foster care. They may not have had opportunities to develop employable skills or to have experience in a job. Foster youth typically earn far less than their non-foster peers. What can be done? There is a role for both cities and counties in addressing the employment needs of foster youth. They should ensure foster youth have meaningful employment and job skills training opportunities before aging-out of the system by: ÐEvery young person a) Develop programs with local businesses, cities, emancipating counties and school districts and higher education to needs to have work hire foster youth. experience. We b) Train and provide incentives for youth in meeting need to put it into job expectations, such as being on time and law.Ñ appropriately dressed. Steve Trippe c) Link Workforce Investment Act programs, high schools Executive Director and community colleges with Independent Living New Ways to Work Programs to coordinate outreach, recruitment and support of foster youth in career technical education and employment pathways d) Provide paid internships in city and county departments e) Make workforce development services youth friendly. , . Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 9 4. Mental & Behavioral Health One day when I got in an argument with my aunt, I grabbed my pills for depression and took off running to the park. I didnÓt feel like being alive no more so I took 4 15-20 of them.Ñ Joel M, former foster youth Seventy-five percent of children are in foster care due to their 5 parentsÓ substance abuse. Children in these families frequently ,6 suffer serious emotional and behavioral problems, and they themselves will frequently exhibit a tendency to choose risky 7 behavior, including the use of alcohol or other drugs later in life. Domestic violence is a Ð Youth in foster care have higher rates of mental health issues than big issue for these youth. other youth. Substance abuse is common. They need help in They need help to learning to identify their behavior and in thinking as an adult before they leave the system. understand what a healthy relationship is.Ñ What can be done? Sam Cobbs Executive Director a) Allocate mental & behavioral health resources for foster First Place for Youth youth in care as well as post-emancipation. b) Address addiction issues. c) Offer services to youth in after-school hours. Fully utilize EPSDT funds ( d) the child health component of Medicaid, the primary source of mental health services funding for former foster youth under the age of 21.) 4 M, Joel. (2006) ÐMy Second ChanceÑ L. A. Youth, www.LAYouth.org 5 Young, N.K., Gardner, S.L., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: CWLA Press. 6 Connect for Kids (1999) ÐThe Impact of Substance Abuse on Foster CareÑ downloaded from www.connectforkids.org 7 ibid Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 10 Î 5. Permanency Regina Louise Ollison former foster youth and 8 author of points out that you are never too old to be adopted. She herself was finally adopted at age 41. All foster youth who emancipate need to be ÐsomebodyÓs someoneÑ. When foster youth were asked what permanency meant to them they said things like: someone to share special occasions and issues with, your picture on someoneÓs refrigerator, your side of the church is full at your wedding, someone to call when good LA Youth Photo things happen, or someone who will not let you not call. What Can Be Done? a) Adopt the permanency pledge (See www.cpyp.org) and utilize school, city and county communications to help families understand opportunities for providing permanency. b) Develop programs, such as FosterClubÓs Permanency Pact that creates a formalized ÐEvery county should facilitated process to connect youth in foster have and use some care with a supportive adult. version of family- finding software.Ñ c) Utilize kinship databases and connect foster youth to living relatives. Develop procedures Karen Grace-Kaho and train county child welfare staff in use of the California State Ombudsman software and in the procedures. for Foster Youth 8 Ollison, Regina Louise. . New York: Warner Books, New York, 2003 Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 11 Roadmap to Action 1. Learn about the issue Talk to foster youth and their adult advocates. Learn about your city, district and countyÓs emancipating youth. How many are there? What services are being provided? How are schools tracking them? 2. Address the issue collaboratively. Learn and plan across jurisdictions, departments, agencies and sectors. Invite business, service, faith-based, youth-led, and community- based organizations to help diagnose and address the situation for foster youth aging out of the system in your community. Include foster youth and former foster youth in designing and assessing the effectiveness of programs. This may include a stipend and help with transportation. Develop shared measures of success, such as high school graduation, completion of California State University admission requirements, workforce readiness, and a permanent home. Investigate and build upon lessons from islands of excellence, such as lessons from California Connected by 25 Initiative, New Ways to Work, community planning models, ombudsman models, interagency and intergenerational models like San Pasqual Academy, internship programs, and data sharing models. Link agencies and systems Cross-train across agencies, programs. - Link Workforce Investment Act programs with Independent Living Programs. - Identify and address data sharing barriers. - Identify and address policy barriers. Build public awareness. - Utilize your communications staff to share promising stories and build new partnerships. - Plan to celebrate the National Foster Care Month in May. - Pass a resolution to address the needs of emancipating youth (See Appendix C for a sample resolution) Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 12 3. Proactively Train Care Givers and Youth Information and Referral. Develop mechanisms for all foster youth and their guardians to become aware of existing and local supportive services such as THP-Plus, California Youth Connection (www.calyouthconn.org), Independent Living Skills Program (ILP), Chaffee Vouchers, Medi-Cal to age 21, www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov, 211 systems and others. (See glossary) Care Giver Support. Explore peer-support models for caregivers. Outreach to kinship care providers who often are unaware of available resources. Coach guardians and youth on meeting high school graduation and college admissions requirements and on available resources. 4. Uphold Existing Law Utilize kinship databases to identify relatives of children in child welfare. Ensure all schools understand and implement AB 490, which allows foster youth to be immediately enrolled in a school without cumulative files and medical records, and requires partial credit for course work completed. Ensure all your foster youth have educational passports Îrecords of where they have gone to school, credits accumulated, grades, etc. Ensure all group homes are teaching to state educational standards. Islands of Excellence Initiatives like Transition Action Teams and the continual efforts of are addressing the issues of foster youth and emancipating foster youth in particular. They provide funds for technical assistance and networks of support to communities who are working to address the needs of this population. Following are some examples of what local jurisdictions are doing for and with emancipating foster youth. They can serve as guides for those who wish to begin or expand their own efforts. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 13 Alameda County The county provides housing through , and to address the housing needs of emancipated foster youth. The County is also funding a new that will provide supervised housing and supporting services for emancipated youth. Alameda County has made strides in addressing permanency. According to Chet Hewitt, former Director of Social Services, 1,600 children have been adopted in the county in the past 5 years and the rolls of foster youth have been reduced from 5,000 to 2,600 in that same time period. Family finding software is used to locate family members as potential foster care providers or who may be able to act as permanent sources of support and connection. Project Hope is a collaborative effort to increase employability and education of transitioning foster youth. This is a joint effort of the Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services, Alameda County Workforce Investment Board and the City of Oakland Workforce Investment Board. The project sets aside federal Workforce Investment Act formula funds for aging out and former foster youth, and links the youth to numerous providers and one- stops. Independent Living and mental health counseling are provided through a U.S. Department of Labor grant. The county created a liaison position to serve as a ÐtranslatorÑ between the foster care world and employment and training programs. Mental health services are provided under the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSTD) child health component of Medicaid. Placer County Placer County addresses the needs of emancipating foster youth as well as all children in the child welfare system through an integrated services approach. Teams of workers from education, mental health, probation, and child welfare share caseloads. The most challenging cases are handled by the SMART team composed of the highest-level managers in the partnering systems. The system promotes academic achievement through tutoring, mentoring, counseling and enrichment programs. Tutors go to the youth and follow them from placement to placement to ensure continual support in reaching high school graduation. The county has developed a shared data system through its integrated team approach. This supports timely transfer of records between systems, between schools and to foster families. By assigning education specialists to integrated teams and paying them for 20% of their time from child welfare, all team Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 14 members have access to the California Welfare System/Case Management System. is a vocational services program that has historically served youth on path to homelessness and those with significant barriers to employment. It is limited to 25 youth due to financial restriction. PRIDE Industries, a private non- profit that helps disabled youth find and retain employment, expanded its services to include jail and probation populations. PRIDE provides job coaching and employment. Admission criteria for foster youth is based an Individual Educational Plan (IEP). San Diego County San Pasqual Academy is the first residential academy in the country to serve only foster youth. The academy is a collaboration between San Diego County, the County Office of Education and non-profit providers. The Academy campus is comprised of a school, residences and acreage. High school-aged foster youth and their siblings as young as 12 are residents. The school meets A-G (college entrance) graduation requirements, offers remedial support and offers a variety of arts and enrichment programs to expand skills. There is also career planning on site as well as medical care. Youth live in residences of 8 with house parents. There are 19 additional houses located on the property. These houses accommodate transitioning youth for up to three years after high school graduation. Senior citizens, who receive discounted rent in exchange for providing expertise and support to the youth, occupy some of these houses. Some staff members live in the remaining homes. The Academy creates learning environments that focus the youth on furthering their education and increasing their independent living and vocational skills to prepare them for emancipation. Through a private foundation, any youth qualified for college receives full financial support. The San Diego County Office of Education and California State University San Marcos have developed a collaborative to better prepare future teachers for working with foster youth. Student teachers from the university serve as mentors/tutors for foster youth Santa Clara County and Tulare County Both Santa Clara County and Tulare County have established employment programs for emancipating foster youth. Santa Clara CountyÓs provides entry-level job opportunities to untrained; economically disadvantaged emancipated foster youth who are transitioning out of the system. Between 130 and 150 youth "age out" of foster care in the county each year at age 18 and are at risk of poverty, homelessness and being placed in institutions. In the past, the county had limited job opportunities for these youth. Three county departments developed a pilot employment program for the youth to be trained for paid temporary assignments. The program has now been expanded to include more Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 15 than 500 alternately staffed entry-level positions. To date, 30 emancipated foster youth have been hired into temporary positions and 10 have been hired into permanent positions with the county. Tulare CountyÓs was established to provide at-risk youth with an opportunity for real work experience and a career path leading to self-sufficiency and lifelong success. The program provides jobs with Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency for selected youth - a match that benefits both youth and an agency that traditionally had difficulty keeping all of its positions filled. Each participant is provided an assigned mentor, opportunities for training and preparation for various civilservice examinations. Through participation in this program, young people are finding a confidence and independence they have not previously known. In addition, the salaries paid to them have provided needed income and positioned them on the road to becoming self-sufficient. The City of Fremont The City of Fremont has blended three types of funds to provide transitional housing for older foster youth. These include Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) social services grants, Ðtenant-based rental assistanceÑ funds (TBRA) from the federal Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentÓs (HUD) HOME program, and city general funds. Fremont and the neighboring city of Livermore are using these funds to support Project Independence of the nonprofit Tri-City Homeless Coalition. Project Independence provides rent subsidies and case management for up to three years for transitioning foster youth. City support for Project Independence began in 2002 with $151,000 in TBRA and by 2006 had grown to $207,000 to assist a minimum of 15 participants for up to 36 months. Fremont has also helped support the Rotary Bridgeway apartment complex, which includes eight units set aside for transitioning foster youth. The City of Oakland uses funds from Measure Y, a local voter-approved tax initiative to address several transition issues, with greatest emphasis on housing and employment. The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) addresses employment, access to safe and affordable housing, and healthy choices. The Oakland Youth Council gives priority to youth in transition for employment and training programs. The cityÓs workforce board applied successfully for a special US Department of Labor grant to meet employment, housing, and other support needs of youth in transition. The cityÓs Community & Economic Development Agency channels some CDBG funds to supportive or transitional housing for transitioning foster youth. