Single Moms Without Dads
Stolen by the state
When the father is not involved, single mothers are losing custody of
their children. The number of founded child abuse allegations can be
predicted from the number of conditional federal grant and
reimbursement fund dollars needed to balance the state child
predicted from the number of conditional federal grant and will be the
number sufficient to generate the federal fund claims reimbursement
fund dollars needed to balance the state child necessary to balance
the agency payroll. by James Roger Brown, Director of The
Sociology CenterDirector of The Sociology Center
stolenbythestate.blogspot.com
When the father is not involved, single mothers are losing custody of
their children. The number of founded child abuse allegations can be
predicted from the number of conditional federal grant and
reimbursement fund dollars needed to balance the state child
predicted from the number of conditional federal grant and will be the
number sufficient to generate the federal fund claims reimbursement
fund dollars needed to balance the state child necessary to balance
the agency payroll. by James Roger Brown, Director of The
Sociology CenterDirector of The Sociology Center
stolenbythestate.blogspot.com
Child Protective Services receives money for every foster parent they license. They receive money for every child they adopt into a foster home. If they can prove the child has a disability the agency receives even more money. Judges want non custodial parents to pay the highest amount of child support because they get a kick back from the federal government for every dollar they collect from the non custodial parent. GOVERNMENT ENTITIES ARE BUSINESSES! |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Child Welfare System
Including Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Each year concerned professionals and community members
report nearly 500,000 instances in which they suspect that
someone is abusing or neglecting a child in California.
California's child welfare system is the principal intervention
resource for protecting these children, as well as children who
are orphaned or abandoned. The system consists of a
conglomeration of public and private agencies, institutions,
programs and services. These entities and individuals respond
to allegations of abuse and neglect, provide services to children
and families who are victims or potential victims of abuse or
neglect, and provide services to children in foster care who were
temporarily or permanently removed from their homes because
of abuse or neglect. In July, 2007, approximately 85,000 children
in California lived in out-of-home or foster care.
Federal and state laws provide the framework for child welfare
services which are funded through a combination of federal,
state and county sources. The California Department of Social
Services (DSS) is the principal entity responsible for the state’s
child welfare system, although each of the state’s 58 counties
administers its own child welfare program. In other words,
counties are the primary source of direct government interaction
with children and families involved in the system. California is
one of around a dozen states with this state-supervised/county-
administered governance system. The Departments of Health
Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Programs, and
Developmental Services, along with their county counterparts,
and the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department
of Education also provide services to children and families
involved in the child welfare system.
Components of the system
Child welfare services include a variety of interventions designed
to protect children from abuse and neglect. Major services
include emergency response to reports of suspected abuse and
neglect; family maintenance (which provides time-limited
protective services to families in crisis); family reunification
(which provides time-limited intervention and support services to
help create a safe environment to which a child who was
removed from home could return); and foster or out-of-home
care. After a concerned individual reports an allegation of abuse
or neglect, a county social worker determines if an investigation
needs to occur and how quickly. An investigation may end the
intervention, or it may begin the family's further involvement in the
child welfare system.
1 Needell, B., et. al. (2008). Child Welfare Services Reports for
California. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research
website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
2 Funding THIS FUNDING WAS APPROVED
The Governor's proposed budget for 2008-09 includes $4.179
billion in spending from all funds for the child welfare system, of
which $1.14 billion are from the General Fund.
3 The primary sources of federal funding for the child welfare
system include Titles IV-B (child welfare services) and IV-E
(foster care) of the Social Security Act, with additional
funding in Titles IV-A (TANF) (Fatherhood Initiative Grant) , XIX
(Medicaid) and XX (block grants).
Most stakeholders agree that current federal funding
mechanisms for child welfare place a greater priority on
supports to children while in foster care at the expense of
prevention efforts and supports to help at-risk families care for
their children at home. The federal Title IV-E program is an open-
ended entitlement program that guarantees federal
reimbursement to states for maintaining an eligible child in foster
care. This program accounts for approximately 48% of federal
child welfare spending in the states. The federal Title IV-B
program provides funds to states for family preservation and
support services, reunification services and adoption promotion.
