Report on San Joaquin County Human Services Agency – June 11, 2014

R1

1 No later than November 1, 2014, the San Joaquin County HSA is to review and update its training programs for new foster parents as well as its annual training for continuing foster parents to assure relevance, interest to foster parents and a broader breadth of topics.

R2

1 No later than November 1, 2014, the Eligibility Payment Unit and the Children Services is to develop an information sharing and tracking system to identify and hold social workers accountable for submitting timely payment requests. 3.0 Required Monthly Visitations by Social Workers Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations requires every child in foster care to have a scheduled face-to-face visit with the social worker at least monthly. Seventy-five percent of these visits must be at the foster home. The purpose of these visits is to check on the welfare of the child and to insure that there are no problems with the placement in the home. Additional unscheduled visits may occur if a complaint has been made about the foster home or caregivers or if the Social Worker deems it important to assure the child’s welfare. Following each visit the social worker is required to document the monthly visit in the CWS/CMS, which is used statewide in California for child welfare. This data base is used to track visitations of the foster children and verifies eligibility for funding under federal regulations. The federal standard for Timely Monthly Caseworker Visits is 90%. San Joaquin County had a 91.2% overall visitation rate in 2013. This is comparable to other counties in the State based on a review of a State-wide compilation of the SafeMeasures reports. This report provides an array of information based upon data entered into the CWS/CMS. No testimony or materials reviewed indicated that there exists a standardized reporting form or checklist which may be used by the Social Worker during the visit or immediately after. Some social workers just write notes in their car following the visit which they then input into the CWS/CMS as time allows. Recently reported problems with State agencies dealing with child care have shown that a lack of documentation reduces investigative abilities and accountability of social workers charged with protecting youth placed under care. While no such incidents have been revealed in the County, precaution and preventive action may prevent future issues. Findings

R3

1 No later than December 1, 2014, HSA is to develop a standardized form or checklist to be used by social workers following their monthly on site visits with foster children. Conclusion Providing foster care to protect youth who have been abandoned or are from homes that no longer can care for them is an important County service. Just as important is the possibility that these youth will be placed in adoptive homes with parents who will love and care for them. Support for these children is an important role for society, and an organization that gives its best is critical. The Grand Jury’s investigation of the County’s foster care programs administered by the Human Services Agency resulted in mixed findings. The people who work in the foster care program are dedicated to their jobs and helping the youth. As with many governmental agencies, they have been hampered by lack of resources, dated and out- moded tools and administrative procedures that do not place primary focus on their mission. In some areas of the foster care program, such as training for prospective and active foster parents, the private sector does a better job. The County’s foster care program is regulated by a State Agency, the California Community Care Licensing Division, which has repeatedly been shown in news reports to be incapable of serving the at-risk youth of this State. Mandatory training under State regulations is repetitive, boring and often irrelevant. Initiative at the County level to make the foster care and adoptive service process even more supportive, relevant and dedicated to the youth would be a clear sign to the community that County officials really care. The County suffers from its own inertia. Regulations prohibit some administrators from knowing which social workers are behind or failing in their responsibilities. While this results in comparatively small financial impacts on the County, the inability to hold HSA employees accountable for their actions may have an operational impact on the foster families. Repeated changes in social workers assigned to a youth may impact both the child and the parents. The Grand Jury believes that there are relatively easy solutions to these concerns – the HSA administration needs to show resolve to identify, address and correct the problems. The bright side of the Grand Jury’s investigation was the commitment and love shown by the foster parents interviewed. Despite the obstacles placed before them, they care and persevere to give the children supportive home environments. While not practical, the Grand Jury would hope that all foster parents approved in the process could be of the caliber of those met. Children are our society’s future! Foster children deserve no less an opportunity and support than that given to all children. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1(a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors shall respond to all findings and recommendations in this report. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Lesley D. Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email a copy of the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at: grandjury@sjcourts.org.