📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability. CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public. Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public. Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget. CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget. 51 CFS has a statistics unit, which can generate data to enhance the CFS image and communication with the public.
F2
Regarding the public face of CFS Except for the raw numbers, the Annual Reports vary little from year-to-year. This year’s delayed and expanded draft still follows the formula. CFS reports lack a date of publication and clear attribution as to the person(s) responsible for their publication or whom to contact for further information. The Grand Jury finds that the CFS website is lacking in informative value and is out- of-date. COMMENDATION The Grand Jury commends the CFS Executive team for having the foresight to establish pilot studies in the field; for seeking employee initiatives since 2007 to develop proposals for change, which eventually were incorporated in the Redesign; and recognizing the need for significant changes in the structure, management, and operations of CFS; and responding with the commission for, and implementation of, the Redesign. (Finding 1-1)
F3
Page 22
THE PUBLIC FACE OF CFS The Grand Jury was given an annual report for 2011 and a pocket folder of miscellaneous applications, forms, and other documents utilized by the agency. CFS publishes two annual reports. One is brief and is prepared as part of the County Human Services Annual Report. CFS indicated that the other Annual Report was “boilerplate” and intended for an internal audience. It also appears on the CFS Intranet. As this investigation was drawing to a close in response to inquiries, the Grand Jury received a final draft of the 2012 Annual Report (to be published at a later date). The Annual Report contains: a listing of independent CFS programs, and those performed in collaboration with other agencies, indiscriminate as to relative importance; a recitation of “accomplishments:” numbers of children served in some capacity or activity in that year; and a “testimonial,” a narrative account of one child’s experience out of 5,000 in the system. Although the 2012 draft Annual Report is more attractive and colorful and has more narrative content and pages, conformity to the boilerplate was still evident. Statistics comparing CFS operations over time and with other counties and the State were absent. In its 2011 report to the County, CFS does present a table on referrals over several years, but no outcome measures are reported. The section’s text states, “CFS has the ability to produce reports based on very specific criteria including demographics, program information services provided, and case information.” Such statistics are not only available, but CFS produces them in-house. One internal document given to the Grand Jury, “Department Assessment Management Reports: August 2012” (DAMR) provides 17 pages of comparative tables on CFS performance on multiple measures over the prior year and regions of the County. The DAMR provides evidence that CFS can compile summary data and present it in more comprehensible terms than the Self- 50 Assessment. In addition to the DAMR, the Grand Jury was given a loose, single-page line graph showing a decline in the number of children in the system with the successive implementation of new programs from 1999 to the present. These documents were prepared by CFS’ own statistics unit. This unit tracks clients and sends the data off regularly to the University of California at Berkeley. On two occasions, a CFS executive referred the Grand Jury to data from the website of the Center for Social Services Research, School of Welfare, U.C. Berkeley. The website tables do provide extensive data comparing our local CFS performance with other counties, and the statewide figures over time. As informative as this site is as a source for agency accountability, it is not referenced in any CFS publications except for its central role in the outcomes of the opaque Self-Reassessment. The final element of CFS’ public face: in the 21st century, the Internet has become a primary resource of information for a great many people including those seeking information on CFS. FINDINGS 1. Regarding the evaluation and assessment for accountability to the public The one-time-only redesign presents a vivid, revealing and un-retouched candid snapshot of CFS, which stands in contrast to the usual documentation CFS presents. Its pattern of identifying strengths and recommending opportunities for change in 13 elements implies a measure of accountability. CFS has an obligation to measure its accountability to the public and express it in terms which can be understood by the public. Normally CFS publications include: o CFS’ brief contribution to the Human Services Annual Report, which is a public document; o the bound Annual Report, which contains little in the way of accountability, and the intended audience is CFS, not the public; o documents such as the DAMR provide some insight into CFS operations, which are not available to the public; and o the Self-Reassessment, based on the SIP results (formerly published after three years, now extended to five years), is clearly intended for a professional audience, not the public. Two annual goals are cited in the CFS Report incorporated in the Human Services Annual Report and other publications, yet the Grand Jury was unable to readily find the outcomes for these goals reported in either CFS public documents or on the CFS website. They are cited in the Human Services Department annual budget. CFS’ current method of reporting evaluation of its effectiveness and accountability to the public is inadequate. It is too dependent on the outcomes of the periodic SIP goals and the unreported outcomes of annual internal goals. This makes it difficult for the public to be able to determine if CFS is operating effectively within its budget. 51 CFS has a statistics unit, which can generate data to enhance the CFS image and communication with the public.