Unlike federal Title IV-E funding, Title IV-B funding is a capped
entitlement and considered discretionary funding, which is
subject to the annual appropriation process. Title IV-B is an
important source of funding for prevention and early intervention
services, yet these funds account for only approximately five
percent of all federal funding on child welfare. Thus, federal
financing has historically been a barrier to the implementation of
many strategies to prevent children and their families from
unnecessarily entering foster care.
4 ¾ Foster Care Most of California's approximately 80,000
foster children entered foster care because of Neglect (rather
than abuse or abandonment). Three-quarters of these children
were minorities or children of color in 2006. African-American
children in particular were disproportionately represented.
5 In 2006, foster children lived with foster parents (approximately
36% of placements), kin (36%), group home providers (or
congregate care facilities, 8%), or in other living arrangements.
Group care placements are the least preferred and most
expensive (ranging from $1,454 to $6,371 per child per month)
of these major placement categories. Foster care is intended to
provide children with temporary out-of-home placements until
they can safely return home or be permanently placed with
relatives or other committed adults. Yet in 2006, around 19,000
children for whom the state was responsible had been in our
care and custody for longer than 5 years. That same year, 42%
of children in foster care had been placed in at least 3 homes or
institutions.
3 LAO, Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill. URL: http://www.lao.
ca.gov/laoapp/Analysis.aspx?year=2008&chap=0&toc=0
4 Two large counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, are currently
participating in the federal Title IV–E Child Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Capped Allocation Project that allows more
flexibility for IV-E fund usage.
5 Id. (The California Department of Finance estimates that
African-American children represented 8% of California’s
population in 2006; yet during that same year, 28% of children in
foster care were African-American.)
Foster children are also highly at-risk as they transition to
adulthood. Youth who "age out" of or "emancipate" from foster
care at 18 (or up until the age of 21 in some circumstances) are
especially vulnerable. When compared to children who were not
in foster care, foster children are more than twice as likely to
drop out of high school.
6 Former foster children also face unemployment and
incarceration at rates far higher than the general population.
7 According to some studies, 24% to 50% of former foster
children become homeless within the first 18 months of
emancipation.
8 In recent years, the Legislature, media and other leaders have
devoted important attention to reforms of the overall child welfare
system and foster care in particular. These efforts have resulted
in some very positive changes (see below for examples).
However, some changes have not been fully-implemented; and
as the dire outcomes described above indicate, further attention
to improving the system is still urgently needed.
¾ Adoption & Guardianship
Adoption is a process that creates a new parent-child
relationship under the law- after the birth parents' rights are
terminated and transferred. The majority of finalized adoptions in
California are overseen by public adoption agencies, including
CDSS district offices, and state-licensed county adoption
agencies.
The Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) provides benefits or
subsidies to promote permanent placement of children in need
of families who are difficult to place, including those who are
older, members of sibling groups, or who have disabilities.
Eligibility for federal benefits is based on the child's eligibility for
federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care
Program (AFDC-FC). The amount of financial assistance is
based on the child's needs and cannot exceed the age-related,
foster family home care rate for which the child would otherwise
be eligible. This amounted to monthly federal and non-federal
average grants in 2006-07 of $761.16 and $806.23,
respectively. Payments continue until the child attains the age
of 18 except in limited circumstances when it may continue until
the child turns 21.
Guardianship is a legal arrangement whereby a court grants the
responsibility to care for a child to an adult or adults who then
have the authority to make decisions a biological parent would
otherwise make. Guardianships last until the child reaches the
age of 18 or the court terminates the guardianship. Non-relative
guardians for children in the foster care system may receive
AFDC-FC payments and other foster care services.
6 See, e.g., Mark Courtney & Amy Dworsky, Chapin Hall Center
for Children, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19 (2005); Advocates
for Children’s Project Achieve: A Model Project Providing
Education
Advocacy for Children in the Child Welfare System (2005);
Retrieved October 12, 2007 from Advocates for Children of New
York, Inc., URL: http://www.advocatesforchildren.
org/pubs/ProjectAchievefinal.doc.
7 The Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Retrieved 4/30/07.
URL:
http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications.
