Review of Dcfs Responses to Prior CGJ Recommendations

Recommendations 8

• R1

  Page 391
  The Department of Children and Family Services should continue to implement those recommendations that are currently partially implemented or still in progress at the end of the Fiscal Year 2012-2013.
• R2

  Page 391
  The Department of Children and Family Services should endeavor to include as part of its yearly budget those recommendations that were not implemented due to budgetary constraints for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013.
• R3

  Page 399
  DCFS, Probation, DMH, and DPSS should develop and implement innovative programs to target high-risk families and high-risk children for proactive early inter- vention. Partially Implemented - July, 2013 The Community-Based Support Division has several prevention-based projects recently ap- proved to receive an increase to their funding through the Title IV-E Waiver. On December 13, 2011 the Board of Supervisors agreed with the proposal to utilize Title IV-E Waiver funds to increase the Prevention Initiative Demonstration Project (PlDP) by an additional $1.25 million for fiscal year 2011-2012, and to fund an additional year (FY2012- 2013) at a total program budget of $2.5 million. In conjunction with DCFS Regional Offices, most DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 362 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2007–2008 Item and Recommendation Status and Response PlDP agencies have initiated Visitation Centers at faith-based community centers to provide safe and family-centered, locations when monitors are required for visitation. The Year-Two PlDP Evaluation and Executive Summary reports have been completed and the results and recommendations were presented to the Board Deputies as well as the Children's Commission. This evaluation provided evidence based results demonstrating generally positive outcomes for building family strengths; safer communities; decreased subsequent referrals to the child abuse hot line and increased family sta- bility. DCFS has requested and extension of the PlDP program through June 30, 2013. Further- more, several of the more promising strategies are being incorporated into the Promoting Safe and Stable Families/CAPIT program re-design, which is projected to begin July 1, 2013. In addition to prevention programs, addressing the needs of high-risk communities requires con- sideration of caseload size and complexity, re- cruitment and retention for social workers serving these communities. Difficulty in working with cli- ents and the scarcity of resources to meet the needs of the community must be acknowledged. In high risk communities, there is increased pov- erty, high rates of unemployment, high crime rates, and significant disparities in health related issues, which all impact family functioning and add to the complexity of case issues. 3d. More intensive programs on drugs and access to drug rehabilitation pro- grams should be provided to parents for themselves and their children. Partially Implemented - January, 2013 DCFS and the Department of Public Health (DPH) Substance Abuse Prevention and Control (SAPC) are working to strengthen collaborative efforts through Project SAFE (Screening and As- sessment for Family Engagement). Specifically, the Project SAFE collaboration seeks to strengthen the screening and assessment pro- cess for better identification of the needs of cli- ents with substance use disorders and provide timely access to treatment. The intent of this ini- tiative is to develop a comprehensive screening and assessment protocol emphasizing clinical assessments and therapeutic interventions by DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 363 2007–2008 Item and Recommendation Status and Response substance abuse experts. 4a. A suitable overlap of mentors should be built into the program to ease a child's transition to the new mentor. Not Implemented - On-going There are currently only a limited number of community agencies with viable mentoring pro- grams. See response to items 5b and 5 c above.