Recommendations 25
-
R1Implement countywide homelessness prevention strategies to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless.
-
R2Use funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP), for supplemental resources including rental assistance and utility assistance.
-
R3Implement a community outreach and education campaign that raises awareness about households at risk of becoming homeless and provides information about resources available through homeless prevention programs. The effort was to leverage the 2-1-1 System (Homeless Resources) for easy access when appropriate.
-
R4Formalize protocols and improve the coordination of discharge planning so that new persons do not find themselves living without social and economic supports.
-
R5Establish a Central Contact Center that would respond to community calls and concerns for traditional street outreach and engagement and/or assertive community treatment.
-
R6Expand Street Outreach and Engagement Services to include multi-disciplinary practitioners and services. 32
-
R7Expand Street Outreach and Engagement Services to include volunteers from various community groups.
-
R8Establish Regional One-Stop Centers which contain standardized intake and assessment with related protocols to guarantee consistency between regional centers. The social services to be included are: employment, healthcare, housing placement, mental healthcare, substance abuse counseling and treatment with coordination between private and public agencies.
-
R9Use a comprehensive tool that determines potential eligibility for mainstream resources and integrate this tool into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
-
R10Appropriate case management services should be available to all homeless persons whether they are on the street, in emergency shelters or transitional housing or receiving permanent supportive services. Also, re-establish new Continuum of Care Programs which link case management with HMIS.
-
R11Develop and execute a rapid exit strategy focusing on early identification and resolution of the barriers to housing through case management services in order to facilitate the return of a homeless person to permanent housing as quickly as possible.
-
R12Implement a Rapid Re-Housing Approach for Households with dependent children.
-
R13Increase the number of emergency and transitional housing units.
-
R14Implement a Housing First Approach which is the belief that homeless families are more responsive to interventions and social services when living in their own housing.
-
R15Obtain more shelter plus care certificates. This housing assists homeless individuals and families with mental illness, chronic substance abuse and/or infected with HIV/AIDS with long-term affordable rental housing, and increases the participants’ independent living skills.
-
R16Increase the number of permanent housing units with an emphasis on the development of Safe Havens. This includes apartment buildings, single and multi- family housing, single room occupancy and low-demand units requiring clients to abstain from alcohol and drug use and not to exhibit threatening behavior.
-
R17Encourage all local jurisdictions to adopt an inclusionary housing policy that requires a certain percentage of new housing to be affordable to extremely low and very low income residents. 33
-
R18Assess the feasibility of a Housing Trust Fund for County and local levels of government. Six counties in the State of California have created housing trust funds which support the production and preservation of affordable housing.
-
R19Expand the capacity of Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) so that agencies may make better use of data, decrease time and effort at intake and enhance the planning and development functions of the Continuum of Care. HMIS is a Congressional Housing of Urban Development (HUD) Directive for understanding the homeless and measuring program effectiveness.
-
R20Conduct periodic Homeless 101 Training concerning community issues such as: a) law enforcement policies and homeless persons, b) responses by residents, business employees, and homeless persons, c) appropriate actions and responses by social service providers when contacted by the above-mentioned, d) information distribution concerning resources and referral contacts.
-
R21Increase awareness of the collaborative Justice Courts and alternative sentencing programs for defendants experiencing homelessness. Courts included are: Homeless, Adult Drug, Mental Health and Veteran. This would be for the purpose of reducing state costs and ultimately improving public safety.
-
R22Implement and educate the community on the principles, goals and recommendations of this report.
-
R23Enlist the support of faith-based organizations to help implement the goals and recommendations of this report.
-
R24Create an Interagency Council on Homelessness for San Bernardino County charged with coordinating and evaluating policies concerning these recommendations and related activities within the plan.