8 California Department of Social Services, All County
Information Notice I-101-01 (November 21 ,2001).
Retrieved 11/16/07. URL: http://www.cdss.ca.
gov/getinfo/acin01/pdf/I-101_01.pdf.
4 ¾ Kin/Relative Care Relative caregivers often serve as a
primary if informal source of care for children whose parents are
absent. Once a child is in foster care, federal law requires the
child welfare agency to try and place the child with a relative
before turning to placement in a stranger's home or another
facility. Long-term kinship care is especially valuable because it
provides greater stability for children. Children who are cared for
by relatives move less frequently and remain more connected to
their culture, identities and communities. By contrast to non-
relative foster parents, relative caregivers tend to be older,
single and more frequently African-American.
To support kinship care and combat the financial disincentive
that might otherwise accompany relatives becoming guardians,
California has enacted a series of legislative reforms. The
Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment program (Kin-GAP)
is a voluntary program that provides financial assistance equal to
the basic foster care rate based on the child's age to relative
caregivers who become legal guardians. These relative
guardians' homes must meet the same health and safety
standards as licensed foster homes.
Performance Measures and Recent Reform Efforts Outcome
Measures
In November 1997, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, Congress mandated that state's child welfare
programs be assessed on the basis of outcomes achieved for
children and families served by public agencies. In 1999 the
federal Health and Human Services (HHS) agency adopted
seven outcome performance measures in the areas of safety,
permanence and well-being. HHS also established a review
process for determining whether states are in compliance with
those outcome measures. The process known as the Child and
Family Services Review (CFSR) examines the delivery of child
welfare services and the outcomes for children and families
served by child protective services, foster care, adoption, and
other related programs.
In 2001 the Legislature passed AB 636 (Steinberg), the
California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability
Act, which provided the framework for measuring and monitoring
the performance of each county child welfare system. The
federal government last reviewed California's child welfare
system and published results in 2002. The state failed all seven
of the outcome measures pertaining to child safety, permanence
and well-being. As a result the state developed a Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) to avoid future funding penalties.
According to the LAO, actions taken on the PIP were expected
to improve California’s performance to passing some (but not
all) measures in the next round of results.
9 The new round of reviews began in spring 2007, with
California's taking place in February, 2008 (results pending).
9 See Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Health and Social
Services; Child Welfare Services. URL:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/health_ss/hss_13_anl07.
aspx#Despite%20Substantial%20Improvement,%20Federal%
20Financi
al%20Penalties%20Likely%20in%202007-08.
5 Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care
In October 2005 the Speaker appointed a Select Committee on
Foster Care chaired by Assembly Member Karen Bass. The
Select Committee has held hearings throughout California. The
Committee also coordinated a 25-piece legislative package in
2006, as well as numerous efforts in 2007. The Legislature and
Governor acted upon many of the proposed reforms in those
years, including significant new funding. The Select Committee
will continue its work this legislative session.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care
In 2006 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed a Blue
Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care chaired by
Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno to provide leadership
and develop recommendations and strategies to reduce the
number of children in and entering foster care while ensuring
they have safe, secure, and stable homes. The Commission is
expected to present a final report to the Judicial Council in 2008.
The California Child Welfare Council
Also in 2006, the Governor signed AB 2216 (Bass) which
created the California Child Welfare Council, an advisory body
responsible for improving the collaboration and processes of the
multiple agencies and the courts that serve the children and
youth in the child welfare and foster care systems. The Council is
co-chaired by the Secretary of the Health and Human Services
Agency and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
The first meeting was held late in 2007.
Selected Legislation
SB 84 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review), Chapter 177,
Statutes of 2007
Selected provisions: • 5% rate increase for group homes, county
foster family homes, Kin-GAP, and emergency assistance
cases, effective January 1, 2008.
• 100% increase– from $5000 to $10,000– in maximum private
adoption agencies can be reimbursed for a completed adoption,
beginning February 1, 2008. My Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Also
does adoption. This has always bothered me and the fact that
she make over a million dollars a year. Wonder if she receive
part of the proceeds for the adoption.
