4. Schools of the Future

Recommendations 6

• R1

  Page 43
  Supervision of Social Workers In the words of the Blue Ribbon Commission, the DCFS CSWs are “the most visible and accountable frontline practitioners,” and are “primarily responsible for case management services designed to protect children…”11 And the CSWs are in fact on the frontline. They are the ones who respond to calls alleging abuse, and who, after a consultation with their supervisors, make the decision of whether a child should be removed from his or her home. The time they spend with children and families determines the accuracy of their decision; the decision of whether a child who has been abused should stay with the family under a Voluntary Family Maintenance (VFM) plan or be removed and placed with a relative or, if necessary, in foster care. Reducing a CSW’s caseload is one step that can improve his or her performance. Recognizing this need, DCFS has hired approximately 2,100 new social workers since the BRCCP report was published in June, 2014. Important steps have been taken to ensure that the new CSWs are well trained. A DCFS “University” was built in collaboration with seven universities that have social worker programs.12 The University training includes simulation labs in which CSWs are put in situations that they might encounter when they knock at the door of a home when a child has been reported to be in distress. Praising the program, a former senior staff member of DCFS said, “Now I think workers are much better prepared to handle those situations they’re going to deal with on a real time basis.”13 But simulation labs do not replace on-the-job learning, and one critical element for a new social worker is interaction with a supervisor who has had extensive experience dealing with children and families. A DCFS Management Directive issued on 9/28/10 makes clear the importance of the Supervising Social Worker’s (SCSW’s) work in training CSWs. The Directive states that the SCSWs “have an enormous impact” on the CSW’s performance and details their responsibility for training and guidance. One key requirement in providing supervision and training is that the SCSW “accompany CSWs during their investigations or home calls on a periodic basis (no less than two occasions per year/per CSW) to provide guidance and learning opportunities for the CSW in their field work practices.14 On visits to two field offices the jurors were told that in many cases the SCSW does not make two or even one field visits per year with the social workers under their supervision during their investigations or home calls. This and other provisions of the Management Directive are not being followed; a staff member stated that the Management Directive is no longer in place and no new directive regarding the supervision of social workers has yet been issued. Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protetction, p 20. L.A. Daily News, September 10, 2015. Ibid. Management Directive #MD-09-11, p.7 (f). 32 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT During their visits, the jurors also learned that another important thing is often missing when a CSW responds to a call regarding potential abuse: information about the child and family he/she is assigned to. CSWs are allowed to read the child/family files before they visit but they are not required to do so. A highly placed official at one district office stated that she thought the CSWs did so “often” but not always. The CGJ believes that if the CSWs were required to read the files before a visit they might more often recognize when the “minor” injuries they see are part of a large and terrifying pattern. More children might be spared months or years of abuse and possibly even death.
• R2

  Page 45
  Family Finding In many states, including California, a new movement is underway to reduce the number of children being placed in congregate care and to place them instead with relatives or Non-Related Extended Family Members (NREFM). Recent changes in federal law contain strong language requiring social workers to provide documentation of efforts made to obtain a family placement.15 And the State of California has enacted amendments to the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) which provide funding and services to support children in family settings and, perhaps most importantly, establishes that when a child is placed with a relative, the relative will receive the same level of reimbursement paid to foster care providers.16 As documented by Judge Edwards in his article on engaging relatives, finding a relative placement is a time-sensitive and difficult task for a single social worker to carry out.17 Recognizing the difficulty of the task and the importance of relative care, and in response to a motion from the BOS, DCFS prepared a “Countywide Upfront Family Finding Protocol” on September 20, 2016, which includes a plan “to increase relative placements and the overall role of relatives and Non-Related Extended Family Members (NREFMs) …”18 The plan sets forth three steps for identifying relatives and engaging them in the case. The plan also proposed initiating a pilot program to take place in two DCFS regional offices and which was “tentatively scheduled” to begin in November 2016.19 The pilot program did begin in November 2016 and is underway in the district offices in Glendora and Santa Fe Springs. There are six half-time staffers working on the project in Glendora and five in Santa Fe Springs. In the pilot program the search for relatives begins immediately after a child is removed from the home. The staffers interview family members to 15 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, (H.R. 4980) 16 California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11462. http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/welfare-and-institutions- code/wic-sect-11462.html 17 “Among her other duties she has to provide services that will prevent the need for removal, ensure that the child is safe, explain to the parents what is happening and why, identify and engage relatives and prepare reports for any proceeding which will occur in a day or two.” Leonard Edwards, “How to Improve Outcomes for Abused and Neglected Children: Engaging relatives Early”, The Bench, Summer 2016, p29 18 County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services, Response to the May 31, 2016 Board Motion (Item No. 5) On a Countywide Upfront Family Finding Protocol, September 30, 2016, and attachment 19 Ibid. Attachment, p. 9 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 33 establish a family tree and typically send out 20-30 letters to relatives to notify them about the child who is seeking a home. The letters are sent one or two days after the initial detention. Before the pilot was in place the relative search typically took a year or more, but in the pilot project there is a ninety-day turnaround.20 The (OCP) has been closely involved in the pilot project and meets with the project staff monthly. A senior staff official at the OCP strongly believes that placing a child with a relative (as opposed to foster care) will improve his/her chance for success after leaving the foster care system. The officer is hopeful that the success achieved by the pilot project, which in early months has resulted in close to 80% of placements with relatives in Santa Fe Springs, can be rolled out countywide and increase relative placements by 10 to 20%.
• R3