• R5

  Page 400
  The directors of DCFS, Probation, DMH, and LACOE should design and im- plement jointly a curriculum that address- es practical educational skills for all chil- dren to better prepare them for independ- ence. Partially Implemented - July, 2012 LACOE will be out stationing eight Education Counselors in DCFS regional offices beginning December 2011 to better address educational needs and provide support to CSWs, youth and families. DCFS currently partners with Probation and DMH as part of a multi-disciplinary team to address needs of DCFS youth at risk of crossing over to Probation. DCFS Youth Development Services continues to provide Independent Living Assistance for T A Y youth and participates in collaborative meetings to add to the discussion about T AY educational needs from a program perspective. 5a. All programs should contain an iden- tified minimum level of understanding on the part of the recipients before the pro- gram is considered delivered. Partially Implemented - July, 2014 DCFS Education Consultants and LACOE Foster Youth Services Education Counselors work closely with the school districts to support the educational needs of many children served by DCFS. With Title IV-E Waiver funds, the Gloria Molina Foster Youth Education Program will be expanded throughout Los Angeles County and will include out stationing children's social work- ers in the schools and working with community agencies to provide academic remediation ser- vices for DCFS youth. 5b. Enhanced study skills and courses on practical living skills should be part of the curriculum of juvenile halls and camps. DCFS should include such courses in the schedules of students at- tending public schools whenever possi- ble. Partially Implemented - July, 2014 In partnership with LACOE, the Education Coor- dinating Counsel and Probation, DCFS is imple- menting programs such as the Gloria Molina Foster Youth Education Program to better ad- dress and support the educational needs of DCFS youth. Additionally, DCFS works closely with several school based education programs in maximizing the number of DCFS youth participat- ing in after school enrichment and educational DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 364 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2007–2008 Item and Recommendation Status and Response programs. 5c. Foster children should be encour- aged to participate in music, art, and oth- er nonacademic programs. Probation should seek volunteers to provide these services in juvenile halls and camps. Partially Implemented - July, 2014 DCFS, in partnership with Los Angeles Unified School District, Education Coordinating Council, and several community programs is in the pro- cess of formulating a strategic plan to include identification of resources, outreach, and re- cruitment to support an increase of foster youth participating in after school and summer enrich- ment programs.
• R6

  Page 401
  Under the leadership of the Deputy, CEO, DCFS, Probation, DPSS, and DMH, improve programs should be pro- vided to youth 18-25 who have left the system. Partially Implemented - On-going The Department continues to support this rec- ommendation and will utilize the CEO Self- Sufficiency Committee to address how this col- laboration towards an individual TA Y plan can be accomplished. It should be noted that the Exit Outcomes Report (State Soc405E) requires the DCFS case manager to provide information of TAY including the area of DPSS resources and DMH services up to their exiting DCFS jurisdic- tion.
• R7

  Page 402
  Under the leadership of the Deputy CEO, DCFS, Probation, and DMH, in consultation with LACOE and other school districts, should develop a plan and a timetable for a comprehensive in- formation system to capture all records on all children in the system. The plan should include: cost estimates to develop and operate the system, a proposal for funding, and a timetable for implementa- tion should be reported every four months to the Board of Supervisors. Partially Implemented - July, 2014 DCFS worked with LACOE, Sacramento Office of Education, the Stuart Foundation and the Po- mona and Pasadena Unified School District to explore acquiring the Foster Focus Data Educa- tion Data Base System as a means to upload information from school districts and LACOE into one central data base containing all pertinent ed- ucation records for foster youth. The feasibility of implementing this system in LA County is still being explored. There have been no invitations extended to par- ticipate in any meetings convened by the CIO/CEO on this initiative. Limited information has been shared regarding this item. DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 365 EXHIBIT 1-D - STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS – 2006-2007 2006–2007 Item and Recommendation Status and Response Juvenile Custodies – Are We Paying Twice? 