Response to Grand Jury Report on Child Protective Services

It is hard to contact the relevant people in CPS to get information since there is no organizational chart published on the website. People don’t know who they can contact for specific issues. __ AGREE _X_ PARTIALLY DISAGREE __ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The Human Services Department (HSD) partially disagrees with this assertion, as all biological parents and children with open child welfare cases in Juvenile Court are provided with a free court-appointed attorney who have direct access to and the knowledge of which social workers, supervisors, program managers, and county counsels to contact if there are issues with their case. Further, all biological parents and resource parents are provided with the name and contact information of the social worker and social work supervisor assigned to their case. In addition, resource parents are provided extra support through the Family & Children’s Services (FCS) Division’s Resource Family Approval (RFA) unit, FCS placement staff, as well as a community based organization vendor, Wayfinders Organization, who provides Resource Families with ongoing support in their home, as much as weekly, on behalf of the FCS division. Though child welfare staff working with Resource Families and others involved in a child welfare case routinely provide the name and contact information of their supervisor and chain of command when asked, HSD does agree that a public facing organizational (org) chart with contact information for the FCS Division management team would be a value added. As the HSD website is in the process of an update, delayed due to the COVID pandemic and many natural disasters of late, an org chart will be posted publicly, and should be publicly available on the HSD website within the Grand Jury’s proposed timeline.

The lack of readily available CPS data metrics accessible on the Santa Cruz County website can lead to perceptions based on individual experiences. Perception becomes reality if data is not provided which can lead to public distrust of the system. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion. The California Child Welfare Indicators Project “CCWIP” is a joint website and trusted and reliable source from the UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare and the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), who are the leading state authorities for gathering and monitoring child welfare data. CCWIP is a tool used across the state by the public to access child welfare data. Comprehensive Santa Cruz County data for a ten-year period from 2013 to 2023, is readily available in the “Fundamental Key Reports” tab located on the middle of the main website page. This key report index page provides line charts, column charts, and data tables with specific numbers for the nature of allegations received, entries, children in care, case openings, case closures, exits, and other related figures. Finally, there is a mechanism on the CCWIP website to contact UC Berkeley for additional navigation assistance to gather data on any CA jurisdiction for those who need it.

Lots of data is available on the California Welfare Indicators Project maintained by University of California for the whole state of California for each county. It is hard to sift through and find relevant data for Santa Cruz County. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion. The data on the UC Berkeley website is as comprehensive as it needs to be, given the utility of the site by multiple stakeholders. Technical assistance is available to the public for navigation through the website, to assist interested parties in finding the exact data for the localities they seek.

There is no formal complaint process. You can lodge a complaint only with your social worker. When the complainant is not happy with the resolution, complaints are lodged with the Grand Jury. This is ineffective and results in a lack of accountability or follow up on the complaint. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion but understands that the child welfare system is complex, so it is not always clear as to what avenue is available to express concerns about a situation formally. FCS Division staff are strongly committed to providing the best possible services to our community, and we are generally regarded as a system that is open to hearing and addressing any concerns or complaints from parents, family members and foster parents of the children we serve. It is the goal of FCS to resolve complaints at the lowest possible level, and most situations are resolved this way. Complainants are encouraged to utilize the chain of command (social worker, supervisor, program manager) to allow for fullest participation of those individuals closest to the situation. Most complaints can be satisfactorily resolved at the supervisory or management level. However, when resolution cannot be achieved through this method, complainants may submit their concerns in writing for further review by the division director. FCS staff are trained on a methodology for handling complaints and grievances in order to ensure that staff respond with fairness and sensitivity to all concerns expressed by parents, family members and foster parents. It is the policy of FCS that staff will make every effort to resolve complaints or grievances in a responsive, sensitive and timely fashion that is consistent with state regulations and departmental policy and procedures. Complaints are fully heard, treated seriously and responded to fairly. Additionally, complaints and concerns can also be lodged with the State Ombudsperson of CDSS and/or brought to the attention of the judge during any court hearing held for an open case. As stated, with HSD broadly in the process of updating its public facing website, the FCS division will use this opportunity, and this specific Grand Jury complaint, as an opportunity to endeavor to make clearer in writing the avenues available to register a complaint if informal processes are not satisfactory. This information will be placed on the public facing website, and so that parties can lodge complaints directly.

Child Family Team members often dispute the accuracy of "official" meeting notes taken by the attending CPS Social Workers, leading to lack of trust between team members. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _x_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion. Child and Family Team (CFT) meetings are facilitated by professional staff who are trained and skilled in using inclusive and strength-based approaches to identify the needs and services to support a child and/or family. The assigned Child Protective Services (CPS) social workers are not the record keepers of CFT meetings, nor are they responsible for official meeting notes. CFT facilitators lead the group discussions and keep the official CFT record. These are not “process notes” nor are they transcriptions of the CFT meetings and are not designed to capture the complete record of what was discussed. At the beginning of each CFT meeting, each team establishes “ground rules” to make sure there is safe, honest, and confidential communications during the CFT process, as well as clearly stated goals and outcomes for each meeting. Each team member has an opportunity to share their perspective, brainstorm options, recommend action steps, and to accept to take on specific tasks and responsibilities. The CFT facilitators are trained in addressing differently challenging situations that may arise, and they will work with everyone involved to resolve issues in the best interests of the child.

The lack of data makes it difficult to determine whether bias is present either to Resource Families or Birth Families to the detriment of the child. __ AGREE __ PARTIALLY DISAGREE _X_ DISAGREE Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): HSD disagrees with this assertion, as it is unclear what data is believed to be definitive in determining whether bias is present to either Resource Families or to Birth Families to the detriment of any child. There are many complicating factors related to a child’s experience in foster care and a child’s return to their home of origin. Child welfare is charged with being a safety net for the most vulnerable populations and to consider the best interest of each individual child while doing so. The HSD FCS Division always strives to put the best interest of the child at the forefront of its social work practice. Additionally, as outlined in California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) section 202 et seq., the child welfare system is legally mandated with three clearly outlined goals: 1) Provide for the protection, safety, physical and emotional well-being of children who have been or are at-risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment; 2) Preserve and strengthen a child’s families ties whenever possible. A court may only order the removal of a child from the custody of a parent when necessary for the safety and welfare of the child. If a child is removed, a juvenile court must order family reunification as the primary objective followed by family maintenance. 3) Provide a stable, permanent home for children in a timely manner. Foster care is intended to be temporary care, and a Resource Family home serves as a “concurrent plan” in the event that the juvenile court makes a legal determination that a parent is legally unable or unwilling to reunify with their child during the allotted time period. Making a “Bypass” recommendation to the Juvenile Court is an extremely serious and complex legal position akin to a “Third Strike” in the criminal realm. It requires the child welfare agency to present specific facts and circumstances during a contested trial to meet the higher “clear and convincing” standard that reunification is not in the child’s best interest. Each child and each parent are represented by an attorney during these proceedings, and only a Juvenile Court judge can make this final Bypass determination.