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 16 San Francisco The City of San Francisco created a mayor-appointed Transitional Youth Task Force which has made the following recommendations: Put mayoral support behind developmentally-appropriate policies for o transitional-age youth (TAY) Create an inter-agency council to improve service delivery quality o Increase system capacity via four community-based centers for TAY and o other issue-specific programs. A team from San FranciscoÓs Human Services Agency and Department of Public Health meet monthly with the foster youth liaison from San Francisco Unified School District and interested community based organizations. Meetings focus on improving the education of foster youth. The city has found ways to finance transition age youth services: Blend funding from the Human Services Agency and the city general fund o for support services; Use Section 8 vouchers to support occupancy of 24 transitional housing o units; Channel state housing funds to programs for transitioning foster youth; o and Provide training and employment for transitioning foster youth through o community based organizations with ChildrenÓs Fund allocations by the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families. California Connected by 25 Initiative (CC25I) is focused on building an integrated comprehensive continuum of services across systems to support positive youth development and successful foster youth transitions to adulthood. It is part of the larger Annie E. Casey Family to Family Initiative and is funded by five foundations. Five counties participate: Fresno, Orange, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Stanislaus. Humboldt County is completing its self evaluation and will join the initiative in fall 2007. The initiative focuses on foster youth 14 to 24 years old. Each county conducts a self evaluation and develops an individual plan that addresses: K-12 education; employment/job training/postsecondary education; housing; independent living skills; financial literacy; savings and asset development; personal/social asset development; and permanency. New Ways to Work The Youth Transition Action Team Initiative (YTAT) is a grant-funded effort to bring together the resources of the workforce, education, and child welfare systems to better prepare adolescents who are current or former foster youth to achieve economic, educational, and employment success as they transition into the adult world. The strategy is designed to support counties statewide in meeting their systems improvement objectives. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 17 The project: Provides coaching, training, and cross-initiative networking - Works with 13 Counties: Glen, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Orange, Placer, - Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Tehama, Tulare and Ventura. Supports collaboration across agencies (child welfare, education, workforce - development, juvenile justice) and with youth and community leaders to assess community resources, develop plans, and assist county child welfare in youth permanency. Focuses on high school graduation and completion of California State - University admission standards, workforce readiness, employment, and support networks. - Conclusion California is waking up to the issues faced by emancipating foster youth and the need to extend services and care beyond 18 years. Over 30 pieces of legislation related to foster care were submitted to the Assembly and Senate in 2007. These along with the 35 pieces of legislation passed since 2000 show a commitment by the state to attend to foster children. While many of these bills were not specific to the emancipating youth population, all would have an impact as children move through the system. State legislation is important but it is at the local level that programs and support occur. This report presents the challenges faced by emancipating foster youth and suggests ways for cities, counties and schools to take action to improve outcomes for this population. Repeatedly as the task force met and discussed the plight of emancipating foster youth, three things were clear 1) the outcomes for children reared in a public system are largely negative; 2) in a state of over 37 million people with the ninth largest economy in the world, we ought to be able to provide for the needs of 4,000+ emancipating foster youth each year; and 3) collaboration and coordination across jurisdiction provides the strongest possibility of being able to meet these needs. Cities, counties and school districts can and should make a difference for emancipating foster youth. Local government and schools can work together to help shepard foster teens into successful adulthood. Doing this will be a service to foster youth and to society as a whole. Cities, counties and schools can work collectively and comprehensively to overcome the piecemeal nature of supports now available to emancipating youth. Where else can such an impact be made for so specific and vulnerable a population? By working immediately and directly to assist the 4,000 youth who age out of the system in California each year, local jurisdictions can reduce homelessness, crime, and incarceration. There is the very real possibility to create employment, healthy relationships and productive citizens. We can do better. It is time to act. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 18 Glossary 211 Î Since 1993 many communities have joined the national 2-1-1 initiative to use these three digits as a quick, easy-to-remember telephone number for finding human services answers. AB 490 Î California legislation providing educational rights for children in foster care and responsibilities of local educational agencies and placement agencies. AVID - Advancement Via Individual Determination is an educational program designed to help underachieving middle and high school students prepare for and succeed in colleges and universities. Chafee Vouchers - The Chafee Educational and Training Voucher Program (ETV) provides resources specifically to meet the education and training needs of youth aging out of foster care. This federally funded program makes vouchers of up to $5,000 per fiscal year available to eligible youth attending post secondary educational and vocational programs. Educational Passport - The passport is a document that contains a student's credentials from the educational world. The passport is the student's personal property that can be used in moves from high school to college, from college to college, from school to job, from job to school, and so on. EPSDT, Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program is the child health component of Medicaid, the primary source of mental health services funding for former foster youth under the age of 21. ILP or Independent Living Program - A federally funded program administered through counties which provide services to foster youth age 14 or 16 and over to prepare for adulthood. The program provides classes in life skills, vocational training, and equipment needed for job training. Also provides funds for college scholarships, skills training, and rent assistance. See how Contra Costa County describes their program www.cocoilsp.org/home.html . Kinship Care Î placements with family members other than parents. Although kinship care is one of the oldest human traditions, it was not formally recognized as a legitimate placement option for children in foster care until the passage of the federal welfare reform in 1996 and the 2 Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997. Permanency is both a process and a result that includes involvement of the youth as a participant or leader in finding a permanent connection with at least one committed adult who provides: a safe, stable and secure parenting relationship; love; unconditional commitment; lifelong support in the context of reunification, a legal adoption, or guardianship, where possible, and in which the youth has the opportunity to maintain contacts with important persons including brothers & sisters. A broad array of individualized permanency options exist; reunification and adoption are an important two among many that may be appropriate. (Definition from California Permanency for Youth Project.) 7 Davis, Ryan L. (2006) College Access, Financial Aid and College Success for Undergraduates from Foster Care. NAFSA, www.nasfaa.org/Subhomes/ResearchHome/NASFAAFosterCare%20Report.Pdf Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 19 Scattered Site Housing Î Housing units scattered throughout the community designated for young people. Transitional Housing Placement Programs (THPP) are for former foster youth ages 16 to 19. These programs are funded through the CDSS and licensed through community care licensing. They may be communal living or scattered site models. THP-Plus or Transitional Housing Placement Î Plus - A housing program for 18-24 year olds. THP-Plus is administered by the California Department of Social Services, and has been found to help foster youth achieve stable housing, living wage employment and higher education. Current demand exceeds availability. Counties typically contract with non-profit service providers and gets reimbursement with standard rate $1800-2200/mo/youth. No reimbursement of county administrative costs for county, but non-profit gets administration covered. Resources & Organizations California Youth Connection (CYC) promotes the participation of foster youth in policy development and legislative change to improve the foster care system. The California Youth Connection is guided, focused and driven by current and former foster youth with the assistance of other committed community members. Visit their website for current policy proposals at www.CalYouthConn.org Casey Family Programs is a national operating foundation that has served children, youth, and families in the child welfare system since 1966. Its mission is to provide and improveÏand ultimately to prevent the need forÏfoster care. www.casey.org Child Welfare League of America is an association of nearly 800 public and private nonprofit agencies that assist more than 3.5 million abused and neglected children and their families each year with a range of services. www.cwla.org California Connected by 25 Initiative (CC25I) is a collaborative effort of five foundations assisting public child welfare agencies and their communities to build comprehensive transition- aged foster youth supports and services for youth 14 through 24. It is currently working in Fresno, Orange, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Stanislaus Counties. www.f2f.ca.gov/California25.htm The California Permanency for Youth Project (CPYP), a project of the Public Health Institute, offers many resources on permanency. http://www.cpyp.org Family to Family The Family to Family (F2F) Initiative was developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1992 to address the growing challenges in the nation's child welfare system. Within California, twenty-five counties representing almost ninety percent of the children in foster care have implemented this Initiative. www.f2f.ca.gov FosterClub FosterClub is a national network for young people in foster care. www.fosterclub.org HEY (Honoring Emancipated Youth) strengthens and connects San FranciscoÓs systems of support for Bay Area foster care youth so that all youth emancipating or aging out of the foster care system can enjoy a healthy transition to adulthood. www.heysf.org Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 20 L. A. Youth is an online newspaper with monthly articles for and by foster youth. www.LAYouth.com John Burton Foundation for Children without Homes currently has several initiatives focused on helping California counties connect foster youth to housing and social security benefits. The Foundation also researches policy options. www.johnburtonfoundation.org. National Foster Care Month is a national campaign to promote greater awareness of foster youth. It is in May. www.FosterCareMonth.org National Center for Youth Law seeks to protect abused and neglected children, expand health care and other public benefits for youth, and improve child support collection. www.youthlaw.org New Ways to Work helps communities prepare youth for success as adults. www.nww.org References ChildrenÓs Advocacy Institute. (2007) University of San Diego School of Law. Chipungu, S. S and Bent-Goodley TB. (2004) ÐMeeting Challenges of Contemporary Foster Care. , 14(1),75-93. Davis, Ryan L. (2006) . National Association of School Financial Aid www.nasfaa.org/Subhomes/ResearchHome/NASFAAFosterCare%20Report.Pdf Lenz-Rashid, Sonja. (2006) Bay Area Social Services Consortium. http://ylc.org/FINALAgingOutofFosterCare.pdf Pew Charitable Trusts. (2007) www.PewTrusts.org Photo Credits Cover http://www.charityworksdc.org/partners/orphans.php Page 5 http://www.fosteringsuccess.org Page 11 http://www.foseryouthsrvices.fcoe.net Page 13 http://www.layouth.com Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 21 Education of Foster Youth Legislative Analyst’s Office in California O LA www.lao.ca.gov eps to address the unique educational longer safe with their biological needs of foster youth, academic outcomes for these children continue to O parents and removes them from the home, the state assumes ultimate At any given time, there are approximately 73,000 children considered The state’s objective is to find permanent placements for these “foster LA youth”as soon as safely possible. Until that happens, the state is responsible for their custody and care, including their education. Are the State’s Responsibility Introduction—Foster Youth When a court determines children are no dependents of the state of California. While California has taken several st responsibility for their well-being. lag behind those of their peers. 2 ons for how the state could improve Identification of shortcomings with existing programs and services and recommendations for ways the Description of educational programs and O Introduction to California’s foster youth, their unique state might improve educational opportunities for the state’s foster nal outcomes and opportunities for LA its services. The presentation is organized into three sections:educational challenges, and their academic performance. services currently available to foster youth in the state. Overview of Presentation foster youth and makes recommendati III.Issues and Recommendations. This presentation looks at educatio II.Educational Resources. I.Background. youth. 