1, 2, 3, Implemented Crisis in Communication – Preventing Child Fatality and Maltreatment 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 2.2, 3.3, 3.6, 3.8, Implemented 1.3. Provide reports on a regular basis such as monthly to DHS hospitals on the outcome of all child maltreatment reports filed for each hospital and other reporting facilities. The Department disagreed with the recommen- dation in our initial response. 2.1. Implement mHUB and myCSW links between 1) all medical HUBS 2) medical HUBS and DCFS. Further assessment of CHEERS may be useful for inclusion of education and emancipation information in the countywide database. Partially Implemented - July, 2012 A direct electronic link between the myCSW and E-mHub systems could place the County out of compliance with Federal regulations relating to the State CWS/CMS. However, DCFS, Depart- ment of Health Services (DHS) and the Chief In- formation Officer (CIO) are working together to develop a solution. DHS and the CIO will make a joint recommendation to the CEO. DHS implemented the E-mHub patient infor- mation web-based system in March 2011 at all Medical Hubs. An electronic interface with DCFS is included and implements referrals going elec- tronically to E-mHub and through the interface, appointments status alerts and examination re- sults being received at DCFS. 3.2. Assign Public Health Nurses to staff the HUB clinics in addition to Children's Social Workers since all children in the DCFS system are already assigned a so- cial worker who could serve on the multi- disciplinary teams for the children on their caseload. Partially Implemented - February 2012 DCFS and DHS have pursued opportunities to identify funding by working with the County Chief Executive (CEO) Office. In the Fall of 2011, a specific funding source was identified to imple- ment the out-stationing of CSWs and PHNs at the Medical Hub. A proposal awaits review and approval from the BOS. 3.7. Assist ICAN in its integration efforts by incorporating it into DCFS so that it can continue to maintain its ongoing re- view of child deaths. The Department disagreed with the recommen- dation in our initial response. DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 366 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2006–2007 Item and Recommendation Status and Response 4.4. Consider an alternative system of medical record data entry, such as using Intermediate Typist Clerks or a similar County classification for the majority of routine cases so that Public Health Nurs- es are utilized in a more efficient and ef- fective manner but would still be available for assisting with interpretations of the more complex medical information and records obtained by DCFS for entry into CWS/CMS. Not Implemented - July, 2012 Once budget constraints are alleviated, DCFS will work with the CEO to identify possible fund- ing for this purpose. Triple Jeopardy – Abandoned, Neglected, and Abused Children of Los Angeles County 2, 2.1, 2.2, 3, 3.2, 4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 6, 6.2, 6.5, 7, 9.2, 10 Implemented 3.1. DCFS should develop new catego- ries of Foster Family Care that will have the skills and ability to parent the more challenging dependents currently placed in home facilities. Partially Implemented - December, 2012 In partnership with the Department of Mental Health (DMH), DCFS has executed contracts with 12 eligible Foster Family Agencies (FFA) for Intensive Treatment Foster Care (ITFC) and four FFAs for Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). The goal is to have 220 ITFC slots and 80 MTFC slots As of October 31, 2011 , there were 97 slots. MTFC is an evidence-based model of therapeutic foster care that has been rigorously evaluated in multi- ple studies with demonstrated success in provid- ing positive outcomes for youth in out-of-home care. MTFC limits the number of children placed in a foster home to one, and provides extensive training for foster parents; therapeutic interven- tions for the child, their family, and foster parents; along with round the clock crisis stabilization. ITFC is a more flexible framework outlined in the Welfare and Institutions Code 18358 and allows up to two children (e .g., siblings) to be placed in an extensively trained foster home and receive in-home mental health services that include Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. ITFC is not conditioned on family availability as a permanency resource. Therefore, youth with his- tories of placement instability and unmet mental health needs that interfere with permanency benefit from a homebased setting designed to meet these needs, as well as enhancing the po- DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 367 2006–2007 Item and Recommendation Status and Response tential for finding a permanent caregiver. ITFC programs exist in several other counties in Cali- fornia and are considered a valuable and effec- tive alternative to group home placements. Currently, DCFS is undergoing a re-design of the D-Rate program that will build-in more support and guidance for the D-Rate foster parent. One of several actions stemming from this re-design is a DCFS and DMH work group that has begun exploring ways to extend a blend of the best practices found in treatment foster care and Wraparound to the D-Rate children and foster parents. The goal is to enhance the support and training of the D-Rate foster parents as well as the behavioral and mental health interventions for the D-Rate youth. 