📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 1992-1993

County Department of Public Social Services

72 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 11 findings

F1
front of another vehicle and then slams on the brakes, causing the unsuspecting motorist to hit him from behind. This often occurs in the most unlikely areas of traffic, such as in the middle of an intersection. The instigator and the multiple passengers then claim extensive injuries and damages against the victim's insurance.
F2
The Two Car Rear-end: An older, dilapidated car without license plates will stop suddenly, "forcing" the car immediately behind it to also stop without warning. The victim then hits the second car, also operated by the perpetrators, as the first vehicle speeds away. The instigator and the multiple passengers then claim extensive injuries and damages against the victim's insurance. "Deliberate" accidents normally occur at low speeds, during commuting hours. The stagers prefer expensive, late model, or commercial vehicles because of their likelihood of being insured. Sources: Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Automobile Club of Southern California. While civil recourse has always been available to the insurance companies, criminal penalties for activities such as soliciting participation in staged auto accidents were not available prior to these new laws. The CHP and local law enforcement authorities became more adept at 4 Interview with Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office - Major Fraud Unit, on March 26, 1993. 55
F3
Service plans are an important tool to help support implementation of court orders. Based on the sample of cases reviewed, DCS service plans are not always specifically tailored to the special needs of each family. Parental Involvement Two noted authorities in social work, Eileen Gambrill and Laura Epstein, both agree parents and families should be in charge of identifying specific changes they would like to make in their lives. Most troubles separating families have two components: the parent lacks resources for alleviating a problem and the parent lacks skills for alleviating problems.6 The primary purpose of the service plan is to identify the problem causing the family crisis. According to Epstein, the "target problem is what the parent thinks is the problem, what the parent thinks should be alleviated, and what the parent thinks should be worked on."7 The case plan (service plan) is the guiding principle for all Child Welfare Services (Family Reunification, Family Maintenance, and Permanent Placement). DCS is required to complete service plans for each of the child welfare service programs no more than 30 days after a court order for services is issued. Even though many of the service plans we reviewed contained a parent signature, it was difficult to determine what involvement, if any, the parent had in developing the plan. During our interviews with CSWs, they reported that parents often had little input regarding the development of the service plan. Our review of written case files (such as 1950 Activity Logs that record case worker contact with parents/guardians and children) tended to confirm this observation. Rarely were written comments observed 5 State Department of Social Services Division 30 Regulations, pages 30-342. Epstein, Helping People, . Ibid, . 89 that would indicate changes were made in response to parent/guardian input. Given the problems many of the parents face (incarceration, substance abuse, etc.) the task of involving parents in case plans will not be easy to accomplish; however, it is an area where additional effort is merited. Specificity Many of the DCS case plans (service plans) in our sample appear to be generic plans rather than a specific plan of action tailored to a family's service needs. A plan must include specific goals and objectives for completion. Based upon a review of the cases in our sample, initial service plans often contained short declarative statements with little elaboration. Often, service plan objectives were identical from case to case. For example, many of the cases in our sample had an initial service plan with nothing more than a statement of an objective such as, "Mother to complete parenting training program." Although there is ample space in this section of the service plan form, usually only one sentence was written, such as "counseling services to be provided," or "routine medical exams to be conducted quarterly." In some cases, the service plans contained such little detail that it was difficult for the auditor to see how treatment workers could provide continuity of services, especially when the case is transferred from one CSW to another. For example, one case plan (service plan) included this information, "... mother to develop an independent job and career plan." With the new requirements for case plans (service plans) in SB 1125, where the case plan will be the guiding principle for all child welfare services, it will be imperative for CSWs to write comprehensive, accurate service plans.8 When case plans do not provide the parents/guardians with clear concise goals and objectives related to court orders, it makes it difficult for the court or auditors to determine that reasonable efforts have been provided to assist families in meeting court orders. DCS policy regarding how case workers refer parents to counseling services could be
F4