3 rnia are under the age of five. The rest O ial placements one to two times per from every racial group,and from all care system for LA an approved relative (“kinship”) or from the home varies, from severe At any given time, California supports approximately 73,000 foster nearly 20 percent—of the nation’s total foster youth population. children. This represents a disproportionately high percentage— more frequently, while children I. Background on Foster Youth in California main in the foster to change less frequently. group or foster home. •On average, foster youth change resident year. Older children and children who re •One-quarter of the foster youth in Califo physical or emotional abuse to neglect. •There are foster youth in every county, •A court’s reason for removing a child •The court may place foster youth with several years tend to change even socioeconomic backgrounds. Foster Youth Characteristics guardian, or in a licensed placed with relatives tend Foster Placements are school-age. 4 status is terminated if the which he/she was O us (typically at age 18). The child has found a home situation the court considers ined that health and safety risks The majority of foster youth are in the state’s care for less than four years but some will be dependents of the state from birth to age18. Foster youth remain in the care of the dependency system until the LA I. Background on Foster Youth in California (cont.) child becomes a ward of the state’s criminal justice system. ned to the home from The child has achieved adult stat In some counties a child’s foster court determines one of the following applies: removed because the court has determ Length of Time in the Foster System The child is retur have been resolved. Reunification. Emancipation. Permanency.Delinquency. permanent. •••• 5 for each foster child to track health and academic In assuming custody of a foster youth, the state also takes responsibility responsibility with the biological parent, even if the child is placed in a O what special services the school can and should provide to the child) (including, but not limited to, which school he or she will attend and LA for his or her education. Current law requires that two individuals be records including (but not limited to) school placements, courses unless the judge assigns an health and In many cases judges leave this right to make educational decisions for a foster child Background—Educational Responsibilities are responsible for maintaining a tasked with monitoring the child’s education. biological parent completed, and school credits. . In a Foster Youth Case Education Representative separate living situation. education passport remains with the Social workers •The 6 • related activities can lead inherent barriers to academic success , which are further academically each time school resources (such as help with rds and credits. Research shows that sed by inconsistent attendance and issues can distract from academics. O ears can impede development of school LA Foster youth face challenges in their personal lives that impacttheir transportation for group projects). Unique Challenges for Foster Youth to changes in schools living placements, or court- ll four to six months behind •Inadequate adult support and limited out-of- •Emotional, physical, and/or psychological complicated by problems transferring reco •Changes in living placements often lead Foster youth often arrive at school with Academic success is further compromi homework, access to the internet, or and lacking academic resources. •Parental neglect in the formative y •Parental neglect, changes to on average foster students fa Background— to high absence rates. they transfer schools. school transfers. readiness skills. education. 7 •Earn lower grades, achieve lower test scores, and perform below grade performance than their peers. Specifically, they are more likelythan their ster youth display lower academic O Specific data on the academic performance of foster youth is shown on LA eeism and disciplinary problems. ster Youth in California •Drop out of high school before graduation. •Qualify for special education services. Because of their unique challenges, fo Educational Outcomes of Fo •Display higher rates of absent •Fail to complete college. •Be retained a grade. the subsequent slides. Background— peers to: level. 8 youth perform below grade level standards, and by third grade 83percent general foster youth score far below O foster youth in California. As shown in the figures, 75 percent of foster Recent studies have shown similarly poor academic performance for LA s on state standardized tests. K-12 Academic Performance California’s K-12 Foster Youth of foster youth have had to repeat a grade. National studies have found that in (15-20 percentile points) their peer Background— 9 While K-12 completion rates are low across California, O complete the K-12 system. Only 30 percent of foster LA foster youth are even less likely than their peers to K-12 Completion Rates Background— youth graduate. 10 O percentages unemployed, incarcerated, and/or homeless poor post-secondary outcomes for foster youth, with high Weak K-12 performance and high drop out rates result in LA emancipated foster youth ever earn a college degree. within four years of emancipation. Only 3 percent of Outcomes of Emancipated Foster Youth Post-Emancipation Outcomes Background— 11 O designed to help improve their academic outcomes. LA Because foster youth face significant educational protections, programs, and services specifically challenges, the state has developed several •Foster Youth Services (FYS) programs. •Foster youth rights (Assembly Bill 490). II. Educational Resources for California’s Foster Youth •Higher education programs. •Other support programs. 12 he same resources available to all pupils s to anotherschool zone. mediately without waiting for otherwise- ademic year in the same school even if O a key factor in improving ature enacted AB 490 (Steinberg). The erve educational stability and continuity for youth liaison to ensure compliance with foster youth who have changed schools for work completed by foster youthwhile at a LA nts mean the student move ing that school stability is Foster Youth Rights (AB 490) Educational Resources— •Schools enroll entering foster students im •Schools provide foster youth access to t educational outcomes, in 2003 the Legisl •Foster youth be allowed to finish an ac •Each school district employ a foster •Schools transfer school records for (such as extracurricular activities). objective of this legislation is to pres •Schools accept school credits within two days of a request. changes in living arrangeme Specifically, AB 490 requires: In response to research show highly mobile foster youth. AB 490 requirements. required paperwork. previous school. 13 One of the primary ways the state supports foster youth in the K-12 system All but one of the state’s 58 county offices of is through FYS programs, which provide supplemental services with the grants from the California Department These programs are dedicated to O Originally FYS was piloted via grants to school Under current law, FYS programs may only serve foster youth living in LA licensed group or foster homes, not those the court has placed with districts and these pilot programs remain in existence today. objective of improving educational outcomes for foster youth. supporting foster youth in juvenile detention. Educational Resources— 28 Juvenile Detention Programs. of Education to run FYS programs. Local entities receive competitive education run FYS programs. 57 Countywide Programs. FYS Programs 6 District Programs. relatives or guardians. 14 ••• and guide the education Some FYS programs offer activities (such as karate districts) and outside stakeholders student to another youth have access to tutoring, ion in college preparation activities). O n passports and making sure school ho cannot participate in school activities example by checking students’attendance, Some FYS programs assist the social que mix of service offerings but each LA liaisons between the children’s Foster Youth Services Program Offerings or by referring the Some FYS programs monitor All FYS programs must ensure foster academic stakeholders (teachers and school (foster parents, social workers, and courts). either by providing the service themselves completion of school work, and participat In some cases FYS staff serve as worker in completing students’educatio provides one or more of the following. Each FYS program may determine its uni Educational Resources— Track Credits and School History. or music courses) for foster youth w of foster youth in their area (for because of frequent moves. Extracurricular Activities. Educational Monitoring. records are up to date. Tutoring. provider. Other. 15 Some state college campuses have Available on many CCC and California several programs to help them gain acceptance to, pay for, and complete The CCCs This program the University of California at Santa Cruz allows former foster youth to stay in student housing year-round, rather than having to move out for State University campuses, these programs offer housing, tuition, and designed local programs to support former foster youth. For example, O the K-12 system, the state supports offers up to $5,000 per year to former foster youth under age 22for LA California Community College (CCC)Tuition Assistance. Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers Program. provide virtually free tuition to former foster youth. Educational Resources— academic support to former foster youth. Other Campus-Specific Supports. Once foster youth have completed Guardian Scholars Programs. college. Such resources include: Higher Education post-secondary training. the summer. 16 •••• O also funds two support services that help foster youth In addition to academic-centered programs, the state Services maintains a Web site and help line that assists necessary to find housing, manage finances, and run a The Department of Social These county-based LA foster youth in learning about and accessing needed programs serve youth ages 16-21 by teaching skills Educational Resources— Independent Living Programs. access educational resources. Foster Care Ombudsman. Support Programs programs and services. household. 17 •• including mental health counseling, behavioral including counseling services and the ss the services available to all public ique educational challenges,foster O including daycare and school readiness classes. including after school lessons and homework assistance. LA including financial aid and college including specialized instruction and speech onately high need for the following including court schools, juvenile halls, and Access to Mainstream Programs and Services assistance programs offered to low-income students. Advancement Via Individual Determination program. interventions, and other individualized services. Foster youth are also eligible to acce school students. Because of their un College preparation assistance Educational Resources— youth tend to have a disproporti Higher education resources Special needs services Alternative schools alternative schools. Special Education Pre-Kindergarten Tutoring therapy. services. 18 ••••••• educational opportunities for foster youth through better implementation of Despite additional state programs and resources, foster youth continue to In the subsequent slides we describe some of these issues in more detail FYS program prevent many foster youth ct access to education for both K-12 O continued shortcomings and inefficiencies with existing programsand ack dedicated educational monitoring. LA and offer recommendations for how the Legislature could improve display poor educational outcomes. This could be partially due to h multiple providers leads to the FYS program and expanded transportation services. III. Issues With Existing Programs and Recommendations for Improvements from accessing needed support services. 4.Transportation funding issues restri inefficiencies and gaps in services. and post-secondary foster youth. 3.Running the FYS program throug 2.Participation restrictions for the services. Specifically, we find that: 1.Many foster youth continue to l 19 existing resources. Specifically, we believe the state and localprograms as the overarching goal behind all expenditure decisions. O be cost-neutral. While the state the way existing funds are spent in order to improve in making transportation may choose to invest additional dollars in the FYS program at some are key drivers of academic success and are, therefore, worthy of LA improving educational point, we envision improvements in FYS programs by reallocating recommendations that follow, we kept these principles in mind: Reprioritize to Make Improvements educational opportunities for foster youth. In formulating the flexibility and , •Local FYS programs should continue to have educational stability specific implementation decisions, with Our recommendations are intended to Recommendations— , Academic monitoring higher prioritization. reprioritize outcomes must 20 • s, educational representatives, social O aff. However, because health and safety be historical records for Because of progress. In many cases, and advise their educational h do not have placements, and other basic LA overseeing foster youth’s education, Specifically, the dedicated educational monitoring. foster cases, in many cases explicit which social workers and other cluding advice on class Social workers are Foster Youth Lack Dedicated Educational Monitoring th transfer-related issues. cational guidance. cases foster yout ess is overlooked. documents. These are supposed to track the students’educational e incomplete or inaccurate. focused on helping monitor need supplemental support in l credits, school and class h and safety issues, in many to provide edu ng credits, and dealing wi ransfers, as well as a means by including judges, biological and foster parent not well maintained. attention to a student’s educational progr workers, teachers, and FYS program st There are many individuals involved in issues are often of primary concern in Many foster youth continue to lack Many foster youth lack an individual Many education passports ar stakeholders can monitor and access to individuals who are responsible for tracking schoo progress. Many foster youth information in these official frequent moves and healt selection, help with missi following are often true: however, these data are facilitating school t Issue 1— 21 •• red to offer tutoring but ded to the Child Welfare Services (CWS) agency in To improve completion rates and accuracy we recommend tasking FYS with providing the most high-need foster as a condition of receiving grant ument for foster youth on of thelocal program. We ensure foster youth receive adequate and consistent educational guidance quire local data sharing arrangements ilities of county FYS programs to O sibility for every FYS t in a relative or guardian placement. gathered during LA tor Foster Youth Education Currently, FYS programs are requi complete this tracking doc e. This data can be r the following services for be an explicit respon youth are at the discreti between CWS, school districts, and FYS programs. Specifically, we recommend that We recommend expanding the responsib of educational records for foster youth, Completion of Education Passports.a manner approved locally. This may re program for all foster youth who are no living in a group or licensed foster hom Require FYS Programs to Moni recommend academic counseling the academic details needed to academic counseling and provi any other services for foster funding, all FYS programs offe Academic Counseling. Recommendations— and monitoring. youth. 