-
R25Appoint the partnership members as an advisory body to the Interagency Council and appoint representatives as standing members to the Interagency Council. INTRODUCTION The Grand Jury reviewed the 10-Year Strategy to End Homelessness report in its entirety and agreed to follow-up on various components of the Planning Committee, conducting a number of interviews. FACT 1 The Office of Homeless Services, Department of Behavioral Health (OHS) was created in 2007 as the result of the Board of Supervisor of the Fifth District. Their role is primarily administrative and to support the Homeless Provider Network (HPN), Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH), faith-based and non-profit organizations. The agency also promotes, coordinates and ensures that the Continuum of Care encouraged by HUD is carried out by agencies providing homeless services. Since establishment of the Homeless Services Division, HUD has required this agency to count on a biennial basis, a point-in-time estimate which has resulted in a lower number of the homeless population. Each city in San Bernardino County is now required to account for its own homeless population when requesting funds. The population of the homeless in 2007 was 7,331. This number includes all homeless, sheltered and unsheltered. In 2011, there were 2,876 individuals and families homeless; 1,692 unsheltered; 1,039 sheltered and 145 hotel/motel vouchers. In an effort to obtain an accurate accounting of the homeless, hundreds of volunteers are solicited to participate in this activity. It requires the agency at least six months to coordinate this event. The OHS participates with San Bernardino County Homeless Partnership in hosting homeless summits and providing information in bridging the gaps of homelessness. Twice a year, “Homeless Project Connects,” a community organization, sponsors free on-site services, resources and referrals for low-income individuals and families. Also, there is no limit to the time that a homeless individual may reside in low-income housing. There is only a permanent housing supply as per HUD rules, especially if a person is disabled. The OHS indicated that additional housing had increased since inception of the program. Also noted, there had been an increase in the number of emergency and transitional housing units. In addition, the Pettis Memorial Veterans Hospital located in Loma Linda works closely with veterans who have become homeless, servicing most of their needs. An initial recommendation made by the 10-Year Planning Committee included implementing a management information system (data collected on the homeless). Since 2007, this implementation has been in place and administered by the Community Action Partnership (CAP). San Bernardino County law enforcement agencies are participating in ongoing training, specifically crisis intervention. The San Bernardino County Sheriff Department has established a 35 direct line of communication for obtaining assistance for the homeless. There is a button mounted on the dashboard of their vehicles enabling them to contact the 2-1-1 Helpline System. The operators of this system are a part of United Way and provide information about various services available. Since AB 109 was implemented, homeless individuals are referred to Homeless Court. The court works with the Probation and Sheriff Departments with re-entry providers for assistance. The Continuum of Care is composed of agencies which apply for federal grant dollars on a competitive basis. Applications are made once a year. The OHS is responsible for contacting and monitoring agencies who submit applications for funding. The OHS is not a pass-through agency; instead the federal government transmits funds directly to the specific agency applying. The OHS has been successful in receiving over $8,000,000 during the past three years for the Continuum of Care agencies throughout San Bernardino County. Of the $8,000,000, $3,000,000 are for new programs and $5,000,000 for renewal programs. In 2009, the President of the United States signed the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition of Housing Act (HEARTH) formerly known as the McKinney-Vento Act established by HUD for Continuum of Care Programs. The funds provided are Emergency Solution Grants (ESG) and Emergency Food and Shelter Programs (EFSP) for food, which are directly from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). In October 2012, the OHS supplied the Grand Jury with a report entitled: Recalibrating for Results: A Three-Year Evaluation of the 2009-2019 San Bernardino County 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness. The evaluation was overseen by the San Bernardino County Homeless Provider Network Committee chairs in cooperation with the San Bernardino County Office of Homeless Services and the Institute for Urban Initiatives. The evaluation began January 2011 and ended June 2012. The 10-Year Strategy was adopted in 2009. As a result of the initial recommendations 15 were renewed, expanded upon, folded into new recommendations and others were eliminated. The amended recommendations included the following:
Commendations 4
-
CM1 Page 17The San Bernardino County Probation Department has demonstrated through leadership and innovation bold changes can be made to align the juvenile system with modern practices in diversion and rehabilitation. When faced with limited resources and greater demands for juvenile supervision, the Department has developed and implemented programs which best utilize department staff, multi-disciplinary resources and community partners. The programs are working; juvenile recidivism rates in San Bernardino County have been trending downward since a high of 10.19% in 2008 to 7.47% for the first 10 months of 2012. 45
-
CM2 Page 18To their credit, the Department has been contacted by various agencies from around the world, to discuss, review and conduct on-site visitations, for their award-winning juvenile diversionary programs. 46
-
CM3 Page 19SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
-
CM4 Page 24The Grand Jury commends the CFS Executive team for having the foresight to establish pilot studies in the field; for seeking employee initiatives since 2007 to develop proposals for change, which eventually were incorporated in the Redesign; and recognizing the need for significant changes in the structure, management, and operations of CFS; and responding with the commission for, and implementation of, the Redesign. (Finding 1-1)