strengthened. Referrals/Program Availability The State Social Services Manual of Policies and Procedures Division 30-002-(6)(1) defines a referral as "... an activity to inform another service agency that a person desires or requires that agency's services and to assist the person to avail him/herself Statutes 1991, Ch. 1203, amending various provisions of the California Welfare and Institutions Code relating to children. 90 of such services." In addition, DCS CAP Policy Number Cap 8 (May 31, 1991), Assisting Parents and Children to Obtain Counseling, states "... resources must be accessible and available for the parent/child to immediately utilize ..."10 However, the Department's policy does not require CSWs to call the program prior to referring a case to ensure there is adequate space. The CSWs we interviewed said most CSWs rarely called counseling/treatment programs to ensure adequate space was available for the family member prior to making a referral. Contact with a counseling program to ensure there is space immediately available can help increase the likelihood that parents/guardians will comply with court orders. Based on our sample and interviews with DCS staff, it appears that CSWs routinely refer parents/guardians to counseling and other treatment programs by providing lists of programs. In our sample of 75 cases, we found no documentation in 74 of the files to indicate that phone calls were made to determine the availability of service prior to making a referral. It is possible that verbal contact was made in each of the cases we reviewed. However, we were unable to verify this from the information in the files. Minimum Standards/Referral Process During our field work, we found that the process for making referrals was not standardized throughout the DCS regions. For example, some referrals were made orally to the family members; while others were conveyed by written letters with specific details on programs. In addition, some referrals would include a photocopied list of agencies for the parent to choose. In some cases, there would be a list of referrals marked with no date, making it unclear as to when the referrals were sent and whether the parent and/or caretaker actually received the referrals. A letter DCS sent to Price Waterhouse responding to questions in this regard states, "...there is no standard number of referrals that should be provided to a client. The number of referrals offered depends on the individual needs of the client. Referrals may be offered by either written or verbal means." A consistent method for referring parents/guardians to counseling programs would help DCS better monitor the efforts CSWs make in referring parents/guardians to treatment programs. Program Qualifications 9 State Department of Social Services Division 30 regulations for Child Welfare, Manual of Policies and Procedures Section 30-002-(6)(I). Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services Policy Numbers CAP 8. 91
F5
for services to parents and guardians simply by reviewing files of the Court and DCS because much of the communication between DCS and counseling programs is accomplished orally and may not be documented in detail in the files. DCS Policy Number CAP 8 (2E), Assisting Parents and Children to Obtain Counseling, states "... the CSW is the team leader in assisting families to obtain counseling." According to the policy, this requires the continuous monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the service and the progress of the participants. This also entails arranging for written progress reports from counseling agencies to DCS routinely, but not less than quarterly. Of the 37 cases in our sample where DCS reported that a parent/guardian enrolled and attended counseling, there was no documentation in the file to support that a CSW had received a written quarterly report in 22 cases. It was impossible to determine if these 22 cases represented failure to monitor or merely failure to provide written documentation. Written verification of enrollment and attendance in a treatment program can be an important tool for monitoring progress of parents/guardians in treatment programs. Written progress reports can contribute to the accuracy of information provided to the court concerning the progress of counseling. DCS does not have written policies and procedures to address the service requirements of 6. , parents/guardians who are incarcerated. In some instances where parents are incarcerated, Judicial Officers order that services be provided by DCS. This creates a difficult situation for CSWs. It requires a basic understanding of the California correctional system to develop a service plan that can be fulfilled to a certain degree while the parent is incarcerated. In response to our question regarding how DCS involves incarcerated parents in developing a service plan, DCS responded as follows: "These cases will vary somewhat based upon differing situations, but in general, if an incarcerated parent is included in the service plan (for instance, the parent is expected to be released shortly and reunification is planned for the parent) the CSW would visit the parent in jail, or discuss the plan by phone, and the parents/guardians would be asked to sign the plan. If the parent is not included in the service plan then their signature is not required. Only parents who are included in the plan must be requested to sign it." In 13 of the 75 cases in our sample, at least 1 parent was incarcerated at some point in the case. However, we found no documentation in any of the case files indicating that the initial service plan or a modified service plan took into consideration the incarcerated status. In addition, in 5 of the 13, we found no documentation that the CSW contacted the incarcerated parent/guardian. To properly assess the potential for family reunification, CSWs need to maintain contact with incarcerated parents. In addition, without such contact, the parent is unable to provide input regarding the CSWs recommendations regarding the status of the case. DCS does not have a policy regarding notification to the parent/guardian when a case is
F6
District Attorney's Office filed a 15-count felony complaint against a panel attorney for excessive billing, charging grand theft by false pretenses, alteration of court dockets, and perjury. However, the head of the division, Thomas A. Papageorge, advised the committee that the use of individual civil or criminal prosecutions to combat the problem of attorney overbilling is extremely difficult and costly. He recommends a maximum ceiling of annual earnings and further centralization of the accounting and review of panel attorneys' fees.