22 •• milarly poor outcomes permanent placement O Currently, FYS programs may only academicchallenges assumed their relatives or guardian licensed foster homes. Foster youth S program prevent some foster youth LA they are placed with a relative or FYS Program Restrictions Limit Foster Youth Participation these students display si t. However, the or who attain a from accessing needed support services. are not viewed as “high-need”because it iscaregivers can provide any needed suppor offer services to students living in group or who are placed with relatives or guardians these youth face do not disappear when Participation restrictions for the FY permanent guardian and many of as other foster youth. Issue 2— 23 All current and recent foster youth rrals) to students who are placed with lines so they can providelimited tary educational assistance.Specifically, for the most high-need foster youth—those fer tutoring and short-term assistance who may have placed out of the foster O g and tracking of school LA Modify Eligibility Restrictions for Foster Youth Programs those classified as delinquents. such as academic counselin services to all current and recent foster youth. We recommend changing FYS program guide (such as answering questions and making refe we recommend FYS programs be able to of would benefit from some level of supplemen relatives or guardians as well as students records, should continue to be reserved living in group or licensed homes and system within the past five years. Recommendation— More intensive services, 24 •Unnecessary duplication of paperwork and transferring of responsibilities, county offices of education (COEs) and these programs serve the majority operate from school districts (6) or are exclusively targeted atfoster youth Running multiple types of FYS programs leads to inefficiencies and in the delinquency system (28). Consequently, in several counties there monitoring educational records and progress, especially when exiting O social workers, foster parents) of foster youth. However, a limited number of additional FYS programs Currently, most FYS programs (57) are run through •Gaps in services for “delinquent”foster youth. Lack of clarity who is are multiple FYS programs in operation. Several problems can result. LA and loss of relationships when foster youth move within a county. creases Quality of Services regarding which FYS program is serving which foster youth. •Confusion for stakeholders (teachers, Inefficient FYS Structure De delinquency system. gaps in services. Issue 3— 25 responsibilities to the existing COE programs. This change wouldeliminate O services for all fosteryouth, Specifically, we recommend eliminating the separate district-run and LA of effort, streamline service We recommend consolidating FYS programs at the COE level. delinquency FYS program grants and shifting the funding and delivery, and help ensure consistency of Consolidate FYS Programs at COEs unnecessary confusion and duplication including delinquents. Recommendation— 26 ster students to stay at their “schools often that no entity will bear the cost, e resources and assistance enrolling in and completing college, as access to education for both K-12 and to both school and work emancipated foster youth O er schools in the middle of the year school year even when they change living ho bears the cost if this arrangement LA d funding stream to help provide upposed to protect against this. ool and school-related activities. Specifically: Transportation Issues Restrict Access to Education to reliably get themselves Foster youth often lack th ster youth. Current and •Although AB 490 protects the right of K-12 fo requires student transportation. The result is and many foster youth are forced to transf frequently cite this as a primary barrier to(to support themselves through school). Transportation funding issues restrict placements, the law does not clarify w •California currently has no designate despite the AB 490 laws that are s of origin”for the remainder of the they do not have the means transportation services for fo postsecondary foster youth. to help them get to sch Issue 4— 27 Specifically, we ster youth who are moved to a new for social workers to O while clarifying financial thin the same school attendance area. stricts, and FYS entities devise a and emancipated foster rrent and emancipated foster youth the Legislature, state LA We recommend the Legislature convene a workgroup to address the Develop Means for Foster Youth to Get to School school-related transportation needs. e year at their school of origin. tivities. The funding model should: transportation needs of K-12 and postsecondary foster youth. care transportation dollars. fers and create incentives rding mode of transportation at will improve current of representatives from departments, county CWS agencies, school di•Enable compliance with AB 490 and allow fo find new placements for foster youth wi •Provide transportation assistance to cu school attendance area to complete th •Address cross-county placements. •Discourage midyear school trans (ages 16-21) to assist them with •Maximize use of federal foster youth’s access to educational ac recommend a group consisting transportation funding model th Recommendation— •Allow local flexibility rega responsibility. 28 can provide certain services to all 1.Expand FYS program responsibilities to include academic counseling and their education. We O wing recommendations, the state can help 4.Convene a workgroup to address the transportation needs of K-12 and LA ularly with regard to es for these needy students. 2.Change FYS program guidelines so they 3.Consolidate FYS programs at COEs. Foster youth face many challenges, partic completion of education passports. current and recent foster youth. believe that by implementing the follo Recommendations— postsecondary foster youth. improve educational opportuniti Summary 29 O For more information about FYS programs in general, please see the For more information on any of the items in this presentation, please LA following link to the Department of Education: contact the Legislative Analyst’s Office: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/ Thank you Stefanie Fricano www.lao.ca.gov 916-319-8336 30 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ £ ¡¥¡¥ ¥ ¬£¦ ¦¥ ¥¬¥§¦¥ £¢¥¥ ¥ ¨© ¦£ § ¥¥ ¥ ¢¥ª¢¥ £¢£ ¦¥¥ {ƚƒĻƷŷźƓŭ͸ƭ DƚƷ Ʒƚ DźǝĻ CA Community College Report October 2010 What can we do to prepare college ready students? Remediation is essential in HS so less necessary in college ͻIĻƌƦźƓŭ ƷŷĻƭĻ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ ǞĻƌƌ ĬĻŅƚƩĻ ƷŷĻǤ ƌĻğǝĻ ŷźŭŷ ƭĭŷƚƚƌ ƭƚ ƷŷĻǤ ĭğƓ źƒƦƩƚǝĻ their math knowledge and assess into higher levels of these sequences Α and thus have a shorter path to college-level study with fewer opportunities for attrition Α would be of ŭƩĻğƷ ƭĻƩǝźĭĻ Ʒƚ ĬƚƷŷ ĭƚƌƌĻŭĻƭ ğƓķ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ͵ͼ p. 8 ͻ. . . despite other behaviors that are predictive of success for the group as a whole and all else equal, students who started at the lower levels were less likely to successfully complete college-level course in math and writing even when they stayed in the system ŅƚƩ ƒğƓǤ ǤĻğƩƭ͵ͼ P. 13 Math is the hardest hit area English composition second Early Assessment Program (EAP), available summer prior to senior year to students who have reached at least Algebra II by grade 11 Keys for Community College success, p. 11-12 Enroll full time during first year Begin remedial sequence immediately, do not stop midway Pass initial remedial course Α if danger of failing pile on educational supports here ͻ When students are struggling academically, they need additional support so that they can pass ƩĻƒĻķźğƌ ĭƌğƭƭĻƭ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ ŅźƩƭƷ ğƷƷĻƒƦƷ͵ͼ P. 22 Keep remedial sequence consistent Developmental education approaches, p. 14 Based on fine-ŭƩğźƓĻķ ğƭƭĻƭƭƒĻƓƷƭ ƚŅ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ͸ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷğƌ ƓĻĻķƭ Modularized instructional units Contextualized for students as far as possible Utilize technology IğǝĻ ğ ͷŷźŭŷ Ʒƚǒĭŷ͸ ĭƚƒƦƚƓĻƓƷ źƓ ƷŷĻ ŅƚƩƒ ƚŅ ĭƚğĭŷĻƭ ğƓķ ƒĻƓƷƚƩƭ USE Evidence Based Practice, what works?! P. 15 Support for student success needs to be explicit and pervasive Α ensure students stay engaged, receive assistance, and maintain a sense of forward progress toward their goals, p. 15 Four distinct approaches, p. 15 Learning communities, case management, study centers, summer bridge programs Milestones and on track indicators can give early warning signs students falling off-track, p. 18 Developmental students need better course taking guidance and stronger support systems to help reach their goals WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OUR TEMECULA KIDS Needs Assessment Results Α Highlighting two important areas: Quantitative results already reported, in December, qualitative interviews were begun, and initial interviews demonstrate community efforts to connect youth and caretakers to existing resources and help facilitate and navigate agency systems is welcome and needed. Placement Stability 64% of our youth have had 4-10 placements 17% have had 11-20 placements The majority of our youth are in the category described in a 2002 CA Child Welfare report: ! ЋЉЉЋ wĻƦƚƩƷ ƚƓ ŅƚƭƷĻƩ ǤƚǒƷŷ ƚǒƷĭƚƒĻƭ źƓ /ğƌźŅƚƩƓźğ ƓƚƷĻķͲ ͻŷĻ ĭƌĻğƩĻƭƷ ĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system who have had five or more placements were those who generally experienced the worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care.ͼ (Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley) Education Outcomes 45% have GPAs <2.0 41% have GPAs between 2-2.9 Many arrive in the district with strong academic needs, those needs are not identified upon arrival but take months to process. The needs are remedial, especially in math, and youth may not remain in our district long enough for us to have an impact. Many receive support while in TVUSD to graduate from HS, but are unprepared in a-g courses to enter 4-year universities, and unprepared for community college work, needed remediation in math and English to pass the Accuplacer assessment for placement in courses receiving college credit. Summary Services are underutilized by area foster youth. More outreach is needed to connect youth to what exists and to tailor services to their needs. The community can do much to supplement and enhance agency efforts. Indeed, budget cutbacks are creating an opportunity and demand for more community involvement at the same time best practices are calling for institutional change to foster more community involvement. Communities are well-suited and can be called on to build capacity in schools, recruit foster families to increase stability, provide volunteers to increase capacity in family finding, mentoring and educational rights holders, foster connections to job networks, enhance capacity of foster family agencies and other caretaker networks, and provide financial aid. Research and Best Practice Objectives Assumptions based on the last decade of academic research, including task forces and commissions, particularly the City, County, School Partnership Task Force at the state level (see reference list): educational stability leads to academic achievement, placement stability leads to emotional health, supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for transitional aged youth, access to transportation promotes opportunity, financial aid is necessary for post-high school training, presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. Complicating Factors out of county FFAs AND emancipation services Recommendations What can we do differently to create more placement stability, increase permanency, and improve academic skills for our foster youth? REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/ CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport.htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1- Youth in Care). Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, Independent Living, and Self- Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program. Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment of foster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Partners for our children, building a case for change. Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/ areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review , 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness- Based Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care in their middle twenties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review , 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment , 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long-Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107-124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982-2006, 62.05 state. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=16 APPENDIX 4 –CLIENT OUTCOME LOGIC MODEL FOR TRANSITION TEMECULA Assumptions:Intermediate Activities/ServicesResults better Outcomes emancipation Transcript review, Involvement in Team outcomes for counselor contact, Decision Making TAY can be youth information (TDM) meetings achieved through and case management College Increased community graduation from readiness Information and collaboration post HS programs Train all branches on referrals to caregivers and support impact of educational instabilityand college readiness Reduction in Tours of college campuses and homelessness, educational Designate FY high connection to incarceration, stability leads to school counselors guardian scholar academic programs and Increased achievement unemployment Connect to RCOE emotional Community College tutoring for TAY assessment and health remediation begun placement during senior HS year stability leads to Foster family emotional health Increased recruitment employment Secure and maintain Connect to THP+ supportive vital records housing services past the Increased access age of 18 to health and Fund and create ameliorate Priority placement welfare services Temecula area THP+ outcomes of summer jobs program housing joblessness, Increased mental homelessness Train all stakeholders Sheltered job and health access incarceration, and in AB12 provisions internship program substance abuse TAY who can for TAY Increased access achieve, Connect to to safe and secure compete, and emancipation services, housing access to bus passes thrive alongside transportation their peers, promotes Increased contributing to opportunity Driver’s license access to program the communities transportation in which they financial aid is reside GAP FUND necessary for post-high school Increased training Follow up on FAFSA, access to Chafee, Cal Grants, financial aid scholarships from community groups presenceof permanent, stable 3-5 relationships Family Finding adults creates Fund CASA, CASA with permanent, resiliency. Start program stable adults California School Boards Association t s , 2013 r i F e 30 c n September a n r e v o G e c n a i l l r l e o A st l c . n a e u D g r .. i o e h D C D L . s sss P l e d e , l n a m mmm y Ev c r o l i i iaaaa l , t e r t rrrr s o u r na g ggg a J c- o c e o mooo l t M l rrrr e u a f G c x i e r PPPP l d , e l E e f w yi r Es dddd i t h x a , n nnnn W r rn a p Da r aaaa o a Bo r u o t tt M l yyyy o t cB s s h i e cccc i i e t iiii i e i i r gn llll s S r l r i e eh oooo ns e u KD AAPTSPJPCP A B S C r r o r u t e c r c ss i e o o f r t nn i f c oo ii Y OD e tt e r t i e aa ll m a v D i ee asc . t r eo e RR u D g y sv v c. ll l c i i r o lJ d t f aa i r e e t,t f z A u x l Py B l nn u O c E . e e a Lee d e t v e i e x B MM n v n mtm i E a D ts aa nan n i l t rr /y e u o d s n s r i ee c i ci n i n vvv O d l r sg e aeoo E ox sn e e VC DPEDAGALG 2 Governance Implications and Considerations Local Control and Accountability Plans Negotiating Change in the Workplace e r u Governance in the Real World t c i P g i B e How LCFF Works CSBA Resources h T What Now? 