  Page 46
  Providing Medical Services There are six Medical Hubs in L.A. County run by the County Department of Health Services (DHS). These Hubs provide medical screening and services to children who might otherwise never be seen by a health care provider. In the last six months of 2016, a total of 15,582 children were referred to a Hub by DCFS and actually came to their appointment. Most of these children received an initial medical examination. Others who appear to have suffered from physical abuse received a forensic examination. Unfortunately, a report for Medical Hub visits for fiscal year 2016/2017 also shows that in a large number of cases the child did not show up for a scheduled appointment.21 The “no show” rate is distressingly high: it ranges from 14.7% at the LAC-USC Hub to 25.9% at Martin Luther King, Jr. and 29.1% at the Hub in the East San Gabriel Valley.22 The Hubs see a large number of children who act out, are unable to cooperate, and have been in multiple placements. The Hubs are working on ways to connect these children with mental health providers, and to arrange for a home visit by a therapist as needed. There is a Community Mental Health Center, run by a private non-profit group that is adjacent to the LAC-USC Hub and is able to provide continuing mental health care to the difficult and hard-to-place children. Another group of children requiring mental health care are those who suffer from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which can result in growth abnormalities and learning disorders. These children are well served at the Community Mental Health Center. The six Hub clinics are stationed around the County of Los Angeles. Unfortunately, not all of the clinics are adequately staffed. The LAC-USC Hub has a staff of nine physicians and 10 nurse practitioners but the clinic in East San Gabriel Valley has only one physician and two nurse practitioners. Senior staff stated that this clinic, along with some others, needs additional staff. Interview with pilot program staff. L.A. County Department of Health Services, 1/09/2017, Medical Hub Visits, Fiscal Year 2016/2017 22 Ibid. 34 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
• R4

  Page 46
  Finding a Place for “Hard to Place” Children The DCFS is responsible for a large number of “high-risk” children who are difficult to place. Twice a month the OCP convenes a Transitional Shelter Care (TSC) meeting which brings together members of multiple agencies as well as non-profit groups that are dedicated to child welfare.23 The TSC pilot program puts together a team to help prepare a high-risk child for placement. A recent TSC meeting, attended by jurors, profiled a 14-year-old girl, “Jane Doe,” who had been in and out of the court system since the age of six. She had had 17 placements in group homes, foster homes, and relative placements. At the time of the meeting Jane Doe was currently living at one of the six TSC facilities run by the DCFS Division of Shelter Care. Jane Doe is not the only “high risk” child in need of a placement. Staff estimates that at any given time there are approximately 900 children with difficult behavioral and mental health needs who have been removed from their homes. To assist these children (i.e. to find them a home or at least a bed) DCFS established an Accelerated Placement Team (APT) within the Division of Transitional Shelter care.(TSC). The APT team focuses on a number of critical placement issues, including placement for children leaving a hospital and children in “shelter care” (with a limited stay of 72 hours). The APT is currently staffed by nine SCSWs and two Eligibility Social Workers. The number of children referred to the APT varies from day to day— in many cases children who have left placement because the caregiver is unable to deal with their behavior. Of those referred to APT, most will go to a TSC facility to stay for up to 72 hours before being placed. Approximately 12% of these children are very high risk, with a history of sexual exploitation or having been severely molested. Many overstay the 72-hour limit. Every child in a TSC shelter receives a medical screening at the VIP Hub in the LAC+USC medical center, and each child is linked to a mental health field worker. The APT is also part of the pilot program established by the OCP to provide services to the very high risk children, those who have exceeded 72 hours at a TSC facility or 30 days in an Emergency Care shelter. A child who agrees to join the OCP pilot program receives care from a mental health team including a CSW and a SCSW who meet with the child to identify the behaviors that impede the child’s progress and what triggers them. By identifying the “triggers” and working with the ultimate caregiver, the team increases the chance of a final successful placement.24 23 The participants at a TSC meeting on March 20, 2017, attended by civil grand jury members, included staff from the Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS), the Department of Mental Health (DMH) the Department of Health Services, Probation, County Counsel, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), Children’s Law Center of California (CLC), Mental Health Advocacy Team (MHAT), and the Alliance for Children’s Rights. Interview with APT staff. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 35 V RECOMMENDATIONS The 2016-2017 CGJ recommends:
• R5

