facilities, some originating as orphanages, appear to have transformed their services to meet the needs and

Recommendations 14

• R4

  Page 204
  The CEO needs to assist DCFS and Probation in developing a comprehensive and integrated information system.
• R5

  Page 205
  The CEO should immediately commission an organizational review to assess the CSW and DPO structure, staffing levels, and compensation. From this CGJ investigation, the Departments had insufficient staffing and funding to care adequately for their dependents and wards. The staffing ratios of 50-55 wards per DPO in Probation and 30-35 dependents per CSW in DCFS speak for themselves. Average rates do not tell the whole story. Best practices recognize that a tiered approach linked to the type of case is optimal. In some types, a ratio of 4-8 cases per CSW may be appropriate. CWLA131 recommends the following caseloads per social worker: Initial assessment: 12 active cases per month Ongoing case: 17 active families per month and no more than 1 new case for every 6 open cases 131 CWLA Standards of Excellence for Services or Abused or Neglected Children and their Families, Revised 1999 (www.cwla.org). 2006-2007 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 180 Combined cases: 10 active on-going and 4 active investigations Foster family care: 12-15 cases Supervisors: 1 for every 5 social workers Probation also has structural problems, which make it more difficult to fill current vacancies (25 DPO vacancies in March 2007). There are a variety of staffing models to evaluate, including staggered hours, work from home, and longer but fewer shifts that might attract more recruits to this position. After the initial assessment, it is a ‘best practice’ to have the assigned CSW or DPO remain with the child throughout the child’s stay in the system. Children who have multiple CSWs and DPOs tend to develop trust issues with adults and the system. Staffing, remuneration, and organizational supports should be set at levels that optimize the attainment of this continuity goal. The County should create a more highly skilled case manager position for the children with the most complex and difficult problems, such as those who are currently placed in an RCL- 12 level or higher. Realistic staffing levels should also be developed for the after-hours requirements of the DCFS Command Post.
• R6

  Page 206
  In consultation with the congregate-care facilities’ staff, DCFS and Probation management should develop and implement comprehensive assessment tools for making placement and exit decisions. Poor initial placement decisions can often result in many changes of residence. This destabilization of the child’s environment can have serious negative impacts, as statistically proven in this CGJ investigation. Other children exit the system without well-thought through transition plans or before they are ready.
• R8

  Page 209
  The CEO should ensure that DCFS and Probation’s current practice of assigning dependents and wards to the same facilities ceases immediately. This CGJ investigation has discussed the potentially adverse impact of congregate-care facilities on children’s increased propensity to commit crimes. According to senior officials in both Departments, separation of dependents and wards will provide more appropriate environments for the children. This recommendation will cause disruption, particularly for group home facilities. Some of the excess capacity may be taken up by Probation. Some capital support may be required to help congregate-care facilities accommodate the shift to being an all-Probation or all-DCFS group facility. But nevertheless, dependents and wards should be served in different facilities.
• R9

  Page 209
  DCFS and Probation should strategically use congregate care facilities that meet quality assurance standards and provide awards for achieving meaningful outcomes. DCFS and Probation should retain its relationships with the high-quality, congregate-care facilities that they currently have, as long as those settings meet quality assurance standards and are the least restrictive for specific dependents and wards to thrive. Other congregate-care facilities should be phased out – either because of the poor quality or because of reduced demand for their services with the new treatment models to be implemented. The transition may take 2 to 5 years. During this period, there will be disruptions, spare capacity, and other operating problems. To ensure that congregate-care performance does not deteriorate over this period, the Board should consider extra funding support.
• R10

  Page 210
  DCFS and Probation should meet at least annually with congregate- care providers to share best practices. DCFS and Probation should establish their own separate annual or semi-annual meetings with all congregate-care providers to exchange best practices, share successful outcomes, act as an educational forum, and deal with common issues. Awards can be given out to: a) successful outcomes at congregate-care facilities and b) DCFS and Probation employees who have made extra efforts to transform children’s lives. County recognition of special efforts and ideas would go a long way with those that do provide exceptional service and make super efforts on behalf of the children. DCFS and Probation management should communicate with each other and share the results, information, and recommendations formulated during these conferences. DCFS also needs to establish better, consistent, and scheduled communication with providers.
• R11

