⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
CDSIRs have been effective in improving procedures within the agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
SSA should continue Quality Assurance investigation and procedural review based on best practice along with the CDSIR.
F2
Brochures, pamphlets, and public service announcements about CAR are not widely distributed or displayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
SSA should conduct an aggressive public service campaign to educate the general public about child abuse. The anonymity of reporting to CAR needs to be publicized throughout Orange County, including radio and TV public service announcements in English and Spanish.
F3
The current Automated Call Distribution telephone system at CAR was purchased in 1998 and has reached its end-of-life. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-3 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
SSA should ensure that the new phone system at CAR is operational by June, 2007. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-3 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: 9 §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 10
F4
to maintain a central data base of all serious incidents or deaths in cases where Children’s Services was involved in order to identify trends and problems.” 7 Clearly this procedure was followed in 2001 when MV1 died. The recommendations addressed problems with case management decisions, communication among the care providers, and reporting in a timely manner. The U.S General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 2006 (GAO-07-75), “ In response to a GAO survey, state child welfare agencies identified three primary challenges as most important to resolve to improve outcomes for children under their supervision: providing an adequate level of services for children and families, recruiting and retaining caseworkers, and finding appropriate homes for certain children.” In the same document GAO addressed caseloads of SWs from a previous report: “For example, we reported that high caseloads, poor supervision, and the burden of administrative responsibilities have, in some cases, prompted caseworkers to voluntarily leave their employment with welfare agencies.” The GAO conducted this study because “the states have not been able to meet all outcome measures for children in their care”. The difficulty of recruiting, training, and retaining employees in child welfare is nationwide. It may well exacerbate poor outcomes for children in the states’ care. A very disturbing aspect of the MV1 case not addressed in the SSA recommendations is that during the criminal trial of the Mother, neighbors said that they expressed concerns about the child to care providers, and/or the SW, and as well as an investigator. There were no CAR reports or mention of complaints against the Mother in contact logs. If, in fact, neighbors did report suspected abuse, the SW procedure would have been to conduct an investigation and examination of the child. Perhaps the outcome could have been different had the neighbors been aware of CAR and how to report suspected child abuse. In the case of FV2, the SW made a recommendation to the court not to reunify this child. When a situation occurs where the agency’s recommendation is not followed by the court, the agency has no recourse. MV3’s case, five years after MV1, followed Best Known Practices (BKP) to the letter, and yet, the Father confessed to the murder of his son. SSA’s role in the protection of children and attempting to change the root causes of abuse is a national goal. The current Best Known Practice focuses on the best interests of the child, which is removing the harm from the child, either through reunification, adoption, or guardianship. According to the OC Child Death Review Team 2006 Annual Report from the office of the Sheriff-Coroner, in calendar year 2005, five children under the age of six died as a result of homicide. In 2000, the statewide Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect Surveillance (FCANS) program established a matrix to collect data on causes and circumstances surrounding child deaths. The broad scope of the matrix includes those deaths that may not have abuse and neglect as a contributing factor; however, that child may have had abuse and neglect as a part of his or 8 her life history. In 2005, 31 children in OC under six years of age were reported under the FCANS matrix. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: F-1 CDSIRs have been effective in improving procedures within the agency. F-2 Brochures, pamphlets, and public service announcements about CAR are not widely distributed or displayed. F-3 The current Automated Call Distribution telephone system at CAR was purchased in 1998 and has reached its end-of-life. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-3 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 4
-
CL1“to provide Children’s Services management staff with the most complete and timely information about the circumstances of the incident or death;
-
CL2to evaluate in a non-judgmental manner the case decisions and circumstances related to the incident or death;
-
CL3to recommend modifications, updates or implementation of new policies and procedures, if needed, in an organized, long-term response to prevent similar incidents in the future;
-
CL4to maintain a central data base of all serious incidents or deaths in cases where Children’s Services was involved in order to identify trends and problems.” 7 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Clearly this procedure was followed in 2001 when MV1 died. The recommendations addressed problems with case management decisions, communication among the care providers, and reporting in a timely manner. The U.S General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 2006 (GAO-07-75), “ In response to a GAO survey, state child welfare agencies identified three primary challenges as most important to resolve to improve outcomes for children under their supervision: providing an adequate level of services for children and families, recruiting and retaining caseworkers, and finding appropriate homes for certain children.” In the same document GAO addressed caseloads of SWs from a previous report: “For example, we reported that high caseloads, poor supervision, and the burden of administrative responsibilities have, in some cases, prompted caseworkers to voluntarily leave their employment with welfare agencies.” The GAO conducted this study because “the states have not been able to meet all outcome measures for children in their care”. The difficulty of recruiting, training, and retaining employees in child welfare is nationwide. It may well exacerbate poor outcomes for children in the states’ care. A very disturbing aspect of the MV1 case not addressed in the SSA recommendations is that during the criminal trial of the Mother, neighbors said that they expressed concerns about the child to care providers, and/or the SW, and as well as an investigator. There were no CAR reports or mention of complaints against the Mother in contact logs. If, in fact, neighbors did report suspected abuse, the SW procedure would have been to conduct an investigation and examination of the child. Perhaps the outcome could have been different had the neighbors been aware of CAR and how to report suspected child abuse. In the case of FV2, the SW made a recommendation to the court not to reunify this child. When a situation occurs where the agency’s recommendation is not followed by the court, the agency has no recourse. MV3’s case, five years after MV1, followed Best Known Practices (BKP) to the letter, and yet, the Father confessed to the murder of his son. SSA’s role in the protection of children and attempting to change the root causes of abuse is a national goal. The current Best Known Practice focuses on the best interests of the child, which is removing the harm from the child, either through reunification, adoption, or guardianship. According to the OC Child Death Review Team 2006 Annual Report from the office of the Sheriff-Coroner, in calendar year 2005, five children under the age of six died as a result of homicide. In 2000, the statewide Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect Surveillance (FCANS) program established a matrix to collect data on causes and circumstances surrounding child deaths. The broad scope of the matrix includes those deaths that may not have abuse and neglect as a contributing factor; however, that child may have had abuse and neglect as a part of his or 8 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY her life history. In 2005, 31 children in OC under six years of age were reported under the FCANS matrix.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.