• $35.7 million for Transitional Housing Plus- to provide housing
and supportive services to emancipated foster youth ages 18-24.
6 AB 1808 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 75, Statutes of
2006.
Selected provisions:
• Eliminated county share of cost for transitional housing for
former foster youth.
• Enhanced AAP benefits for a pilot project to increase
successful adoptions of hard-to-adopt children.
• Extended Kin-GAP assistance to wards of the juvenile court in
addition to dependent children of the juvenile court.
• Deleted requirement that county seeking to participate in
KSSP must have 40% or more dependent children in relative
care placement.
• Provided specialized care and clothing allowance benefits to
Kin-GAP children.
AB 408 (Steinberg), Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003 & AB 1412
(Leno), Chapter 640, Statutes of 2005. Requires social workers
to identify important people in the lives of older foster youth and
to support their continued relationships to enhance permanence
for youth. AB 408 also ensures that foster youth are allowed to
participate in age appropriate extracurricular activities.
AB 899 (Liu), Chapter 683, Statutes of 2001. Created foster
youth Bill of Rights, codified in Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code Section
16001.9.
AB 636 (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001. Child
Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act of 2001.
Created California's Child and Family Service Review system
and serves as a guide to the assessment process.
SB 2030 (Costa), Chapter 785, Statutes of 1998. Required
DSS to commission a study to evaluate child welfare services
budget methodology, social worker caseload levels, supportive
services and prevention services for clients. The dialogue about
the resulting caseload standards and related funding needs
continues today.
Resources
The Performance Indicators for Child Welfare Services in
California/California Children's Services Archive at the Center
for Social Services Research, School of Social Welfare, U.C.
Berkeley, provides an ongoing analysis and reporting using
statewide and county-specific child welfare administrative data,
along with data from other sources: http://cssr.berkeley.
edu/cwscmsreports/
Understanding the Child Welfare System in California, California
Center for Research on Women and FamiliesCALIF. FOSTER
CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
Foster Care Fundamentals: An Overview of California's Foster
Care System: A Primer for Service Providers and Policymakers,
California State Library Research Bureau.
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/01/08/01-008.pdf
• Still in Our Hands: A Review of Efforts to Reform Foster Care
in California (February 2003). Little Hoover Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for
Children in Foster
Care (May 2004). Pew Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Broken Promises: California's Inadequate and Unequal
Treatment of its Abused and Neglected Children (2006).
National Center for Youth Law.
http://www.youthlaw.
org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/2006_broken_pro
mises.pdf
Assembly Committee on Human Services, State Capitol, Room
4206, (916) 319-2089
Updated: February 2008
Including Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Each year concerned professionals and community members
report nearly 500,000 instances in which they suspect that
someone is abusing or neglecting a child in California.
California's child welfare system is the principal intervention
resource for protecting these children, as well as children who
are orphaned or abandoned. The system consists of a
conglomeration of public and private agencies, institutions,
programs and services. These entities and individuals respond
to allegations of abuse and neglect, provide services to children
and families who are victims or potential victims of abuse or
neglect, and provide services to children in foster care who were
temporarily or permanently removed from their homes because
of abuse or neglect. In July, 2007, approximately 85,000 children
in California lived in out-of-home or foster care.
Federal and state laws provide the framework for child welfare
services which are funded through a combination of federal,
state and county sources. The California Department of Social
Services (DSS) is the principal entity responsible for the state’s
child welfare system, although each of the state’s 58 counties
administers its own child welfare program. In other words,
counties are the primary source of direct government interaction
with children and families involved in the system. California is
one of around a dozen states with this state-supervised/county-
administered governance system. The Departments of Health
Services, Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Programs, and
Developmental Services, along with their county counterparts,
and the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department
of Education also provide services to children and families
involved in the child welfare system.
Components of the system
Child welfare services include a variety of interventions designed
to protect children from abuse and neglect. Major services
include emergency response to reports of suspected abuse and
neglect; family maintenance (which provides time-limited
protective services to families in crisis); family reunification
(which provides time-limited intervention and support services to
help create a safe environment to which a child who was
removed from home could return); and foster or out-of-home
care. After a concerned individual reports an allegation of abuse
or neglect, a county social worker determines if an investigation
needs to occur and how quickly. An investigation may end the
intervention, or it may begin the family's further involvement in the
child welfare system.