  Page 210
  The CEO should establish an inter-departmental task force charged with implementing these recommendations and the shift outlined in its Foundation white paper. Well-intentioned managers and professionals currently have good ideas and intensions, which often do not get implemented because those involved are too busy with their day-to-day duties to carry out the intense work of creating real change in the system. DCFS, Probation, and DMH should create an interdepartmental task force whose sole responsibility is to develop and launch these recommendations and other new child-focused programs. This task force should also collect and analyze factors related to resilience and educational success of former youth in congregate care facilities. If the system is to be effective in its role as a custodian for wards and dependents, it needs to move beyond correcting deficiencies to a focus on systematically nurturing the strengths and talents of those children served by Los Angeles County. This task 2006-2007 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 185 force would enable a group of experienced, dedicated people to focus all of their attention on shifting the child welfare system in Los Angeles County to the new model. VII – CONCLUSIONS DCFS, Probation Department, and congregate-care facility staff members are hard-working and dedicated to the well-being of the children in their charge. The number of children who annually enter the child welfare and juvenile justice systems is staggering. Many are victims of unfortunate family or environmental situations. Each of these young lives is precious. More must be done to ensure these assets do not become community liabilities. Even more disappointing is the estimate by Probation officials that 40% of the wards that enter their system were once dependents in the child welfare system. This is a poor outcome, given the dedication and hard work of all involved. It draws into question the efficacy of the County’s current programs and methods of care for these children. Regardless of one’s parenting philosophy or views on the relative responsibility of the child for his/her actions, most agree these children are at great disadvantage mainly because of circumstances largely beyond their control (family, environmental, educational, or mental health). While some may be lost, most children have remarkable resiliency if given the right nurturing. The County can make a difference in their life trajectory in three ways: Prevention and Early Intervention – Intervene early to minimize the number of children who enter the system Permanency – Provide exemplary programs that stabilize the children, help them learn and thrive, and get them permanently placed or prepared for emancipation Continuous Improvement – Provide follow-up services to maintain and enhance the gains PREVENTION AND CONTINUOUS EARLY INTERVENTION: IMPROVEMENT: Follow Minimize the number of up, maintain the gains, children entering the and make needed system improvements PERMANENCY: For those in the system, stabilize children and find permanent placements for them or enable them to achieve self-sufficiency once emancipated On the basis of these findings, DCFS and Probation have some key opportunities to address to improve the current system: 2006-2007 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 186 Introduce prevention and early intervention initiatives and measures that will reduce the number of children that enter the system each year Focus the system to measure both the on-going activities and also the actual long-term impact these activities and programs are having on the life trajectories of the children; use data, trends, and outcomes to make empirically based decisions Improve the staffing, information systems, and information sharing across County departments involved in health and social support services (i.e., DCFS, Probation, Department of Health Services (DHS), and Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) and with congregate-care facilities Phase out over time congregate-care facilities that are not providing full services, ensure that children (particularly dependents) placed in group home facilities can benefit from such a setting as the least restrictive environment for them; and maintain and improve the programming and effectiveness of congregate-care services during the transition Develop stronger and integrated communication mechanisms across the system, which will not only improve efficiency but effectiveness of serving children Collaborate more with the schools to ensure that children can complete their school terms, earn high school diplomas, and have complete, implemented, monitored, and updated IEPs Focus on the total needs of the child – emotional, social, educational, and mental Reduce the DCFS and Probation caseloads 2006-2007 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 187
• R40

  Page 219
  *61.1 tnemecalp emoh puorG 29.0
• R42

  Page 219
  **45.- naisA 50.2 50. *27. 48.1
• R50

  Page 219
  *02.- tnemecalp tcelgeN 71.2
• R58

  Page 222
  = )b(pxE ehT .ledom eht ni setairavoc rehto on htiw pets eht – noisserger eht si sutats emoh puorg htiw detaicossa yltnerappa tceffe eht ,si tahT .sraeppasid tceffe emoh puorg eht ,revewoh ,)4-C elbaT ni 3 pets dna 2 pets( sledom tneuqesbus ot noitaler ni tnacifingis niamer sutats emoh puorg fo stceffe eht ,tsartnoc nI .ytilibatsni tnemecalp dna ecar sa hcus – ledom eht ni setairavoc rehto eht yb denialpxe eht ot eud yliramirp era secnereffid esehT .)6-C elbaT dna 5-C elbaT( ytilibatsni tnemecalp dna ,redneg ,ecar ,ega rof gnillortnoc nehw neve noitpoda dna ycnenamrep emoh puorg ,trohs nI .sesac erac retsof eht fo %12 htiw derapmoc ,noitpoda ni esolc sesac emoh puorg fo %3 ylnO .etar noitpoda eht htiw detaicossa secnereffid erehT .noitacifinuer ylimaf naht rehtar noitpoda htiw secnereffid ot eud ylegral si tceffe siht dna ;ecnenamrep gniveihca rof secnahc eht esaerced yltnacifingis stnemecalp .noitacifinuer ylimaf gniveihca ot drager htiw secnereffid tnacifingis on era ro noitpoda eveihca ot ylekil ssel era htuoy cinapsiH dna naciremA-nacirfA .erutaretil eraflew dlihc eht fo hcum htiw tnetsisnoc era srotciderp tnacifingis gniniamer ehT ylimaf gniveihca fo doohilekil eht secuder yltnacifingis ytilibatsni tnemecalp ,yllaniF .noitpoda eveihca ot ylekil ssel osla era htuoy redlO .noitacifinuer ylimaf .noitpoda gniveihca fo doohilekil esaerced a htiw detaicossa syawla tsomla si ycnenamrep gniveihca fo doohilekil esaerced ehT .noitacifinuer ,.g.e( puorg tegrat eht ni pihsrebmem fo sddo eht ni egnahc eht setamitse oitar sihT .oitar sddo detamitse eht si ,)b(pxE ,elbat hcae ni nmuloc driht ehT 041 .elbairav rotciderp eht ni esaercni tinu eno a rof )noitacifinuer deveihca taht esoht
• R60

  Page 219
  *80.1 evom LOWA 84.1
• R70

  Page 219
  *55. naciremA-nacirfA 2006-2007 County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury 196 4 ledoM 3 ledoM 2 ledoM 1 ledoM 71.1
• R80

  Page 219
  70.- stnemecalp 2 09.0