F7
transferred between CSWs. Ensuring continuity of case management services is important to the success of court- ordered services to families. DCS responded to a question regarding transfers as follows: "... there is no policy which specifically addresses contacting parents when a case is transferred from one CSW to another. This information is usually provided to the client by phone call or letter from the CSW." Based on our interviews with CSWs, we found letters of introduction for a new social worker are rarely used. Also, in our sample of cases when a case was transferred between CSWs, we found no written notification to any of the family members or foster parents. Given the size of the DCS staff and the normal level of staff changes in any such organization, a policy of relying primarily on oral communication of such important changes may create communication problems. If parents/guardians are not sure which CSW is managing their case, it may increase the difficulty they experience 93 in complying with court orders.
F8
DCS has developed a court report training manual. However, it appears some of the DCS court reports in our sample provide minimal information regarding compliance with court- ordered services and the effect of these services on the family. DCS has established a court report training manual to provide CSWs with training in writing court reports in the DCS report format. However, some of the court reports reviewed in our sample were long, cumbersome, and provided little new information regarding services offered during the current reporting period. The guidelines do not provide specific procedural guidance regarding case management issues. Based on our sample of cases and interviews with CSWs, there appears to be a significant amount of discretion exercised by CSWs regarding information reported to the court. Court reports prepared by DCS include PRC/Disposition Reports and Judicial Review Reports. Reports in our sample were often long, cumbersome, and lacking in clarity. In almost every report we reviewed, much of the information in the court report was repeated from previous reports. Too much time was spent on the previous history of a case and too little new information was provided regarding services offered during the current reporting period. DCS case workers manage a very complex legal and social work process. Their work could
F9
be facilitated by a better organized DCS policies and procedures manual, one organized around the case process and accompanied by a table of contents and index. Interviews with DCS staff confirmed this observation. The DCS Children's Services Desk Guide and Children's Social Worker Handbook A- Z do not provide clear, concise procedural guidance to assist social workers manage their cases. The booklet is a collection of Department directives spanning the period from 1991 through part of 1993. The children's services handbook does not contain an index or table of contents to identify where specific policies and procedures are contained. Based on the cases in our sample, there is a question as to whether DCS consistently
F10
provides proper notice to all parties. This is a serious problem which could be verified through further sampling of cases. As part of court-ordered services, DCS is required to properly notify parents/guardians of hearings regarding their case. This is outlined in DCS Policy Number Court 91-02, 91-03, and Welfare and Institution Code Sections 335 and 337. In 23 of the 75 cases in our sample (30%), we found at least 1 instance of improper 94
F11
Court orders for visitations often do not provide specific visitation requirements. Therefore, the auditors were not able to assess DCS's compliance with visitation court orders. Judicial Officers are responsible for setting the terms and conditions for visitations between children and their families. DCS is responsible for ensuring that these court orders are implemented appropriately. The reference manual, Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together recommends that courts make specific visitation orders. These orders should include a schedule for visitation that can be expanded at the discretion of the social worker. It should also specify the time for visitation, the location of visitation, transportation arrangements that must be made, and any specific restrictions on visitations the court requires or will permit." Many of the court orders for visitations in our sample were not specific enough for the auditors to determine whether DCS was complying with visitation requirements. Often court orders for visitations were vague with regard to visitation requirements. This included the time period of visitations, frequency of visitations, and what assistance, if any, DCS was required to provide the family.

Recommendations 9