4.1. DCFS and Probation should develop a comprehensive and integrated, auto- mated information system containing all record and, reports that have been com- piled on every child by all caregivers. Not Applicable The Probation Department now has access to this information through CWS/CMS. 6.1. DCFS should implement assess- ment centers in existing residential-based facilities that have the qualifications, ca- pabilities, and capacity to provide such services. Not Implemented - To Be Determined We are still considering assessment centers. Currently CDSS has issued a moratorium on the acceptance and processing of group home rate applications that will be in effect until December 31, 2012. This includes a moratorium on the de- velopment of new programs, new providers, pro- gram changes (such as the RCL level) and pro- gram capacity increases. This moratorium will end on January 1, 2013 unless the date is ex- tended. (Please note that the moratorium began in October 2010 and was scheduled to end in October 2011, but was extended though Decem- ber 2012). 6.3. As part of the assessment process, DCFS and Probation should set goals, measure the effectiveness of their place- ments, and identify causes for ineffective placements or outcomes. Partially Implemented - To Be Determined On December 2, 2010 DCFS and DMH imple- mented a two-year pilot called Residentially- Based Services (RBS). RBS envisions shorter group home stays, and better outcomes with cost neutrality for the County. The pilot will provide empirical and fiscal data that will support the de- sign for potential countywide implementation. DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-C 368 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2006–2007 Item and Recommendation Status and Response 6.4. DCFS and Probation should assess and develop new strategies for their re- spective AWOL dependents and wards. Partially Implemented - On-going Our Countywide Runaway Outreach Unit (ROU) Program is currently providing services for 398 youth. The ROU CSW is utilized as a resource and secondary service provider to locate and stabilize youth, and reduce the recidivism of run- ning away episodes. The CSW works with the more hardened youth population that lives out- side the scope of established policies and proto- cols. The ROU is incident driven and immediate placement stabilization that can make long term planning possible. In 2010 a meeting was held between the DCFS ROU Program Manager and Probation to discuss Probation's development of a "Probation" ROU program. However, Probation reported having a lack of resources to implement a similar program. The DCFS ROU supervisor participates in a workgroup with DCFS, Court, Probation, and Mental Health to address the needs of At-Risk youth and cross-over youth.
• R8

  Page 391
  DCFS should consider the employ- ment of additional Human Services Aides to alleviate some of the less critical work performed by the social workers. Partially Implemented - July, 2012 It is the Department's objective to assign one HSA to each CSW unit. However, this objective is still in the discussion stage. Human Resources and Budget personnel are discussing this topic. However, formal discus- sions with CEO staff must occur to identify fund- ing prior to formulating an implementation plan. The meeting with CEO staff will be scheduled during the first quarter of 2012. DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-B 356 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT EXHIBIT 1-B - STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS – 2008-2009 2008–2009 Item and Recommendation Status and Response Policy vs. Results – Youth Employment Programs Funded but Not Fully Utilized 2.1.3, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 3.1.3, 3.2.1 Implemented Hub Clinics – An Underutilized Resource 2.1, 2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.2 Implemented 3.1. The Director of DCFS should direct the CSWs and PHNs to create age- specific information sheets to be given to foster parents or caregivers at the time the detained child is placed in their care. These sheets should be sized for easy access, such as for positing on a refriger- ator or note-board, and give information listing normal behavior and expectations and also what steps should be taken in emergencies. Not Applicable A workgroup was convened to explore how to best implement the recommendation. It was de- termined that multiple individual versions would need to be developed in order to provide the caregiver with the specific and appropriate age- specific information for each child in their house- hold as no single age-specific