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. 3 s k r o W F F C L w o H 4 Equity, additional resources for students with greater making and stakeholder involvement plans Alignment of budgeting with accountability F F C L Based on specific considerations: f o Works s t p e LCFF c income students e How r P English learners - y Local decision Accountability Transparency Foster youth e K - Low needs ••• ––––– 5 Per ADA from $70 to $40, depending on the number of ADA. districts, charter schools and schools operated by the Per ADA amount in the county attributable to school County Offices of Education Formula Per school district in the county of $109,320 A minimum grant per county of $655,920 Oversight operational grants How LCFF Works county superintendent. part formula: - Two ••• 1. 6 Base grant at full LCFF implementation of $11,045 for pupils under All students in juvenile court schools deemed eligible for supplemental Concentration grant: 35% of base for targeted students exceeding (NOTE: Supplemental and concentration grants based on unduplicated pupil counts) referred; on County Office formula (cont.) Supplemental grant: 35% of base for targeted students - authority of juvenile justice system; probation How LCFF Works Category of pupil served: probation; mandatorily expelled. and concentration grants 50% of enrollment. English Learners Foster Youth Low Income •••• ••• 2. 7 funding differentiated by grade pupil weights, including 24:1 Local Control Accountability Plans School Funding Before & After LCFF target reduction, concentration funding Federal funding, planning, and accountability requirements Unduplicated 3 class size Local educational agency as subgrantee of the state After LCFF LCFF base required span Unchanged Works - K Accountability and performance process LCFF size reduction limited funding School Accountability Report Cards How programs with Compliance with Williams temporary tiered flexibility with unlimited class sizes separate from funding Financial audits State categorical Limits LCFF 3 class Revenue Before - 8 K••••• 9-12 w/ CTE $8,505 g 9th-12th $8,289 n i d School Districts & Charter Schools n u F $7,154 7th-8th e s a Works B Base $6,947 4th -6th t e LCFF g r K-3 w/ CSR a How $7,557 T 1 2 - 0 $ 6,845 2 K-3 0 2 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $- 9 g 9-12 w/ CTE n $10,206 $8,505 $1,701 i d n u F 9th-12th $1,658 $8,289 9,947 l a School Districts & Charter Schools t $ n e $1,431 $7,154 7th-8th m $8,585 Supplemental e l p Works p $6,947 4th -6th $1,389 u 8,336 S LCFF t $ Base e How K-3 w/ CSR g $1,511 $7,557 $9,068 r a T 1 $6,845 $1,369 2 $8,124 K-3 - 0 2 0 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 2 $- 10 g n 9-12 w/ CTE i $1,701 $8,505 $14,459 $4,253 d n u F $14,092 9th-12th $1,658 $8,289 $4,145 n o Concentration i t School Districts & Charter Schools a r $12,162 $1,431 $7,154 t 7th-8th $3,577 n e c Works n Supplemental $6,947 $1,389 4th -6th o $3,474 $11,810 C LCFF t e How K-3 w/ CSR g $1,511 $3,779 $12,847 $7,557 r a T Base 1 2 $6,845 $3,423 $11,637 $1,369 - K-3 0 2 0 2 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $- 11 s k r o W a l u Works m r o LCFF F How e h t w o H 12 Community Colleges Categorical Funding Remaining New System 0 LCFF ERT 8 9 p o How LCFF Works Prop 98 r P & F F Community Colleges Revenue Limit C Categorical L Old System FundingFunding 13 Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG) and Transportation frozen 13 levels for in Transportation JPAs or ROC/P JPAs shall not redirect that funding Budget deviations in transition year may raise AB 1200 concerns - Adult Ed and ROC/P expenditures must not drop below 2012 Transportation money must be spent on transportation ons. s n - 13 funding level and received as add o i t Works a r Class Size Reduction (CSR) now 24:1 e d LCFF i s How n County Offices of Education Economic Recovery Targets o Grant levels are targets C Basic Aid Districts Schools for 2 years - 2 years. Charter at 2012 LEAs 14 ••••••••••• Specialized Secondary Programs Adults in Correctional Facilities n i a Indian Education Centers Early Childhood Education m Ag Vocational Education Partnership Academies e R s m a r g How LCFF Works o Child Nutrition r P l a c i After School Programs r o g Special Education State Preschool e t Foster Youth a Assessment C 3 1 QEIA 15 in proportion to the increase in funds apportioned on the basis of the , restrictive than the restrictions provided for in Title I English learners *State Board of Education regulations by January 31, 2014 wide, or wide, purposes in a manner that is not more f o e * number of unduplicated count of the students r s u d t i n d u - n The LEA may use these funds for school f e foster youth n p o x i To increase or improve services for t e a r r o t f n ee t Works c u n t o and a tc of No Child Left behind.Ò LCFF S d n n low income students i How a l d ea t r i n u e q m e R e l p s i p t u a s h - W LEA 16 • • y t i l i b a t n ) u s o P c A c C A L & ( s l o n r a t l n P o C l a c o L 17 17 d d n n a a h s c d r r a a e o Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) s B e s l R n ) o , o P o i s t A he e a s c C i m r t L S w e ( r o d n e c s i e t e p s n u x i e n a w lO v wE o o t P r C r & N e o y e t t B o & s i l a v D i p s c s b a n k O u n a a G n o d t i i C , t E L n s s a u t y d d c r o n ie n a l g c e K o a p c n d i B A m es u n t s lI t h r r g t o S a o e n r r i f t r e c f h e n L u n T E b o o t a t 6 m Y C n n n r p l e e w e o e a r d m T o v r c u o n e u t o – K G RC S L 18 • ••• ) Annual goals for all pupils and each subgroup to be achieved for each of the s Plans must be aligned to the LEA budget and shall include for the Local governing boards must adopt LCAP using a template adopted P in the LCAP Specific actions the LEA will take during each year to achieve those goals A The expenditures that will serve pupils in the target groups and pupils C priorities year L ( s -specific actions periods and be updated on or before July 1 of each year by the SBE on or before July 1, 2014. LCAP shall be for 3 n state priorities identified in statute and any additional local a l Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) P y t i l i The expenditures budgeted to implement the b a LEA and each school a description of: t reclassified as fluent English proficient. identified by the local governing board; n u o c c A & l o r t n o C l a c o –––– L 21 • students and for Socioeconomically disadvantaged students s l a o Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) G l of the following subgroups: a l l u a n Annual goals must be set for n Students with disabilities A : s P Ethnic subgroups A English learners C L Foster youth F F C L h c a ––––– e 22 Establish Parent Advisory Committee to provide advice if LEA English learner enrollment is at least District Governing Boards & County Superintendents to board and superintendent on LCAP requirements principals, administrators, other school personnel, onsult with teachers, collective bargaining units, Learner Parent Advisory t n the LCAP. e Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) m e v : l s o developing s v e n c I o & r P y parents and pupils in c P an English n A 15% and 50 pupils e C r L a p Committee s Establish n a r T must: C ––– 23 Each district and county superintendent must present Prior to scheduling the public hearing on the LCAP: Each district and county superintendent must notify comments on the specific actions and expenditures t Committee, and must respond in writing to written n Advisory Committee and any EL Parent Advisory the LCAP for review and comment to the Parent e the public of the opportunity to submit written m m Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) o C n e t t i r W & y c n e r comments a proposed p s n a r T –– 24 • meeting as the At a different meeting, the governing board adopts regarding the specific actions and expenditures in public Notice must provide location for public The Governing Board in adopting the LCAP shall: s s and comments from the e LEA budget at least one public hearing to solicit c o Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) r the same P c i l public hearing required on the b and the LEA budget u P Hold the public hearing at & y c inspection of LCAP. recommendations n e r a p s the LCAP. the LCAP n a r Hold T 25 ••• Approved LCAPs to be posted on LEA websites and district LCAPs and/or links posted on county office s P A C SPI to post links to LCAPs on CDE website L Local Control & Accountability Plans (LCAP) f o g n i t s o P & y c n e r a p s websites n a r T 26 •• & s n o i s t n a co i i l t p a m r e I d e i s c n n o a C n r e v o G 27 d n 2 F f s F o n C l o i i L r y t w t e Governance Implications & Considerations i u & l P l i o o b e N s S a h d t t o T r n n ( a D w u e k o o m e c n B c i t a c a v s B f A C e o r v h e e s r e n s I v l o d u , o r M O P s t a R , m s g o i y ) r e t i e B B i e l l F h i g , b s t b e n e o i g g r r a x c e n P n e h n i l b a C t F h a e h m r T n g e C e r r e d 6 d g o e u r i m M v O BB p o e o ––– G R T 28 ••• s d , r o a e n i o ) s t i b h t a t s l r L t u o e n , o o p ne Y x h a d e r c c u e Governance Implications & Considerations si r t t r o s s n e t o r e m a F u e c A ,o w u w e y t d n m e r e e a o b c i o f d i v c s r sn f r k n e A a I e n ( m i g w s v l st n o O o t r y i h c o en L n c t f r k r e , f u r a a d e o e e e e u lt h n t s & t n r t s e a e r n r s r r e e e p r u e L b d a u o h m u g c y t h t s e wwww s i l m oooo g d nnnn e n n KKKK R E a 29 ••••• needed* *Superintendent responsibility in County Offices of Education Hold public study sessions to review LCFF w o N o committees as data D Governance Implications & Considerations n a Look at and understand your use of resources data C s d r a o wide B and LCAP statutes s g data - n LEA i h Financial Pupil data T Establish Current 6 p o T ––– 30 ••• that might not let you comply Start your budget planning process for the goals and strategies for subgroup w Ð o Be patient, many of the rules will follow N term o D Governance Implications & Considerations - donÔt lock your budget into long n a C s d when the LCAP is done r a next school year now o B s g commitments improvement n i h T LEA 6 p o Set T 31 ••• The Future ) Skills, Beliefs Alsbury Knowledge, s of Board Members d , M, et al. 2008. r ( of School Board Governance a o B g l Decisions and on Governance Priorities, Policies, i Delagarrdelle o Actions Governance Implications & Considerations n h r c a S e L n LEA and School organizational (Conditions of improvement practice that t e continuous Culture success). n enable e and e w d t u e t B S instruction and Engagement in the Learning Classroom s Student Process & e g a k n i Outcomes L Learning Student y e K 33 cultures & languages; parents bring knowledge of students & other students & all of our futures. Students bring experience & knowledge, e.g., ELs two the programs, professional development, Governance Implications & Considerations y l t n : e g LCFF Strategies r n i e t f e : f g in s i d d D as investments u e b e k t n n o t i n s h u s j t T and community. t n o e n m s t resources t Consider s e e s v s n a i kk nn ii hh 34 TT m r e t g s n i o l o s ; h Governance Implications & Considerations s t w e n l e a e e disadvantaged m d s u n o : t LCFF Strategies r a t o c S s i f p r y e r u t disabilities i o m u l ir o A g b Y b a n t u Socioeconomically a n w s c u i Ethnic subgroups n r o o i f English learners c ? h A n Students with c t s i , r K a. w e Foster youth g s . m r e e e r o : i p gc u e w n q ei l e e d g r n g k ; F u o s F r L o t C 35 E L s L ••••• 22.1 Cohort Dropout Rate (3xÔs the rate of White students) : 6.5 % of enrollment, 19 % of t d n e a c e i n Governance Implications & Considerations n d a v r u d o t A f S r i l o t a n LCFF Strategies n C a e i c c i n f i o i r r suspensions. (CDE, 2013). e P s t m e s Highly overrepresented e m A T Grade Math: 59%Grade Math: 20% Grade ELA: 53%Grade ELA: 43% s o n d r c a a t d c u n i a O r t f S A e a t i n i u n l r o p thththth o i f p ic 4488 l o s ri a –––––– DD C 36 ••• Slightly overrepresented: 52% of enrollment, and 54% of 16.1% Cohort Dropout Rate (more than twice the rate of n i d e c s n e a v m d Governance Implications & Considerations A o r c o t t suspensions/expulsions (CDE, 2013). a n u i e i n O LCFF Strategies c i r f o t o r n f i P e l t a d s C e u T t Grade Math: 66%Grade Math: 25% s n S Grade ELA: 49%Grade ELA: 44% d I r a o White students) d n n i a t t S a e L a i t n i n l u r p o o thththth i f p ic 4488 l o s ri a –––––– DD C 37 ••• suspended/expelled: 93% vs. their 85% share of somewhat overrepresented 22% of suspensions and expulsions (& 22% of the student a i n r d e o c f n i l a v a d Governance Implications & Considerations C A r n o i t n s e i LCFF Strategies e c i ELs f m o r population). However, Latino Cohort Dropout Rate P o t c s t e T u Grade Math: 54%Grade Math: 12% s O Grade ELA: 33% d r Grade ELA: 9% a t d EL population. n n e a t ELs d S among u e 23.6% a i t n t i n l u S r p o o thththth i f p ic 4488 L l o s ri a E –––––– DD C 38 ••• p u o r g b Governance Implications & Considerations u S h t a n M o LCFF Strategies s i * r T a S p C m o e C d a r G *California Standards Test h t 8 & h t 4 40 wide gaps need systematic capacity building Specific gaps may respond to targeted programs Different gaps: e.g., test scores, engagement, s e m Governance Implications & Considerations need different strategies s t o n c e t u d LCFF Strategies O u t & S r s u p o a Y G r o w f o Ð n graduation K - LEA 41 • • • How are current efforts working? What to expand, administrators to work with struggling students? How are these human resources deployed? e s s What is the expertise of teachers and i Governance Implications & Considerations t t r r o e f fp E x LCFF Strategies E t n r e o r t r a u c C u change, abandon? d w E o n d K n a 42 ••• Strategies for teaching English Learners with diverse school, summer, supported approaches (Low Income, English Learners, Foster Youth): h Governance Implications & Considerations c r a Alternative discipline approaches - e High quality additional time (pre s service community schools LCFF Strategies e Culturally relevant pedagogy R e after school programs) h t w o n K - 5 Research needs - Full 1.2.3.4.5. 