1 Needell, B., et. al. (2008). Child Welfare Services Reports for
California. Retrieved February 20, 2008, from University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research
website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
2 Funding THIS FUNDING WAS APPROVED
The Governor's proposed budget for 2008-09 includes $4.179
billion in spending from all funds for the child welfare system, of
which $1.14 billion are from the General Fund.
3 The primary sources of federal funding for the child welfare
system include Titles IV-B (child welfare services) and IV-E
(foster care) of the Social Security Act, with additional
funding in Titles IV-A (TANF) (Fatherhood Initiative Grant) , XIX
(Medicaid) and XX (block grants).
Most stakeholders agree that current federal funding
mechanisms for child welfare place a greater priority on
supports to children while in foster care at the expense of
prevention efforts and supports to help at-risk families care for
their children at home. The federal Title IV-E program is an open-
ended entitlement program that guarantees federal
reimbursement to states for maintaining an eligible child in foster
care. This program accounts for approximately 48% of federal
child welfare spending in the states. The federal Title IV-B
program provides funds to states for family preservation and
support services, reunification services and adoption promotion.
Unlike federal Title IV-E funding, Title IV-B funding is a capped
entitlement and considered discretionary funding, which is
subject to the annual appropriation process. Title IV-B is an
important source of funding for prevention and early intervention
services, yet these funds account for only approximately five
percent of all federal funding on child welfare. Thus, federal
financing has historically been a barrier to the implementation of
many strategies to prevent children and their families from
unnecessarily entering foster care.
4 ¾ Foster Care Most of California's approximately 80,000
foster children entered foster care because of Neglect (rather
than abuse or abandonment). Three-quarters of these children
were minorities or children of color in 2006. African-American
children in particular were disproportionately represented.
5 In 2006, foster children lived with foster parents (approximately
36% of placements), kin (36%), group home providers (or
congregate care facilities, 8%), or in other living arrangements.
Group care placements are the least preferred and most
expensive (ranging from $1,454 to $6,371 per child per month)
of these major placement categories. Foster care is intended to
provide children with temporary out-of-home placements until
they can safely return home or be permanently placed with
relatives or other committed adults. Yet in 2006, around 19,000
children for whom the state was responsible had been in our
care and custody for longer than 5 years. That same year, 42%
of children in foster care had been placed in at least 3 homes or
institutions.
3 LAO, Analysis of the 2008-09 Budget Bill. URL: http://www.lao.
ca.gov/laoapp/Analysis.aspx?year=2008&chap=0&toc=0
4 Two large counties, Los Angeles and Alameda, are currently
participating in the federal Title IV–E Child Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Capped Allocation Project that allows more
flexibility for IV-E fund usage.
5 Id. (The California Department of Finance estimates that
African-American children represented 8% of California’s
population in 2006; yet during that same year, 28% of children in
foster care were African-American.)
Foster children are also highly at-risk as they transition to
adulthood. Youth who "age out" of or "emancipate" from foster
care at 18 (or up until the age of 21 in some circumstances) are
especially vulnerable. When compared to children who were not
in foster care, foster children are more than twice as likely to
drop out of high school.
6 Former foster children also face unemployment and
incarceration at rates far higher than the general population.
7 According to some studies, 24% to 50% of former foster
children become homeless within the first 18 months of
emancipation.
8 In recent years, the Legislature, media and other leaders have
devoted important attention to reforms of the overall child welfare
system and foster care in particular. These efforts have resulted
in some very positive changes (see below for examples).
However, some changes have not been fully-implemented; and
as the dire outcomes described above indicate, further attention
to improving the system is still urgently needed.
¾ Adoption & Guardianship
Adoption is a process that creates a new parent-child
relationship under the law- after the birth parents' rights are
terminated and transferred. The majority of finalized adoptions in
California are overseen by public adoption agencies, including
CDSS district offices, and state-licensed county adoption
agencies.
The Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) provides benefits or
subsidies to promote permanent placement of children in need
of families who are difficult to place, including those who are
older, members of sibling groups, or who have disabilities.
Eligibility for federal benefits is based on the child's eligibility for
federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care
Program (AFDC-FC). The amount of financial assistance is
based on the child's needs and cannot exceed the age-related,
foster family home care rate for which the child would otherwise
be eligible. This amounted to monthly federal and non-federal
average grants in 2006-07 of $761.16 and $806.23,
respectively. Payments continue until the child attains the age
of 18 except in limited circumstances when it may continue until
the child turns 21.
Guardianship is a legal arrangement whereby a court grants the
responsibility to care for a child to an adult or adults who then
have the authority to make decisions a biological parent would
otherwise make. Guardianships last until the child reaches the
age of 18 or the court terminates the guardianship. Non-relative
guardians for children in the foster care system may receive
AFDC-FC payments and other foster care services.
6 See, e.g., Mark Courtney & Amy Dworsky, Chapin Hall Center
for Children, Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19 (2005); Advocates
for Children’s Project Achieve: A Model Project Providing
Education
Advocacy for Children in the Child Welfare System (2005);
Retrieved October 12, 2007 from Advocates for Children of New
York, Inc., URL: http://www.advocatesforchildren.
org/pubs/ProjectAchievefinal.doc.
7 The Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study, Retrieved 4/30/07.
URL:
http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications.
8 California Department of Social Services, All County
Information Notice I-101-01 (November 21 ,2001).
Retrieved 11/16/07. URL: http://www.cdss.ca.
gov/getinfo/acin01/pdf/I-101_01.pdf.
4 ¾ Kin/Relative Care Relative caregivers often serve as a
primary if informal source of care for children whose parents are
absent. Once a child is in foster care, federal law requires the
child welfare agency to try and place the child with a relative
before turning to placement in a stranger's home or another
facility. Long-term kinship care is especially valuable because it
provides greater stability for children. Children who are cared for
by relatives move less frequently and remain more connected to
their culture, identities and communities. By contrast to non-
relative foster parents, relative caregivers tend to be older,
single and more frequently African-American.
To support kinship care and combat the financial disincentive
that might otherwise accompany relatives becoming guardians,
California has enacted a series of legislative reforms. The
Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment program (Kin-GAP)
is a voluntary program that provides financial assistance equal to
the basic foster care rate based on the child's age to relative
caregivers who become legal guardians. These relative
guardians' homes must meet the same health and safety
standards as licensed foster homes.
Performance Measures and Recent Reform Efforts Outcome
Measures
In November 1997, with the passage of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act, Congress mandated that state's child welfare
programs be assessed on the basis of outcomes achieved for
children and families served by public agencies. In 1999 the
federal Health and Human Services (HHS) agency adopted
seven outcome performance measures in the areas of safety,
permanence and well-being. HHS also established a review
process for determining whether states are in compliance with
those outcome measures. The process known as the Child and
Family Services Review (CFSR) examines the delivery of child
welfare services and the outcomes for children and families
served by child protective services, foster care, adoption, and
other related programs.
In 2001 the Legislature passed AB 636 (Steinberg), the
California Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability
Act, which provided the framework for measuring and monitoring
the performance of each county child welfare system. The
federal government last reviewed California's child welfare
system and published results in 2002. The state failed all seven
of the outcome measures pertaining to child safety, permanence
and well-being. As a result the state developed a Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) to avoid future funding penalties.
According to the LAO, actions taken on the PIP were expected
to improve California’s performance to passing some (but not
all) measures in the next round of results.
9 The new round of reviews began in spring 2007, with
California's taking place in February, 2008 (results pending).
9 See Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Health and Social
Services; Child Welfare Services. URL:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/health_ss/hss_13_anl07.
aspx#Despite%20Substantial%20Improvement,%20Federal%
20Financi
al%20Penalties%20Likely%20in%202007-08.
5 Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care
In October 2005 the Speaker appointed a Select Committee on
Foster Care chaired by Assembly Member Karen Bass. The
Select Committee has held hearings throughout California. The
Committee also coordinated a 25-piece legislative package in
2006, as well as numerous efforts in 2007. The Legislature and
Governor acted upon many of the proposed reforms in those
years, including significant new funding. The Select Committee
will continue its work this legislative session.
Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care
In 2006 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed a Blue
Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care chaired by
Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno to provide leadership
and develop recommendations and strategies to reduce the
number of children in and entering foster care while ensuring
they have safe, secure, and stable homes. The Commission is
expected to present a final report to the Judicial Council in 2008.
The California Child Welfare Council
Also in 2006, the Governor signed AB 2216 (Bass) which
created the California Child Welfare Council, an advisory body
responsible for improving the collaboration and processes of the
multiple agencies and the courts that serve the children and
youth in the child welfare and foster care systems. The Council is
co-chaired by the Secretary of the Health and Human Services
Agency and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
The first meeting was held late in 2007.
Selected Legislation
SB 84 (Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review), Chapter 177,
Statutes of 2007
Selected provisions: • 5% rate increase for group homes, county
foster family homes, Kin-GAP, and emergency assistance
cases, effective January 1, 2008.
• 100% increase– from $5000 to $10,000– in maximum private
adoption agencies can be reimbursed for a completed adoption,
beginning February 1, 2008. My Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Also
does adoption. This has always bothered me and the fact that
she make over a million dollars a year. Wonder if she receive
part of the proceeds for the adoption.
• $35.7 million for Transitional Housing Plus- to provide housing
and supportive services to emancipated foster youth ages 18-24.
6 AB 1808 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 75, Statutes of
2006.
Selected provisions:
• Eliminated county share of cost for transitional housing for
former foster youth.
• Enhanced AAP benefits for a pilot project to increase
successful adoptions of hard-to-adopt children.
• Extended Kin-GAP assistance to wards of the juvenile court in
addition to dependent children of the juvenile court.
• Deleted requirement that county seeking to participate in
KSSP must have 40% or more dependent children in relative
care placement.
• Provided specialized care and clothing allowance benefits to
Kin-GAP children.
AB 408 (Steinberg), Chapter 862, Statutes of 2003 & AB 1412
(Leno), Chapter 640, Statutes of 2005. Requires social workers
to identify important people in the lives of older foster youth and
to support their continued relationships to enhance permanence
for youth. AB 408 also ensures that foster youth are allowed to
participate in age appropriate extracurricular activities.
AB 899 (Liu), Chapter 683, Statutes of 2001. Created foster
youth Bill of Rights, codified in Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code Section
16001.9.
AB 636 (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001. Child
Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act of 2001.
Created California's Child and Family Service Review system
and serves as a guide to the assessment process.
SB 2030 (Costa), Chapter 785, Statutes of 1998. Required
DSS to commission a study to evaluate child welfare services
budget methodology, social worker caseload levels, supportive
services and prevention services for clients. The dialogue about
the resulting caseload standards and related funding needs
continues today.
Resources
The Performance Indicators for Child Welfare Services in
California/California Children's Services Archive at the Center
for Social Services Research, School of Social Welfare, U.C.
Berkeley, provides an ongoing analysis and reporting using
statewide and county-specific child welfare administrative data,
along with data from other sources: http://cssr.berkeley.
edu/cwscmsreports/
Understanding the Child Welfare System in California, California
Center for Research on Women and FamiliesCALIF. FOSTER
CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
Foster Care Fundamentals: An Overview of California's Foster
Care System: A Primer for Service Providers and Policymakers,
California State Library Research Bureau.
http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/01/08/01-008.pdf
• Still in Our Hands: A Review of Efforts to Reform Foster Care
in California (February 2003). Little Hoover Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being for
Children in Foster
Care (May 2004). Pew Commission.
CALIF. FOSTER CARE REPORT FOR 2008-09.docx
• Broken Promises: California's Inadequate and Unequal
Treatment of its Abused and Neglected Children (2006).
National Center for Youth Law.
http://www.youthlaw.
org/fileadmin/ncyl/youthlaw/publications/2006_broken_pro
mises.pdf
Assembly Committee on Human Services, State Capitol, Room
4206, (916) 319-2089
Updated: February 2008