  Page 48
  The DCFS should develop a plan to ensure that all children in Transitional Shelter Care receive mental health screening, and if appropriate, receive continuing mental health care.
• R6

  Page 48
  The OCP should define and adopt measures of success for the performance of DCFS, and require quarterly reports from DCFS on its performance with respect to those measures. VI REQUIRED RESPONSES California Penal Code Sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a written response to all recommendations contained in this report. Responses shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its report and files it with the Clerk of the Court. Responses shall be made in accord with Penal Code Sections 933.05 (a) and (b). All responses to the recommendations of the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury must be submitted on or before September 30, 2017, to: 36 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor-Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Responses are required from: Responding Agency Recommendations County of Los Angeles Department of 3.1, 3.2, 3. 3, 3. 4, 3. 5, 3.6 Children and Family Services County of Los Angeles Office of Child 3.6 Protection VII ACRONYMS APT Accelerated Placement Team BRCCP Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection (BRCCP) CSW Children’s Social Worker DCFS Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services DHS Department of Health Services DMH Department of Mental Health LAC + USC Los Angeles County/ University of Southern California NREFM Non-Related Extended Family Members OCP Office of Child Protection SCSW Supervising Children’s Social Worker TSC Transitional Shelter Care VIP Violence Intervention Program VFM Voluntary Family Management VIII COMMITTEE MEMBERS Lucy Eisenberg Shelley Strohm Joyce Simily 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 37 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 38 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT SCHOOLS OF THE FUTURE Gloria Garfinkel Co-Chair Thomas Kearney Co-Chair Hilda Dallal Marilyn Gelfand SCHOOLS OF THE FUTURE I SUMMARY The “Los Angeles County Strategic Plan for Economic Development (2016-2020)” recognizes the need to shift the educational focus. The plan’s introduction states: “Unlike the move from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing-based one 150 years ago, when a worker needed little training to move seamlessly from the field to a factory floor, moving from a production-based economy to an information-age one today requires much higher levels of skills and education.”1 The first goal within this plan focuses on preparing our students for the highly technical, knowledge-based careers of the future. This goal aligns with today’s world of product globalization, instant world-wide communication, entrepreneurship, and rapidly developing scientific advancements. The challenge will be implementing change within the public educational system, which has not historically been an institution to quickly implement change in curricula or teaching methodologies. The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) decided to investigate current developments and trends in the field of public education. While the need for traditional schools remains firm, there are students who can certainly benefit from different learning models such as those highlighted in this report. In today’s society, our students need a deeper level of learning in order for them to remain competitive in the globalized market and enhance their career potential. Having a stronger knowledge and skills base will make Los Angeles County (“County”) a more desirable location for businesses and industries. Appropriate changes to our educational system will provide these requisite skills and knowledge and lead to greater opportunity for our children to succeed in the future. II BACKGROUND History of Public Education Formation of the “traditional” public educational system is credited to Horace Mann along with other educational reformers in the early nineteenth century2,3. They believed a free educational 1 [Online] Available: http://laedc.org/2016/01/04/2016‐2020‐l‐a‐county‐strategic‐plan‐for‐economic‐ development/ 2 Massachusetts Board of Education was created in 1837 with Horace Mann appointed as its secretary. Horace Mann started a biweekly journal, Common School Journal, in 1838 for teachers and lectured on education. 3 [Online] Available: http://www.biography.com/people/horace‐mann‐9397522 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 39