43 s and reading strategies, a formative t English Learner Immediate Support and Resource Allocation (ELISANDRA) r c e e of academic j to enhance language acquisition and For additional information on Golden Bell Winners please visit our website: o n r P , Board President; Marcus Johnson, Superintendent; Richard Smith, Deputy r ) A. a monitor implementation R e D N L A : S I staff training r L h e E ( s Governance Implications & Considerations n n i Golden Bell Winners will be announced in October. o l i n t g i a c W . n o l http://gb.csba.org/Default.aspx l student achievement of English Learners through E A ) e d y c g tsystem and process to r r n u order thinking a n u o o s i w e C Superintendent; Tim Lopez, Academic Officer h R o A three components n c & s t l e r a l r o F e e p , t p B T c u i teaching of higher r S t s r e n i t o D a e i l f d o assessment d e o s l h m Project consists of and c o e m S I i G r d g e e i Filippi www.csba.org n f i r e n a language, language e U t Peter L r a e h 2013 g s r i n l The t a g S n S – E( 44 •• •• d l r o W l a e R e h t n i e c n a n r e v o G 45 identifying county offices in need of technical assistance and the specific A district, COE, or charter school in evaluating its strengths, weaknesses The SBE is to adopt by October 1, 2015, Ñevaluation rubricsÒ that performance and The SPI in identifying districts or county offices for which intervention is A county superintendent in identifying school districts and the SPI in : assist reflect a Ñholistic multidimensional assessmentÒ of LEA and t s P i performance. The purpose of the rubric is to s A s C A schoolsite L expectations of performance of the 8 state priorities o n t Governance in the Real World a s priorities the assistance should be focused. The SBE shall adopt standards for LEA and c f i o r and areas that require improvement. b w u e R i v n e o R i t e a h u t l a n warranted. v i E schoolsite •••• 46 a county board must file with the SPI the LCAP within 5 days of A district board must file with the County Superintendent and The County Superintendent or SPI may seek clarification of the LCAP and the I The County Superintendent or SPI shall by Oct. 8 approve the LCAP if the: P recommended amendments which the governing board must meet and Budget includes expenditures sufficient to implement actions and SPI may submit S LCAP adheres to expenditure requirements of SBE regulations. r y o b t s n s e e or d Following receipt of the response, the County Supt c Governance in the Real World n o e r LCAP adheres to template adopted by SBE t board must respond in writing within 15 days P n i w r e e p i consider within 15 days of receipt v u e S R y strategies in the LCAP P t n A u C o L C e approval h t ––– 47 ••• county office technical assistance. California Collaborative for Educational Excellence d strengths and weaknesses regarding the Technical assistance provided upon request, shall be paid for by the r a approve an LCAP, he/she must provide technical o B Assign an academic expert, a team of experts, or another y t n u may always request o C o t I assistance, including any of the following: P e assist the county board. S c n y a b A county board of education t county board of education. county boardÔs s i s s of education or the A l not a state priorities c SPI does Identify the (ÑCCEEÒ) to i n h c If the e T 48 ••• Assign an academic expert, a team of experts, or another school district approve an LCAP, he/she dentify the LEAÔs strengths and weaknesses regarding the stateÔs eight Request that the SPI assign the California Collaborative for Educational student achievement for LI, EL or FY students across more than one of the e Technical Assistance to COEÔs may be requested of or initiated by SPI h County Superintendent must provide it when a district fails to improve A district may always request and pay for technical assistance but the t I y P b to assist the district or another county office to assist the COE S d r e o d t i n v o e r not d Governance in the Real World P Excellence (ÑCCEEÒ) to provide assistance. n or the SPI does e e t c n n i : r a to e must provide technical assistance t s p i u If the County Superintendent s S s A y l t a n c u i priorities o n C h priorities c e stateÔs T I 49 •••• e c n determines it necessary to help LEA accomplish leadership, county superintendents of schools, and charter e : Ñto advise and assist school districts, l or (iii) if SPI l e assistance include state priorities, c) LEA requests it, (ii) x E l a n subgroups schoolsite o necessary, goalsÒ i t Governance in the Real World a c u schools in achieving \[LCAP\] d LEA and E and addressing needs of r finds it i o CCEE gets involved if ( f e v i teaching quality, t entity a r o b goals oversight a of l Purpose l o Areas LCAP C A C 50 ••• f o more student SBE, may identify districts and if an LEA failed or was unable to implement its recommendations; b) d school The CCEE has provided advice and assistance to the LEA and submits either of the following findings to the SPI: a) that the e the inadequate performance of the LEA, based on the SBEÔs subgroups, or all subgroups in LEAs with less than three, in e in need of intervention. The SPI shall only intervene or more N consecutive evaluation rubric, is so persistent or acute as to require n i s for three Ô E O 4 n out of C o Governance in the Real World not improve the outcomes i t d n n 3 e than one state or local priority in a v with the approval of the s r : e t of the following c t i n intervention by the SPI. r I t s i D g The LEA did n i both y f years. i t meets n The SPI, e COEÔs d 1)2) I LEA 51 Develop and impose a budget revision in conjunction with the The SPI shall notify superintendents and boards of any action Following SBE approval, the SPI may intervene by taking Stay or rescind an action, if that action is not required by a by the SBE directing him/her to exercise authority in this Appoint an academic trustee to act on the SPI's behalf. bargaining agreement and is preventing the LEA from improving outcomes for all subgroups in the LCAP n one or more of the following actions: o i Governance in the Real World t n e v Make changes to the LEA's LCAP r e t n I e t revisions to the LCAP a t S section. 52 ••••• filed appeal include requirements notification to pupils, parents, guardians, employees. District boards, County Superintendents and charter LCAP requirements must be included in the annual F (ÑUCPÒ) includes F s schools must establish or revise UCP policies to C t n L i a Ï l LCFF p r Governance in the Real World o m Complaints can be filed anonymously 2014 n with procedures o e C v noncompliance r June 30, e e c t n n I a uniform complaint i e l LCFF complaints by p t a m m Complaints of o i C t l SPI U the via to 53 •••• charter for failure to improve after assistance from LCFF does not impose separate budget or LCAP hearing requirements on assistance and in some instances must LCAP submitted to charter authorizer and to the County Superintendent by June 30 except SPI receives County Board authorized charterÔs LCAP Authorizers not authorized by statute to ask clarifying questions or to failure to implement CCEE Authorizer may request, with SBE approval, that SPI assign CCEE to F make recommendations to charter school board about the LCAP F C L outcomes evocation not subject to administrative appeal e provide assistance when outcomes are not improved h t to improve LCAP student r e Governance in the Real World for d n any charter u technical s l o assistance o SBE empowered to revoke h Authorizer may provide Authorizer may revoke c recommendations or S and r e e c t advi r charters a provide R CCEE. h C ––––––– 54 e c a Collective Bargaining Implications l p k r o W & Considerations e h t n i e g n a h C g n i t a i t o g e N 55 Responding to demands to bargain and consult LCFF y r 8 Year Funding Target based on growth & Prop 30 a up demand for salary and benefit increases n i m Difficulties of comparisons with like districts i Restricted/Unrestricted funding/Reserves l e Negotiating Change in the Workplace r s P n Responding to information requests and Common Core implementation o - g i t n a i time funding r No waiver of Duty to Bargain n e Scope of Bargaining issues i a d i g s r n a o B - C Ongoing vs. One e v i t c e l l - Pent o C 56 ••••••••• l a i t n n e Compensation including health benefits o t i o t P a Negotiating Change in the Workplace i - t g o n g i e n N i Professional Development a f g o r a s B t c e e j v b i t Evaluations u Promotions c Work Year Class Size S Day e Transfers l l Work o C 57 •••••••• and programs for unduplicated pupils in proportion to e Prepare to track increase or improvement in services formulas Prepare for influence of Parent Advisory Committees h t e r a Review existing contract language including p e m openers, or closed contracts r Negotiating Change in the Workplace P a know and own your data e - T g n Train bargaining team members g i n n i i n a i g a r g a and advocacy groups increase in funding r B a B e v i - Subsidiarity t - c Expired, re e l l o C 58 •••••• Adds that the specific actions adopted by the Board in Budget trailer bill adds Ñlocal bargaining unitsÒ as a the LCAP Ñshall not supersede the provisions of the Prepare to include references in LCAP to any future district board and county superintendent existing local collective bargaining agreementsÒ LCAP goals that are . must ÑconsultÒ with in developing the LCAP potentially subject to collective bargaining s n Negotiating Change in the Workplace o i t i d d A for 7 9 Consult legal counsel bargaining obligations B S group the 59 •••• s n o i t a r e d i s n o C Negotiating Change in the Workplace e c n a i l p m o C l a c i t i r C - P A C L 60 ? w o N t a h W 61 Local educational agencies have established local policies to implement State Board adopts regulations on expenditure of supplemental and State Board adopts template for Local Control and Accountability Plans Changes recommended to revise the Academic Performance Index State Board adopts rubrics for evaluation and technical assistance State agencies update standards for adoption of local budgets Local educational agencies adopt LCAP aligned with budget s e t a D y What now? e K F F C concentration funds L June/July 2014 October 2015 January 2014 March 2014 (LCAPs) ooo oo oo 62 •••• r a Stakeholder meetings/Goal setting d n Summer: Report outcomes and align work Finalize budget / LCAP adoption e l a C e c n Tie budget to priorities a n r e v o What now? G F F C L r u o y Winter: Spring: w o Fall: n K 63 •••• s e c r u o s e R A B S C 64 Board Policy including compliance complaint are being created or considered for revision including parent involvement, UCP, budget, CSBA will be releasing some sample LCFF Over 80 policies, regulations and exhibits charter oversight, LCAP and intervention F F C L in October in the UCP due by June 30, 2014 e h t d CSBA Resources n a Policy and Regulations s e i c i l o P d r a o B 65 • • • s e c 2013 Annual Education Conference r u Consulting Services o s CSBA Resources e R Office of General Counsel A Governance B S C 3382 e Policy Updates s www.csba.org Governance U - Masters in 266 s - e 800 c i s v l - r o 1 e o 66 S T •• ••••• MVUSD FOSTER STUDENT REPORT 2015-2016 FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS LEGISLATIONREGARDINGFOSTERSTUDENTSANDSCHOOLS PLACETO.9ͼGROUPS ͻ! DISCIPLINEANDRESTORATIVEJUSTICE SCHOOL FOSTERSTUDENTPLACEMENTSTABILITY PROMOTING FOSTERSTUDENTSANDSPECIALEDUCATION IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND FOSTER PROGRAM OUTCOMES FOSTERSTUDENTPOPULATIONTRACKING REPORTING-FOSTERSTUDENTOUTCOMES LCAP LCAPANDFOSTERPROGRAMGOALS MVUSD PROGRAMLOGICMODEL FOSTER MVUSD FOSTER STUDENT SUPPORT 2016 OUTCOME BASED FOSTER STUDENT SUPPORT PROGRAM -653$ -¤³ « (¤ «³§ 0±¤¯ ±¤£ ¡¸Ȁ 3§ ® 4®¡¨ ²Ǿ &®²³¤± 3³´£¤³ ,¨ ¨²® FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Legislation Regarding Foster Students and Schools AB 490 Addresses many of the barriers to equal education and to facilitate stability and educational opportunity for students in foster care. School District foster Care Liaison: Every District must appoint an educational liaison to serve foster students. Educational Equity: Educational placements for foster children must ensure that they have access to academic resources, services, enrichment and extracurricular activities available to all other students. Educational placements must be based on the best interest of the student, the least restrictive, and mainstream schooling is preferred for foster students. Placement Change Provisions: Enrollment must be immediate even if there are requirements missing (immunization records, proof of residency, academic records etc.). The student has the right to remain in a school despite placement change for the remainder of the school year. The school the student is transferring froƒ ƒǒƭƷ ķĻƌźǝĻƩ ƷŷĻ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ͸ƭ educational record within two business days of withdrawal. A students grades may not be lowered due to absenses caused by a change in placement, a court appearance, or a court ordered activity. District must assure that full or partial credit is issues for all coursework satisfactorily completed, is applied to the same or equivalent course, and student must not be required to re-take the portion of a course already completed. AB 854 Changes the role of Foster Youth Services at the county level and re-assigns counseling, mentoring and tutoring services to be provided by school districts through Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). In addition, eligibility for services was expanded to an additional 66,000 foster students living with relatives. Counseling, Mentoring, and Tutoring:School districts are required to provide counseling, mentoring, and tutoring services by qualified personnel. Districts have three basic options of how to provide services: (1) They can use their own school-based staff (2) They can contract with local department of mental health or office of education (3) they can contract with non-public agencies. (Section 42921 (a) (2) (A) states that if the school district is unable to comply with legislative mandates, MVUSD can defer these responsibilities to RCOE until 2017 by agreement through a waiver1wd) Foster Youth Services (FYS) Riverside County Department of Education (RCOE): Foster Youth Services (FYS; RCOE) is no longer going to be responsible for counseling, tutoring or mentoring. LCFF and LCAP will be required to address these needs. Previous to this bill, RCOE FYS provided tutoring through vouchers but the foster family or group home was required to travel to Riverside for assessments before being provided with tutoring through a contracted agency (Sylvan in Temecula).Mentoring was provided through a one week camp during the summer where 40 foster youth could attend a camp with potential mentors. Counseling was contracted through a third party agency that could come into schools to conduct groups. None of these services were used by MVUSD foster students because of the inherent barriers to access of services, and lack of promotion and coordination with school districts. AB 167/216 Provides exemption from local graduation requirements if a foster student has ƷƩğƓƭŅĻƩƩĻķ ƭĭŷƚƚƌƭ ğŅƷĻƩ ƷŷĻ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ͸ƭ second year of high school (calculated by either number of credits or length of enrollment). Reduced Graduation Requirement: The student must complete all California graduation requirements, must not be reasonably able to complete ƷŷĻ ğķķźƷźƚƓğƌ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻƒĻƓƷƭ ǞźƷŷźƓ ŅƚǒƩ ǤĻğƩƭ ƚŅ ŷźŭŷ ƭĭŷƚƚƌͲ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ͸ƭ ĻķǒĭğƷźƚƓğƌ ƩźŭŷƷƭ ŷƚƌķĻƩ Λ9wIΜ ƒǒƭƷ ķĻƷĻƩƒźƓe that it is in the youƷŷ͸ƭ ĬĻƭƷ źƓƷĻƩĻƭƷ͵ ΛŷĻ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ ğƌƭƚ ŷğƭ ƷŷĻ ƩźŭŷƷ Ʒƚ ƩĻƒğźƓ źƓ ŷźŭŷ ƭĭŷƚƚƌ ğ ŅźŅƷŷ ǤĻğƩ ǒƓƷźƌ ƷŷĻ ğŭĻ ƚŅ ЋЉΜ. Notice Requirements: źƷŷźƓŭ ЌЉ ķğǤƭ ƚŅ ğ ǤƚǒƷŷ͸ƭ ƷƩğƓƭŅĻƩͲ ğ ƭĭŷƚƚƌ ķźƭƷƩźĭƷ ƒǒƭƷ ķĻƷĻƩƒźƓĻ ǞĻƷŷĻƩ ğ ǤƚǒƷŷ źƭ ĻƌźŭźĬƌĻ ŅƚƩ !. ЊЏАΉЋЊЏ͵ {ĭŷƚƚƌ district must also provide written notificaton of eligibility to the youth, ERH, and social worker within 30 days. (Sample Letter attached) FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS ͻ! tƌğĭĻ Ʒƚ .