document would meet the needs for all children in their household. Foster parents must be CPR certified, mandated 16 hours of pre-service hours to become certified as foster parents and required a designated number of hours yearly training hours to maintain their foster care certification. The purpose of the caregiver classes is to provide them with the knowledge and tools to assist them in meeting the needs of the foster care population, including child development, behavioral issues, social ser- vice benefits, etc. Detained children continue to receive an initial physical exam at the Hubs and caregivers are educated on developmental issues at the time of the exam. For subsequent well child exams, CHDP providers provide developmental, age- specific, anticipatory guidance to the caregivers. Foster children are mandated to receive routine well-child visits including developmental screen- ing and developmental, age-specific anticipatory guidance by a CHDP Provider on a regular basis and, as such, this recommendation is no longer applicable. 3.2. The Directors of DCFS and DHS should, , develop crite- ria or identifying children in the child wel- fare system for whom the HUB Clinics Not Implemented - Unable to provide a target date for completion due to budgetary constraints. DCFS agrees with this recommendation, but has deferred any plans to expand Medical Hub ser- DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-B 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 357 2008–2009 Item and Recommendation Status and Response should serve as medical home, with re- sponsibility for their overall medical care coordination, focusing on those with spe- cial health care needs and sexual abuse victims. vices as we focus on meeting the service needs of the priority populations of newly detained chil- dren and children requiring forensic evaluations. ➢ DHS Administration has a heightened level of interest in establishing medical homes and continuity of care services for DCFS children and has initiated further discus- sions with DCFS on how this can be real- ized. ➢ Per DHS, as more revenue is identified and realized to cover the cost of the services that are provided to DCFS children by the Hubs, it is possible that additional funds could be made available to serve our chil- dren, such as expanding the Hubs as med- ical homes for all children. ➢ The Board of Supervisors has requested that DHS maximize the revenue related to the costs of the Medical Hub operations. DHS is pursuing this diligently. For exam- ple, DHS and LA Care Health Plan, one of the County's two Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans, are finalizing a partnership whereby LA Care will contribute a portion, albeit small, of the costs for the forensic evalua- tion and initial medical exam for children who are LA Care Plan members referred to DCFS to, and served by, the Hubs. 3.3.1. The Directors of DCFS and DHS should, , develop crite- ria for children in the child welfare system for whom the HUB Clinics would not serve as medical home, but should pro- vide continuity of care by: • Periodic reassessments every six months. • Case reviews of children with spe- cial health care needs who are be- ing seen by private community pro- viders. • Those at risk of being victims of abuse again, such as when chang- es in placement occur. • Those under the Family Mainte- nance program, still living in homes where they were abused. Not implemented - Unable to provide a target date for completion due to budgetary constraints. See Response to 3.2 above. DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-B 358 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2008–2009 Item and Recommendation Status and Response 4.2. The Directors of DHS and DCFS should work in collaboration with the County CEO and CIO to develop a long- term data and information-sharing system by June 2011 that enables these depart- ments and others involved with serving foster children and youth to access key information about children's health and mental health needs and case histories. Partially Implemented - 1st phase November, 2013 DCFS is working with the DHS, DMH and Chief Executive Office for the implementation of the Enterprise Master Person Index (EMPI). The EMPI will identity common clients of County ser- vices to facilitate the secured sharing of infor- mation for improving services and coordinating service delivery. The EMPI will facilitate identifi- cation of common clients, and when it is legally permissible to do so, will facilitate appropriate, accurate, and reliable sharing of client data. 4.3.1. The Directors of DCFS and the DPH should proceed with implementing the Lakewood project model system wide, enabling PHNs to work on any of the cas- es that come into the office to which they are assigned, regardless of department affiliation. Unable to Implement The CEO researched funding sources for the Project, but any additional funding would require the Board's approval. Mr. Wesley Ford, Director for Children's Medical Services, has agreed to implement the Lakewood Project county wide if DCFS provides the lost revenue that would occur under the existing HCPCFC funding structure at the Federal and State level. Due to DCFS budgetary constraints, DCFS will not be able to provide DPH with their lost revenue and, as such, we are unable to im- plement this recommendation. 4.3.2. The Directors of DCFS and the DPH should collaborate to implement de- partment-wide the DCFS Lakewood Pro- ject pilot integrating the two departments' PHNs This will re- quire DCFS to utilize Katie A. funding in the short run for the estimated 15% of PHN time that would be not covered by the State CHDP funding, and identifying funding for long-term implementation. Unable to Implement Please refer to 4.3.1 above. 4.3.3. The Directors of DCFS and the DPH should research and work to resolve the funding issues introduced by the Lakewood project and the recommended organizational structure change This may be done by apply- ing for additional funding and /or a waiver Unable to Implement DCFS has explored funding with DPH, CHDP and Title IV-E Waiver dollars. However, due to DPH, Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC) strict funding restrictions, this recommendation is not feasible. Please refer to DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-B 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 359 2008–2009 Item and Recommendation Status and Response through the CHDP program. It also may involve identifying other DCFS funds to cover any balance not covered CHDP. 4.3.1 above. 4.3.4. The Directors of DCFS and the DPH should revise the MOU between DCFS and DPH to provide for input by DCFS Regional Man- agers into the evaluation process for DPH PHNs. In Progress - Mid 2012 DCFS will pursue the request for this recommen- dation during the process of the MOU's periodic, bi-annual review in mid 2012. Regional Adminis- trators (RAs) continue to have the option of providing input to either the PHNs or Nursing Manager about the performance of PHNs. 4.4. The Directors of DCFS and the DPH should finalize and proceed with tracking caseload and outcomes to evaluate indi- vidual PHNs and overall effectiveness of their services In Progress - April, 2012 A committee comprised of representatives from DPH Children’s Medical Services (CMS) Admin- istration, Information Section and Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC) Nurse Manager, DCFS BIS, Public Health Nurs- es (PHN) Program, and County Counsel met to identify data elements for tracking Public Health Nurses caseloads. Policy is being drafted on adding PHNs as “Secondary” on referrals and cases. PHN Supervisors are providing staff with training on policy. Health Information-sharing for At-risk Youth – Overcoming Obstacles 2.1, 2.2, 3.5, Implemented 6.1. To the extent permitted by law, DCFS, DHS, DMH and DPH should pro- vide skilled healthcare professionals ac- cess to a youth's healthcare information regardless of the department in which the information was originally obtained. The Department disagreed with the recommen- dation in our initial response. 7.1.1. The CEO should caucus with DCFS and DMH, as well as with the DCEO of the CFWBC and County Coun- sel, to develop strategies for implementa- tion of standards, remedies, and legisla- tive changes at both County, State and Federal levels that will enable continuing improvements of healthcare delivery to County residents, consistent with the im- provements which have been achieved as a result of Katie A Court and Advisory In Progress - To be determined This recommendation has been forwarded to the CEO as the lead. We have also referred to DHS as they, along with DPH, will need to take the lead on the major activities due to pending Healthcare reform. We will also work toward de- velopment of a workgroup comprised of CEO, DMH and DCFS to consider some legal reme- dies, but this level of strategic development and implementation of standards, remedies, and leg- islative changes at both County, State and Fed- DCSF REVIEW – EXHIBIT 1-B 360 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2008–2009 Item and Recommendation Status and Response Panel supervision. eral levels that will enable continuing improve- ments of healthcare delivery to County residents, consistent with the improvements which have been achieved as a result of Katie A Court and Advisory Panel supervision has not been consid- ered. 7.2. The CEO should work with DCFS and DHS to develop written assurances from the State that County actions taken in response to Katie A. rulings are contin- ued response to Katie A. rulings are con- tinued beyond the expiration of the Fed- eral court order(s). In Progress - On-going Los Angeles County is in the 3rd year of imple- menting its 5 year Katie A. Strategic Plan. This plan and court oversight are not expected to ex- pire until 2012. Los Angeles County DCFS and DMH representatives participate in the weekly Negotiation Workgroup and continue to monitor the progress of the State's portion of the Katie A. lawsuit and advocate for changes at the State level that are consistent with Los Angeles County positions and activities with regard to the Coun- ty's settlement activities. Los Angeles County remains engaged with the Katie A Panel and exit criteria from the Katie A Settlement Agreement which were agreed upon in 2011. These criteria include provisions that require Los Angeles County to sustain the initiatives and practice changes that are achieved through the Settle- ment Agreement. Be Prepared - Keeping Kids Save – Disaster Preparedness for Youth in County Custody