Ļͼ Elementary School Groups Resilience is a product of complex interactions of personal attributes and environmental circumstances, mediated by internal mechanisms. Research has identified three main factors of personal resiliency; sense of mastery, sense of relatedness, and emotional reactivity (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008). ͻ! tƌğĭĻ Ʒƚ .Ļͼ - Resiliency based groups are being held in 4 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 3 high schools. Trained mğƭƷĻƩ͸ƭ ƌĻǝĻƌ marriage and family therapy intern volunteers facilitate these weekly curriculum based groups. Having two MFT interns at each school has drastically increased the support, communication, and attention to this vulnerable population. Here is what some foster students are saying: FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS "I learned that there's some things I can control and some things I can't...but my thoughts are mine!" - !«³ -´±±¨¤³ %«¤¬¤³ ±¸ 3³´£¤³ "I learned to try to say nice things to myself" "´¢§ %«¤¬¤³ ±¸ 3³´£¤³ "Today \[another student in the group\] taught me a new coping skill" !«³ -´±±¨¤³ %«¤¬¤³ ±¸ 3³´£¤³ "We eat breakfast together now because we all know what itÔs like to not get to do stuff like play past the front yard line because we are foster kids." ,¨² *ȁ - ¨«² %«¤¬¤³ ±¸ 3³´£¤³ 3¤²¤ ®¥ - ²³¤±¸ ¨² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£ ² ¢§¨«£Ȍ² ²¤«¥- ²²¤²²¬¤³ ®¥ §¨² ®± §¤± ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ¨³¤± ¢³ ¨ ¢ ´²¤ £ ¤¥¥¤¢³ ¶ ¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¤µ¨±®¬¤³ȁ 3¤«¥-¤¥¥¨¢ ¢¸Ǿ «®¢´²³ ®¥ ¢®³±®«Ǿ £ ¯±®¡«¤¬ ²®«µ¨¦Ǿ «« ¥¥¤¢³ ¢§¨«£Ȍ² ²¯¨± ³¨®²Ǿ ¢ £¤¬¨¢ ¬®³¨µ ³¨®Ǿ £ ¥¤¤«¨¦ ®¥ ¢®¬¯¤³¤¢¤ȁ 3¤²¤ ®¥ 2¤« ³¤£¤²² ² ³§¤ ¢§¨«£Ȍ² «¨ª¤«¨§®®£ ³® ²¤¤ª ®´³ ¯®²¨³¨µ¤ ²´¯¯®±³ ¥±®¬ £´«³² £ ¶ ±¬ ´¯ ³® ¯¤®¯«¤ °´¨¢ª«¸ȁ 4§¨² ¢®²³±´¢³ ¨¢«´£¤² ³±´²³Ǿ ¯¤±¢¤¨µ¤£ ¢¢¤²² ³® ²´¯¯®±³Ǿ ³®«¤± ¢¤ ®¥ £¨¥¥¤±¤¢¤²Ǿ £ ³§¤ ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ²²¤±³¨µ¤«¸ ¤·¯±¤²² ®¯¨¨®² £¨¥¥¤±¤³ ¥±®¬ ®³§¤±²ȁ 3¤²¤ ®¥ ±¤« ³¤£¤²² ¨² ¨¬¯«¨¢ ³¤£ ² ±¤²¨«¨¤¢¸ ¥ ¢³®± ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ¨³ ¨¢±¤ ²¤² ³§¤ ¢§¨«£Ȍ² «¨ª¤«¨§®®£ ®¥ ²¤¤ª¨¦ ®´³ ¯®²¨³¨µ¤ ²®¢¨ « ²´¯¯®±³ £´±¨¦ ³¨¬¤² ®¥ £µ¤±²¨³¸ȁ %¬®³¨® « 2¤ ¢³¨µ¨³¸ ¨² ¯¤±²® « ±¤²¨«¨¤¢¸ ±¨²ª ¥ ¢³®± ²¤¤ ¨ ¢§¨«£±¤ ¶¨³§ §¤¨¦§³¤¤£ ³§¤ «¤µ¤« ®¥ ¨¬¯ ¨±¤£ ¤·¤¢´³¨µ¤ ¥´¢³¨®¨¦ £ ²«®¶¤± ±¤¢®µ¤±¸ ¥³¤± ¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ¤µ¤³ȁ ) ®³§¤± ¶®±£²Ǿ ³§¤ ¥ ²³¤± £ ¬®±¤ ¨³¤²¤ ¢§¨«£ ±¤ ¢³² ³§¤ «¤²² ±¤²¨«¨¤³ §¤ ®± ²§¤ ¨²ȁ #®µ¤±²¤«¸Ǿ ³§¤ ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ±¤¦´« ³¤ ¤¬®³¨® « ±¤²¯®²¤² ¨¢±¤ ²¤² ¯¤±²® « ±¤²¨«¨¤¢¸ȁ -¨£-¡®£¸ ¶ ±¤¤²² £ ¢®¯¨¦ ²ª¨««² § µ¤ ¡¤¤ £¤¬®²³± ³¤£ ³® ±¤£´¢¤ ³§¨² ±¨²ª ¥ ¢³®± ¨ ¢§¨«£±¤ȁ FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Middle and High School Groups Many foster students in the middle and high school age groups have been bounced around to several homes and have built up barriers when it comes to ) - ±¢§ ΕΓΔΙǾ ³¶® ®¥ ®´± ΔΔ ¦± £¤ th trusting adults. MVUSD mental health team has implemented groups based ¥®²³¤± ²³´£¤³² ¶¨«« ³³¤£ ³§¤ 2®³ ±¸ on social support and access to resources. These groups are nothing like 9®´³§ ,¤ £¤±²§¨¯ !¶ ±£ǿ Ζ-£ ¸ previous experiences for these kids. Community companies have sponsored pizza and donuts for each weekly meeting and the interns who facilitate «¤ £¤±²§¨¯ ³± ¨¨¦ ¤µ¤³ ¨ #±¤²³«¨¤Ǿ groups present as high energy advocates. In the first weeks of high school groups, #!ȁ /¤ ¤·¢¤¯³¨® « %¦«¨²§ we have identified students in need of assistance in getting partial credits from , ¦´ ¦¤ ,¤ ±¤± £ &®²³¤± th graders have been accepted transfer records, AB167 eligibility, and two of our 11 2¤¥´¦¤¤ £ ®³§¤± ²³´£¤³ ¨ ³§¤ to attend the Rotary Youth Leadership Awards (RYLA) 3-day retreat. Upcoming plans include increasing access to postsecondary education, RCOE sponsored 3¯¤¢¨ « %£´¢ ³¨® 0±®¦± ¬ ¯¯«¨¤£Ǿ computer camps, incentive programs for meeting educationally related goals, interviewed, £ ¶¤±¤ ±¤¢®¦¨¹¤£ ³® and coordination of tutoring through RCOE at group homes. § µ¤ «¤ £¤±²§¨¯ ¯®³¤³¨ «ȁ FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS ȏ) ³§¤ «¨³³«¤ ¶®±«£ ¨ ¶§¨¢§ ¢§¨«£±¤ § µ¤ ³§¤¨± ¤·¨²³¤¢¤Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ¨² ®³§¨¦ ²® ¥¨¤«¸ ¯¤±¢¤¨µ¤£Ǿ £ ¥¨¤«¸ ¥¤«³Ǿ ² ¨©´²³¨¢¤Ȑ 0¨¯Ǿ ¨ '±¤ ³ %·¯¤¢³ ³¨®² School Discipline and Restorative Justice (AB 1729) Restorative Justice (RJ) and AB1729 Recognizees the considerable damage done by suspension and expulsion and the disproportionate impact on certain vulnerable populations such as students in foster care. MVUSD has suspended 7 foster students for a total of 25 suspensions in the 2015-2016 school. The average foster student who is suspended will be suspended 3.4 times (between August and March). This is almost triple the rate of re-offense compared to the general population (3.4 vs. 1.3 for general student population). Of the total 250 unique foster student enrollments in the 2015-2016 year, 10% have been suspended. General population suspension rates are much lower at less than 1%. These statistics are not unique to MVUSD, in fact, in a report by Faer and CƚŷĻƓ ΛЋЉЊЎΜ ƚƓĻ ĭƚǒƓƷǤ͸ƭ ŅƚƭƷĻƩ ǤƚǒƷŷ ǞĻƩĻ ƩĻƦƚƩƷĻķ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ƷĻƓ ƷźƒĻƭ ƒƚƩĻ ƌźƉĻƌǤ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ĻǣƦĻƌƌĻķ ğƓķ ƚǝĻƩ ƷǞźĭĻ ğƭ ƌźƉĻƌǤ Ʒƚ ĬĻ suspended then the general student population. Pedley Unified School District has developed As an alternative to punitive discipline such as suspensions and a “Peer Jury” to hear cases and make expulsions, RJ emphasizes fair process in the decision process regarding consequences of inappropriate behavior. If any student population disciplinary decisions. Volunteer, retired deserves and needs a process which encourages relationship repair, District Attorney’s moderate and jurors are school engagement, empathy development, and a means to learn new strategies for interacting with authority, it is foster students. RJ is not trained by a non-profit agency. The 7-12 th permissive or irresponsible, it is authoritative and restorative. RJ grade jurors learn empathy, justice, and operates on the assumption that people are happier, more cooperative appropriate consequences. Benefits of this and productive, and more likely to make positive changes in their Even one out-of- school suspension or behavior when those in positions of authority do things with them, program extend beyond lowered discipline expulsion can make a student ten times rather than to them or for them. problems to improved grades, reduced more likely to drop out and three times T bullying, and a positive school climate. All more likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system than similarly student “sentences” include jury duty. situated students who were not suspended or expelled (Faer & Cohen, 2015). FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS 4§¤ ³§±¤¤ ¯±¨¢¨¯«¤² ®¥ ¥ ¨± ¯±®¢¤²² ±¤Ȁ ȥ %¦ ¦¤¬¤³ȡ¨µ®«µ¨¦ ¨£¨µ¨£´ «² ¨ £¤¢¨²¨®² ³§ ³ ¥¥¤¢³ ³§¤¬ ¡¸ «¨²³¤¨¦ ³® ³§¤¨± µ¨¤¶² £ ¦¤´¨¤«¸ ³ ª¨¦ ³§¤¨± ®¯¨¨®² ¨³® ¢¢®´³Ǿ ȥ %·¯« ³¨® ȡ¤·¯« ¨¨¦ ³§¤ ±¤ ²®¨¦ ¡¤§¨£ £¤¢¨²¨® ³® ¤µ¤±¸®¤ ¶§® § ² ¡¤¤ ¨µ®«µ¤£ ®± ¶§® ¨² ¥¥¤¢³¤£ ¡¸ ¨³Ǿ ȥ %·¯¤¢³ ³¨® ¢« ±¨³¸ ȡ¬ ª¨¦ ²´±¤ ³§ ³ ¤µ¤±¸®¤ ¢«¤ ±«¸ ´£¤±²³ £² £¤¢¨²¨® £ ¶§ ³ ¨² ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ®¥ ³§¤¬ ¨ ³§¤ ¥´³´±¤ȁ FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Promoting Foster Student Placement Stability Research has demonstrated that With 20% of all foster placement changes being related to foster youth behavior problems, it increased support is reasonable that effective school-based interventions which address the social, emotional, and mental health needs of children in foster care could have a positive impact on to both the child placement stability. Students who feel understood and successful at school are happier at and care-givers home (James, 2004). during the initial MVUSD Foster Student Program Planning will continue to develop and explore ways to placement support the social, emotional, and mental health needs of students in foster care. Improved transition can school climate, RJ discipline practices, better informed teachers, and increased social increase placement supports for students in foster care are just the beginning. The ultimate goal of any program ķĻƭźŭƓĻķ ŅƚƩ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ͸ƭ źƓ ŅƚƭƷĻƩ ĭğƩĻ źƭ ƦƌğĭĻƒĻƓƷ ƭƷğĬźƌźƷǤ͵ LƷ źƭ ƷŷƩƚǒŭŷ ĭƚƓƭźƭƷĻƓƷ ğƓķ stability for stable home placements that foster students will learn, thrive, build relationships, and find children in foster healing. care (Palmer,1990). Foster Parent Support Research suggests that stable placement in The school is a constant liaison between educators, social workers, and foster parents. As a foster homes increases consistent part of family life, schools can connect foster parents with resources. An likelihood of positive extensive resource directory for foster students and foster families is being developed. In addition to providing resources MVUSD may provide additional trainings and support groups social, emotional, and for foster parents. Trauma-informed parenting, helping foster children learn emotion- educationalfunctioning. regulation, the importance of maintaining high expectations and providing predictable A recent study environments, and strategies for self-care are some of the possible areas for training and support. demonstrated that children in stable placements for two years Helping Foster Students Secure Non-Group Home showed improvement on Placements adaptive functioning scales and showed Group homes consistently demonstrate the most negative outcomes for their foster youth. reduction in problem Future program plans could include partnerships with community based foster family behaviors. In fact, after agencies to recruit, train, and support families who are willing to open their homes to a two years in stable MVUSD foster students living in a residential group homes. 2015 saw California legislation allocating 17 million dollars to be used toward foster family recruitment in the hope of placement, these opening more homes to foster youth. Funding sources have started releasing requests for children were at the ƦƩƚƦƚƭğƌƭ ΛwCt͸ƭΜ͵ ağƓǤ ƚŅ ƷŷĻƭĻ wCt͸ƭ ĻƓĭƚǒƩğŭĻ agency partnerships. MVUSD can be a model as a district invested in their foster youth, partnering with other agencies involved the level of their non-foster foster care system, increasing placement stability, and encouraging the opening of loving counterparts. homes for the most vulnerable students. FOSTER STUDENT INTERVENTIONS Foster Students and Special Education Children in foster Children who have experienced trauma during their development can exhibit sensory processing care have higher issues, increased medical issues, attention deficits, language difficulties, and learning difficulties rates of emotional . In addition, trauma can cause cognitive impairment causing a decreased ability to (Aideuis, 2007) and behavioral reason abstractly, attend to information, long term memory for verbal information, and the ability to problem solve . There is no wonder than foster students have an exceptionally (Beers & Bellis, 2002) problems directly high rate of special needs in the classroom. impacting their ability to be &®²³¤± 3³´£¤³² 2¤¢¤¨µ¨¦ successful in 30%$ £ -¤³ « (¤ «³§ 3¤±µ¨¢¤² school (Kortenkamp & Non-30%$ In fact, Foster Ehrie, 2002). (88) 48% of youth in foster in foster care are reported to 3¯¤¢¨ « Education struggle with 3¯¤¢¨ « %¬®³¨® ««¸ emotional or Disturbed Education (15) behavioral issues (44) with a rate of PTSD twice that of 3¯¤¢¨ « %£´¢ ³¨®.®ȃ30%$ &®²³¤±-¤³ « (¤ «³§ %$ U.S. Combat Veterans (Casey Family Programs, Abuse, 2010). neglect, and high Mental Health Services rates of exposure to parents with MVUSD provides special education services to nearly half of all AERIES/SP10 participants. Of psychiatric these, 15 experience emotional and behavioral difficulties beyond what can be managed in a disabilities, typical classroom environment. Behavior classes are meant to address the educational needs of a substance abuse student while attending to the behavioral difficulties. The most important element for foster youth is rehabilitation. The goal of these alternative settings for children who have been exposed to issues, and criminal trauma, is to provide a safe environment in which they can learn new skills for managing feelings, activities takes relationships, and the demands of mainstream education. their tollon children. IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES Foster Student Population Tracking Youth in the foster care system change schools an average of eight times before reaching age 18 (Faer & Cohen, 2015). Their transience makes early identification important and challenging for school districts seeking to proactively address the needs of this vulnerable population. Though MVUSD has a relatively small foster student population, the number of foster students counted at any one time can be misleading. As depicted on the graph ĬĻƌƚǞͲ ƚƓ ğǝĻƩğŭĻ ЊЌ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ ĻƓƩƚƌƌͲ ЊЋ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷƭ ǞźƷŷķƩğǞͲ Џ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ͸ƭ ƭƷğƷǒƭ ĭŷğƓŭĻƭ ķǒĻ Ʒƚ ƩĻǒƓźŅźĭğƷźƚƓ ƚƩ adoption, and an average of 2 students who are currently attending MVUSD schools are identified by school personnel to be in foster or group homes (missed by CALPADS). When the MVUSD foster program began in November (2015) students were tracked as foster through self-report at registration. At that time, 70 students were identified as foster. 93 students were listed by the State of California through CALPADS. Comparing the two sources, only 36 students matched (were on both lists). By referencing both the CALPADS list and self-report foster, we have been able to identify over 130 students who are currently enrolled and are or were in foster care during the 2015-2016 school year. With continuation of the current tracking practices, it is likely that at the same time in the 2016-2017 year, the number of total foster students tracked will be close to 150. ΐΒΏ 4®³ « &®²³¤± 3³´£¤³² )£¤³¨¥¨¢ ³¨® ¨² ®¥³¤ £¨¥¥¨¢´«³ ΑΕυ #§ ¦¤ ¨ %±®««¬¤³ % ¢§ -®³§ ¡¤¢ ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢®¬¯«¤· ³´±¤ ®¥ ¥®²³¤± ¢ ±¤ȁ &®± ¤· ¬¯«¤Ǿ ²®¬¤ \[VALUE\] -653$ ²³´£¤³² «¨µ¤ ¶¨³§ ¥ ¬¨«¸ \[VALUE\] 14 ¬¤¬¡¤± ¶§® £¨£ ®³ µ®«´³¤¤± ³§¤ 12 ¥®²³¤± ²³ ³´² ®¥ ³§¤¨± ¥ ¬¨«¸ ¬¤¬¡¤± ³ ±¤¦¨²³± ³¨®ȁ /³§¤±² £® ®³ 10 \[VALUE\] ¢®²¨£¤± ³§¤¬²¤«µ¤² ³® ¡¤ ¨ ¥®²³¤± 8 ¢ ±¤ ¥³¤± ¡¤¨¦ ¡±¨¤¥«¸ ±¤¬®µ¤£ 6 ¥±®¬ ³§¤ §®¬¤ £´¤ ³® ³§¤ ¢³¨®² ®¥ \[VALUE\] 4 ®¤ ¯ ±¤³ȁ 3³¨«« ®³§¤±²Ǿ § µ¤ ³ ª¤ 2 ±¤« ³¨µ¤Ȍ² ¢§¨«£ ´£¤± ³§¤ +). '!0 ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ 4§¨² ¦´ ±£¨ ²§¨¯ 0 .¤¶ &®²³¤±Withdrawn#«®²¤£ # ²¤² ȝDiscovered ¯±®¦± ¬ ¨² ®³ ¢®²¨£¤±¤£ ¥®²³¤± Enrolledȝ.® 3§®¶3³¨«« %±®««¤£&®²³¤± ȝ .®ȃ ²³ ³´² /. #!,0!$3ȁ 2¤¢¤³ Foster ³ -653$CALPADS ¯ ²² ¦¤ ®¥ !"ΗΔΓ § ² ¤·¯ £¤£ ȏ¥®²³¤±Ȑ ³® ¨¢«´£¤ ¦´ ±£¨ ²§¨¯ £ ,#!0 ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ±¤¯®±³¨¦ ²®¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤²¤ ²³´£¤³² ² ¥®²³¤± ¨ ³§¤ Tracking foster student population is further complicated by the growing list of ¢®¬¨¦ ¸¤ ±²ȁ students at MVUSD whose cases close during the school year. These students remain in the foster program in AERIES but are no longer on the CALPADS list. This is because when students are identified through registrar or CALPADS as foster, they are included as participants in SP 190 foster care program through the end of the school year; even if the court case has closed. IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES Foster Student Population Tracking Since September, CALPADS foster student numbers have been between 80-100 each month; with an average of 12 new student names added and 12 student names removed each month. As the CALPADS list changes, AERIES continues to track students who were at one time in the school year, on CALPADS. Considering the number of foster students withdrawn in the 2015-2016 year, over 220 foster students have been active at one time during the current school year (as of January 2016 - the number grew to 250 by March 1). TOTAL FOSTER STUDENTS 2015-2016 ACTIVE/WITHDRAWN/CLOSED CASES 150 100 50 0 !5'534 ΗΗ 3%04%-"%2 /#4/"%2 ./6%-"%2 $%#%-"%2 *!.5!29 -50 Foster ΐΓΕ &®²³¤± ΐΕΒ &/34%2 ΐΗΖ &/34%2 ΑΏΏ &/34%2 220 -100 -150 CALPADSAERIESWITHDRAWN Student Information Systems Tracking foster student enrollment and withdrawal in a timely way is important because of legislation that mandates education equality and timely transfer of records for this transient population. AB490 requires that students are immediately enrolled despite any missing documentation, are awarded partial credits, and given priority registration to classes that are as similar as possible to the classes the student was withdrawn from. AB490 ğƌƭƚ ƒğƓķğƷĻƭ ƷŷğƷ ƭĭŷƚƚƌ ķźƭƷƩźĭƷƭ ƷƩğƓƭŅĻƩ ğƌƌ ƩĻĭƚƩķƭ ǞźƷŷźƓ ƷǞƚ ķğǤƭ ƚŅ ğ ŅƚƭƷĻƩ ƭƷǒķĻƓƷ͸ƭ ǞźƷŷķƩğǞğƌ͵ To be compliant with AB490, Pedley Unified School District has adapted their student information systems to automatically notify the Foster Student Liaison when any foster student is enrolled or withdrawn. Beaumont Unified school district includes a detailed partial credit record and list of schools previously attended as the cover page to any transferred foster student records. Moreno Valley Unified School District also provides their high school students with a USB drive to take with them at withdrawal. RCOE has offered to come to MVUSD and write a program into our AERIES system that automatically tags new CALPADS foster student names as they are provided by the state (weekly). All of these measures are meant to help students in foster care succeed educationally despite frequent placement changes. IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES LCAP Reporting Α Foster Student Outcomes Current LCAP reporting uses the population counts provided by CALPADS ƚƓ ͻźƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ķğǤͼͳ ƷŷĻ first Wednesday of October. Outcomes are reported for each subpopulation ğĭĭƚƩķźƓŭ Ʒƚ ͻźƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ķğǤͼ ƓǒƒĬĻƩƭ. This practice may provide inaccurate information for a very transient population such as students living in foster care. For example, according to CALPADS data, Murrieta Mesa High School (MMHS) had two foster students listed as attending MMHS in October 2015. To determine the outcomes of foster students after the first semester grades were complete, the population count of two was used when evaluating MMHS. It was determined that MMHS had two out of two students in foster care who failed multiple classes (2/2/100%). In reality, two of nine enrolled foster students were failing two or more classes. Only one of those original two students attended MMHS through the semester along with 8 other foster students (2/10/20%). If the number of foster students to fail two or more classes was calculated according to the CALPADS list at the end of the first semester, we would see that only 4 of 15 high school foster students are failing. If we were to use even broader data and calculate according to the total number of students that have been in foster care during the semester, we would see that only 7 of 33 students failed two or more classes. HS Foster - Two or More Failing Grades (D or F) School LCAP Report AIRIES SP 190 CALPADS (1-25-16) |||||| # Failing# Foster% # Failing# Foster % # Failing# Foster % Murrieta Valley HS 2 | 5 | 40.00% 2 | 9| 22 2 | 5 | 40.00% Vista Murrieta HS 3 | 8 | 37.50% 3 | 11 | 27 2 | 5| 40.00% Murrieta Mesa HS 2 | 2 | 100.00% 2 | 10 | 20 0 | 2 | 00.00% Creekside 0 | 3| 0 0 | 3| 00.00% HS Totals 7 | 15 | 47% 7 | 33 | 21% 4 | 15 | 27% 2015-2016 data will provide a baseline for measuring the educational outcomes for MVUSD students in foster care. Tracking in previous years was incomplete due to errors in identification and data entry. Certain metrics such as graduation rates are particularly difficult to understand because of the high number of student withdrawals during thth and 12grade years. In order to get true numbers on this, MVUSD would need to follow up with the the 11 student, the school records were transferred to, or the social worker. Though measuring outcomes takes time, Outcomes speak to value. Activity tracking demonstrates accountability and compliance, while outcomes demonstrate meaningful changes in the lives of our students. IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES ,#!0 '® « ΔȀ 3³´£¤³ !¢§¨¤µ¤¬¤³Ȁ %²´±¤ «« ²³´£¤³² «¤ ± ³§±®´¦§ ¢¢¤²² ³® §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ¢³¨®² £ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ³§ ³ ¨¢±¤ ²¤ ²¢§®®« ±¤ £¨ness. &®²³¤± 3¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ '® «Ȁ 4§¤ ¤£´¢ ³¨® « ®´³¢®¬¤² ®¥ ¥®²³¤± ¸®´³§ ¶¨«« ¬¨±±®± ³§®²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¦¤¤± « ¯®¯´« ³¨®ȁ Califor¨ 3³ ³¤ 5¨µ¤±²¨³¸ 3 - ±¢®² planning, and man-power, they are important in ®¥¥¤±² !#% 3¤±µ¨¢¤² ³® ¥®²³¤± ²³´£¤³² demonstrating value and informing the need for changes. 2¨µ¤±²¨£¤ 3¢§®« ±² #®¬¬´¨³¸ #®««¤¦¤ Actions/Services ®¥¥¤±² &®²³¤± £ +¨²§¨¯ 0±®¦± ¬Ǿ '´ ±£¨ 3¢§®« ±² 0±®¦± ¬Ǿ £ #®««¤¦¤ #®¤¢³¨® 0±®©¤¢³ ³® ²¤±µ¤ ¥®²³¤± ²³´£¤³² Obtain, share, and analyze data to accurately identify foster youth and track progress on all required metrics. (AB490) -®´³ 3 * ¢¨³® #®««¤¦¤ ®¥¥¤±² ®¤-on- Priority registration to foster students in AVID and Career ®¤ §¤«¯ ³§±®´¦§ ¥®²³¤± ²³´£¤³ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² Technical Education Programs (AB490) Develop and engage cross-agency, multidisciplinary educational team to support the educational success of each foster student including transitional living programs and access to postsecondary education/college bound programs. (AB854) Outcome-Based Measures HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA GOAL: 10% INCREASE OVER JUNE 2016 IN 2017: 2015-2016 2016-2017 High School: TBD High School:TBD General Student Population: TBD General Student Population: TBD Advanced Placement/ AVID Goal: 10% increase in AVID, IP, AB over 2015-2015 in 2016-2017: 2015-2016 2016-2017 High School: AP 0/ 68 / 0%, IB 0 / 68 / 0% High School:TBD General Population: AP 17.96%, IB 2.37% General Population: TBD AVID middle and high foster students : 4 / 54/ 7.41% AVID middle and high foster students: TBD AVID General population middle and high: 10.53% AVID General Student Population: TBD Access to Foster Resources Goal: 2016-2017 High School Students attend RCOE hosted Computer Weekend Goal: 2016-2017 High School Students attend RYLA Leadership Camps 2015-2016 2016-2017 High School: 2 High School:TBD Two or More Failing Grades (D or F) Goal: 10% decrease in 2 or more failing grades: 2015-2016 2016-2017 Middle School: 26.1% Middle School: TBD ,#!0 '® « ΕȀ 0±¤µ¤³¨®ȝ)³¤±µ¤³¨®ȝ!¢¢¤«¤± ³¨®Ȁ 0±®µ¨£¤ §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ¯±¤µ¤³¨®ȝ¨³¤±µ¤³¨®ȝ ¢¢¤«¤± ³¨® ¢³¨®² £ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ³® ¤«¨¬¨ ³¤ ¡ ±±¨¤±² ³® ²³´£¤³ ¢¢¤²² ³® £¤²¨±¤£ £ ±¤°´¨±¤£ ±¤ ² ®¥ ²³´£¸ȁ IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES General Student Population: 11.7% General Student Population: TBD High School: 21% (High School:TBD ƭĻĻ ͻ\[/!t ƩĻƦƚƩƷźƓŭ CƚƭƷĻƩ {ƷǒķĻƓƷ hǒƷĭƚƒĻƭͼΜ General High Student Population: 14.7% General Student Population: TBD Actions/Services Ensure new foster enrollments have an educational planning meeting with ERH, educational counselor, and foster liaison to ensure partial credit, priority registration, and access to enrichment. (AB490) Ensure transferring foster youth will be promptly enrolled in the appropriate school and classes and awarded credit for all work completed, including partial credit, and promptly evaluated and notified if AB 167/216 eligible. (AB490) Ensure foster youth are enrolled in appropriate academic programs provided by the district including credit recovery classes, A-G classes, AP classes, after-school classes, tutoring, and remediation services. (AB490) Provide assessment, tutoring, and remediation services at school sites for students in foster care. (AB854) Priority registration for foster students in academic interventions. (AB854, AB490) Outcome-Based Measures EDUCATIONAL PLANNING FOR FOSTER STUDENTS GOAL: ALL NEW ENROLLMENT WILL MEET WITH ERH, EDUCATIONAL COUNSELOR, AND LIAISON TO INSURE PARTIAL CREDIT, PRIORITY REGISTRATION, ACCESS TO ENRICHMENT 2015-2016 2016-2017 Elementary Schools: 0 Elementary Schools: TBD Middle School: 0 Middle School: TBD High School: 0 High School: TBD '® « ΖȀ 0±®¥¤²²¨® « $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ȁ %²´±¤ ¢« ²²±®®¬ ³¤ ¢§¤±²Ǿ ¨²³±´¢³¨® « ²´¯¯®±³ ²³ ¥¥Ǿ £ ²¢§®®« £¬¨¨²³± ³¨® ±¤ ³± ¨¤£ ¨ ³§¤ Measuring meaningful outcomes for the foster student population is crucial as we ²³ ³¤ ²³ £ ±£²Ǿ ³§¤ ²³ £ ±£ «¨¦¤£ ¢´±±¨¢´«´¬²Ǿ ¯±®µ¤ ±¤²¤ ±¢§-¡ ²¤£ ¨²³±´¢³¨® « ²³± ³¤¦¨¤²Ǿ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤ ¨²³±´¢³¨® « ³¤¢§®«®¦¨¤²Ǿ ¨²³±´¢³¨® « ±¤²®´±¢¤²ȝ ²²¤²²¬¤³²Ǿ £ ³§¤ ¢®««¤¢³¨® £ ´²¤ ®¥ £ ³ ¨ ¯±®¥¤²²¨® « £¨²¢´²²¨®² ³® ¨¥®±¬ begin programs to address their needs. Negative educational outcomes of students in ¨²³±´¢³¨® £ ¤§ ¢¤ ²³´£¤³ «¤ ±¨¦ȁ foster care are reported to far exceede the rates seen in other vulnerable populations such as English Language Learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities (Leiter & Johnson, 1997). In fact, according to research by Barrat and Belriner (2013), students in foster care have the worst educational outcomes of all subgroups tracked by the State of California. These students are reported to have the highest drop-out rates and lowest graduation rates. Actions/Services IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES Designate a foster youth liaison and ensure that district level oversight staff have adequate time, knowledge, trauma- informed training, and resources to meet the needs of foster youth. (AB490, ED Code 48853.5) Provide trauma-informed practices training to teachers and personnell working with students. Train key personal at each middle and high school in Restorative Justice Implementation for use with students in foster care. (AB1729) Children in foster care have '® « ΗȀ high rates of emotional and %¦ ¦¤¬¤³Ȁ %²´±¤ «« ²¢§®®« ²¨³¤² § µ¤ ² ¥¤Ǿ ¶¤«¢®¬¨¦Ǿ ¨²¯¨±¨¦Ǿ £ ¨¢«´²¨µ¤ ¢«¨¬ ³¤² ¥®± «« ²³´£¤³² £ ³§¤¨± ¥ ¬¨«¨¤²Ǿ ²® Teachers play an ³§ ³ «« ²³´£¤³² ±¤ ¡¤§ µ¨®± ««¸ £ ¢ £¤¬¨¢ ««¸ ¤¦ ¦¤£ ¨ ²¢§®®« £ ±¤ £¸ ³® «¤ ±ȁ behavioral problems directly instrumental role in the impacting their ability to be lives of children in foster Actions/Services successful in school. In fact, Trauma care (Fernandez, 2008). informed teaching involves 48% of youth in foster care understanding behavior are reported to struggle through trauma informed 32% of adults formerly in with emotional or eyes, consistently modeling foster care described behavioral issues with a rate emotion regulation, negative stereotyping and of PTSD twice that of U.S. unconditional positive discrimination as impacting regard, and consistent high Combat Veterans their self-esteem (Casey Family expectations for foster throughout childhood Programs, 2010; Kortenkamp & Ehrle, (Hass and 2002). students Graydon, 2009). (Bernard 1991; Fernandez, 2008). Understanding theexperience of the abused and neglected child assists us to develop compassion, patience and empathy. It isa key intervention in itself. IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES Ensure priority access for foster youth to all academic and social emotional supports including Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS). Establish incentive programs to encourage foster youth connectedness and engagement in school environment. Support foster students who desire to participate in enrichment activities (assist as they acquire necessary equipment for activities, necessary signatures from ERH or social workers, and arrange transportation). (AB490) Practice research-based discipline activities that promote empathy and relational based behavior change such as Restorative Justice (RJ). (AB1729) Ensure foster students receive appropriate mental health and behavioral services, including counseling, mental health services, in school therapeutic services, regardless of whether he or she qualifies for special education services. (AB854) Outcome-Based Measures ATTENDANCE GOAL: 10% DECREASE IN ABSENCES: 2015-2016 2016-2017 Middle School: TBD Middle School: TBD General Student Population: TBD General Student Population: TBD High School: TBDHigh School: TBD General Student Population: TBD General Student Population: TBD School Based Extra-Curricular Activities Goal: 10% in Middle and High School students involved in school based extra-curricular activities: 2015-2016 2016-2017 Middle School: TBD Middle School: TBD High School: TBDHigh School: TBD A Place to Be Groups Goal: Offered at all schools with more than two Students in foster care 2015-2016 2016-2017 Elementary Schools: 4/6 (with more than 2 students) Elementary Schools: TBD Middle School: 3/3 (with more than 2 students)Middle School: TBD High School: 2/2 (with more than 2 students)High School: TBD Assertive Discipline Goal: Decreased Suspension / Expulsion: 2015-2016 2016-2017 Foster Student Population: 25 / 250 / 10% (see School Discipline)Elementary Schools: TBD Total Student Population: 232 / 23,530 / less than 1% Middle School: TBD Foster Student Support Logic Model IDENTIFICATION OF FOSTER STUDENTS AND OUTCOMES Inputs Actions/Services Outcomes &3 .¤¶ %±®««¬¤³ -¤¤³¨¦² ȟ &3 ±¨¦§³² ´¯§¤«£ 4± ²¢±¨¯³ ±¤µ¨¤¶Ǿ ¯ ±³¨ « ¢±¤£¨³²Ǿ &®²³¤± 3³´£¤³ ,¨ ¨²® ®µ¤±²¨¦§³ !"ΐΕΔ ¤«¨¦¨¡¨«¨³¸Ǿ ¯±¨®±¨³¸ ®¥ ¯±®¦± ¬²Ǿ ¢®¬¬´¨¢ ³¤ ±¤¦¨²³± ³¨®Ǿ ±¤¬¤£¨ ³¨® «¤¦¨²« ³¨µ¤ ¢§ ¦¤²Ǿ ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤²Ǿ ¤±¨¢§¬¤³ ¢®¤¢³¨®² £¨²³±¨¢³ ¶¨£¤ ¢®¬¬´¨¢ ³¨® £ &3 ®´³¢®¬¤ ¬¨±±®± ¦¤¤± « ¦¤¢¸ ¢®«« ¡®± ³¨®²Ǿ ³± ¢ª¨¦Ǿ population £ ¯±®¦±¤²² ³®¶ ±£ ¦® «² %²´±¤ ³¨¬¤«¸ ³± ²¥¤± ®¥ ±¤¢®±£² )¬¯±®µ¤ ¦± £¤²Ǿ ¦± £´ ³¨® ± ³¤²Ǿ ¥®± ¶¨³§£± ¶ &3 £ ³³¤£ ¢¤ )¢±¤ ²¤£ #®««¤¦¤ 2¤ £¨¤²² 2¤¬¤£¨ ³¨® 3¯¤¢¨ «¨²³²Ǿ ³´³®±²Ǿ 2¤¬¤£ ³¨®Ǿ ³´³®±¨¦Ǿ ¢ £¤¬¨¢ ¢ £¤¬¨¢ ¨³¤±µ¤³¨®² interventions )¢±¤ ²¤ 0« ¢¤¬¤³ 3³ ¡¨«¨³¸ )¢±¤ ²¤ %¬®³¨® « #®««¤¦¤ #®¤¢³¨®² ¥®± &3 Health/Stability ¨¢«´£¨¦ ¢®««¤¦¤ ±¤¯±¤²¤³ ³¨µ¤ ²¯¤ ª¤±² £ ¢ ¬¯´² µ¨²¨³² - ±±¨ ¦¤ £ & ¬¨«¸ ǉ 3®¢¨ « )¢±¤ ²¤ ¢¢¤²² ³® ¤£´¢ ³¨® «Ǿ 7®±ª ¨³¤±² ³® ¥ ¢¨«¨³ ³¤ §¤ «³§Ǿ ¶¤«¥ ±¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤² ¢®´²¤«¨¦ ¦±®´¯²Ǿ ²³´£¤³ ²´¯¯®±³Ǿ £ ¢ ²¤ ¬ ¦¤¬¤³ )¢¤³¨µ¤ 0±®¦± ¬² ³® ¨¢±¤ ²¤ %§ ¢¤£ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¸ ¢¢¤²² ³® ¤±¨¢§¬¤³ ¯±®¦± ¬² )¢±¤ ²¤ ¯ ±³¨¢¨¯ ³¨® ¨ ¤±¨¢§¬¤³ ¢³¨µ¨³¨¤² 0±®¥¤²²¨® « $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ #®²³² ȏ! 0« ¢¤ ³® "¤Ȑ ±¤²¨«¨¤¢¸ ¦±®´¯² ȟ 2¤²³®± ³¨µ¤ *´²³¨¢¤ k-12 0®²¨³¨µ¤ 3¢§®®« #«¨¬ ³¤ )¬¯«¤¬¤³ ³¨®Ǿ ³± ´¬ ¨¥®±¬¤£ ¤£´¢ ³¨® ,®¶¤± $¨²¢¨¯«¨¤ 2 ³¤² 0¤±²®¤« 4± ¨¨¦ ȟ 4± ´¬ ¨¥®±¬¤£ ¯± ¢³¨¢¤²Ǿ 2¤²³®± ³¨µ¤ *´²³¨¢¤ )¬¯«¤¬¤³ ³¨® 3¤¢´±¤ !££¨³¨® « &´£¨¦ )£¤³¨¥¸ /´³²¨£¤ &´£¨¦ 0±®¦± ¬ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ȁ #®««¤¦¤ # ¬¯´² 4®´±²Ǿ &®²³¤± 0 ±¤³ 3¤¢´±¤ !££¨³¨® « &´£¨¦ 3´¯¯®±³ȝ±¤¢±´¨³¬¤³Ǿ 3´¬¬¤± *®¡² 0±®¦± ¬ȁȁȁ