• R9

  Page 405
  DCFS and Probation should strategi- cally use congregate care facilities that meet quality assurance standards and provide awards for achieving meaningful outcomes. Partially Implemented - July, 2012 DCFS has met with the Probation Department on monitoring the quality of care and service deliv- ery congregate care facilities provide to place youth. As these discussions move forward, plans will be underway to determine how to best acknowledge providers who achieve meaningful outcomes. 9.1. DCFS and Probation should study how best to improve group home facili- ties’ programs, staffing skills and staffing levels. Partially Implemented - To Be Determined On December 2, 2010, DCFS and DMH imple- mented a two-year demonstration pilot called Residentially Based Services (RBS). The data to date show promise, but it is too early to decide on effectiveness or expansion. The vision is for RBS to be the new model for group home care with an emphasis on permanency and creative strategies to move youth safely back into the community as quickly as possible with no recidi- vism. DCFS REVIEW – EXHIBIT 2 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 369 EXHIBIT 2 – UPDATED STATUS – GRAND JURY REPORTS 2006 – 2010 The following provides the status of the recommendations made in the 2006 through 2010 Civil Grand Jury Reports. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) has implemented 75 of the 121 recommendations and made significant pro- gress in the remainder. Each year is summarized for easy review. 2009 – 2010 Child Abuse Reporting and Response Report The Grand Jury's review was precipitated by the implementation of a system to speed up and standardize the reporting of and response to Suspected Child Abuse Reports to law enforcement agencies. The Grand Jury made recommendations to strengthen and formalize the interfaces among responding agencies. There were a total of eight rec- ommendations of which five have been fully implemented and three are partially imple- mented (see Exhibit 1-A). We have highlighted some of our accomplishments, as fol- lows: We have fully implemented the Electronic Suspected Child Abuse Report (E-SCAR) system, and we meet regularly with law enforcement partners. We also developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) however, given the development of various enhancements to the E-SCAR system, it has not been finalized. We anticipate the MOU will be finalized by January 2012. DCFS Social workers are co-located in seven of 21 Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) stations, six of 23 Los Angeles Sheriff Department (LASD) Agencies, and six of 46 independently run law enforcement agen- cies. We have updated our MOU with LASD and are drafting an Operational Agree- ment with the Independent Agencies to ensure uniformity and best practice. We are in full agreement that co-location of social workers at law enforcement facilities will help promote better communication and will continue working with our partners to strengthen our partnerships. 2008 – 2009 The Plight of At-Risk Youth in Los Angeles County Report The Grand Jury Report details the findings following in-depth reviews of eight areas of County departments that may have answers to the reasons for the number of youth gang members, number of children in foster care, and number of children who drop out of school. Some of the areas investigated were youth employment programs and ser- vices in Los Angeles County and its municipalities, County Hub Clinics providing medi- cal services for children in the child welfare system, information technology and imped- iments to information sharing among agencies serving at-risk youth, and extending the age of emancipation for foster care. The Grand Jury directed 33 recommendations to DCFS of which 20 have been implemented; six are either in progress or partially imple- mented; two have not been implemented; one is no longer applicable; we are unable to implement three recommendations we disagreed with one recommendation (item 6.1) in our original response (see Exhibit 1-B). We have implemented all the recommendations which addressed youth employment programs and services and AB 12. In summary, we implemented a Career Develop- DCFS REVIEW – EXHIBIT 2 370 2011–2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ment Intern Program and, although there have been some fiscal limitations which have