CHAPTER III:
CALIFORNIA CHILD WELFARE SERVICES (CWS)

INTRODUCTION

Children's Protective Services, as we know them today, has a short history of no more than 30-35 years. There were the orphanages of Dicken's England that kept children alive, but barely. There were the orphan trains at the turn-of-the-century in the eastern states, on which well meaning people sent children west to a life that was little more than that of an indentured servant. There were the Settlement Houses of Jane Addam's time that did the best they could with what they knew. These were private movements, often well meaning, but without government intervention and without scholarly research.

In 1962, the physician, C. Henry Kempe and his colleagues published The Battered Child Syndrome and alerted the public to the problem of child abuse and neglect.⁽⁴³⁾ They started a campaign to address the issue. The response evolved into the present system.

This is a system that has not fully matured in either its kowledge base or ist methodology.

This is a system in transition. New information we have in the past few years on child development and brain development indicates that children need permanency, a family for life. Current practices have not provided this as children were moved from one placement to another. The current trend is to provide services that will, whenever possible, keep children with their birth parents. This has not been widely tested. There are some twenty-year studies, but they involved small groups of children.

Particular programs such as Family Support, Family Preservation and Home Visits for New Families, which attempt to prevent child abuse and neglect while the children stay with their families, have only existed as wide-spread programs in California for three to five years.

The California Child Welfare Department currently has the following six point agenda, as described by Marjorie Kelly, the Deputy Director, Children and Family Services Division of the California Department of Social Services.

1. Prevention: Starting with home visitation during pregnancy or as soon as the baby is born, this is a 3 to 5 year program with more intensive services at first and tapering off as the family situation improves. This is both primary prevention and early intervention, able to reach even isolated new families. Isolation is a primary characteristic of domestic violence. (See Chapter II: Prevention, the section on Home Visiting)

2. Risk Management: Develop research based methods of determining who is most likely to be vulnerable. Now, first something happens, then child welfare services enter the picture to prevent repeated maltreatment. There is a need to target scarce resources to reaching families before a child is harmed. Seven counties are currently co-piloting a program to do so. (See Role of the State: the section on Development of Tools for Caseworkers...)

3. Training: To participate with counties and the University system to develop Child Welfare Academies for training. To develop a standardized curriculum for Children's Social Workers (CSWs). A skilled work force is primary to good child protection services.

4. Family Centered Services: A continuum of services from home visits during pregnancy to intensive interventions at the high end. The Dependency System needs to have a philosophy whereby Child Welfare Workers engage the families as helpers and are not seen as intervener, threatening to separate the family. Social workers and the Department need to see the family as the solution, not the problem.

5. Permanency: When the children can be kept safely at home, that is where they should be. When this is not possible in the birth home, then the move should be to a "family for life". Either adoption or a formalized form of kinship care or formal guardianship.

6. Automation: This is needed to make the other things happen. The Child Welfare Services Case Management System (CWS/CMS) system went statewide in December 1997. This will provide important data for policy decisions state wide.⁽⁴⁴⁾ (See Chapter VIII: Role of the State, CWS/CMS)

CALIFORNIA CHILD WELFARE SERVICES (CWS) TODAY

State Child Welfare Services (CWS) include:

1. Emergency Response to abuse allegations;

2. Family Maintenance Services to children and their families, while the children remain with their families

3. Family Preservation and Support Services are intensive services for families whose children, without these services: might be removed, would remain in existing out-of-home placements for longer periods of time, or would be placed in more restrictive out-of-home placement.

4. Family Reunification Services which provides services to children in foster care who are temporarily removed to facilitate possible reunification.

"We used to out on 100% of the calls, now we go out on 15%", ...a statement at a League Forum on Dependency in Alameda County.

1. Emergency Response to Abuse Allegations: An investigator responds to reports of abuse and neglect, may remove the child from the home immediately, refer the family to services including those in the Child Welfare Department, or may close the case because of insufficient evidence. (See also the County Welfare Directors Association Report, page

A relatively small number of children who come to the attention of authorities for maltreatment actually go to court in California. Many cases are investigated and dropped by the county child welfare department. Many more are settled through Family Support services, mediation, etc. and never reach the court. In addition to relying upon the clinical expertise and case management information provided by the social worker in dependency cases, the Court relies upon Child Welfare Agencies to: prepare services plans aimed at family reunification or alternative permanent placement; find and administer foster homes; and locate adoptive parents for children whose parental rights have been terminated.⁽⁴⁵⁾

2. Family Maintenance: The Little Hoover Commission report in 1992 indicated a 5.7% decrease in the caseload for the Family Maintenance program.⁽⁴⁶⁾ The 1996 Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report shows the trend continuing. In 1987-88, 31% of the children in the system received family maintenance services. By 1994-94 this had dropped to 26%. The LAO stated that social workers reported a lack of external support services which limited the number of children who could be served effectively by the Family Maintenance program. Another potential factor [wa]s that a higher proportion of children with more severe problems might be entering the CWS program.⁽⁴⁷⁾

The Little Hoover Commission noted that funds are not available to social workers to provide in-home services, and the report quotes from 10 Reasons to Invest in the Families of California:

Tragically, the absence of a serious, proactive investment in "front-end prevention and family preservation strategies has led to the increase in (permanent removal from the home) and foster care caseloads. Until a serious investment in these front-end services is made, out-of-home care caseloads will continue to grow and more and more children will be denied the opportunity to grow within their natural families.⁽⁴⁸⁾

Family Preservation and Family Reunification programs are a result of Public Law 96-272, the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (1980). The purpose of these programs is to remove the problem, not the child from the home.

3. Family Preservation: prevents the removal of children from their families unless it is absolutely necessary. The child welfare agencies are now legally charged with keeping children in their families whenever possible. They do this by providing "up front", or "family preservation", services. Does the family need financial aid? Does a mother need to move into a new apartment, away from the boyfriend who abused her and her children? Does a father need parenting classes to learn to put his children in "time-out rather than hitting them?

Family Preservation services began in California in the 1989-90 fiscal year with Alameda, Napa and Solano counties.⁽⁴⁹⁾ Funding has increased as more counties participate. The pilot started with $1 million for three counties and (grew) to $45 million for sixteen counties (by) 1995-96.⁽⁵⁰⁾

The program spares children the trauma of being removed from their home and parents⁽⁵¹⁾, parents are given the help they need to "parent" their children successfully and school and social patterns remain intact at a lower cost than placing the child in foster care or a group home or shelter. Counties claim numbers between 61 and 97% percent of children who have avoided placement for over one year. Critics point out these studies are done without control groups, there is no way to tell if the Family Preservation services made any difference. ⁽⁵²⁾ (See Chapter VIII: Role of the State, the sub-chapter on Reform of Services to Children and Families)

Issue:

A balance has to be maintained between relying too much on Family Preservation and leaving a child in a dangerous environment. Concern that the program left children in unsafe situations lead to the emphasis on children's safety in the new federal law, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. (See Chapter I: the Juvenile Court, the sub-chapter on Historical Overview, the section on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997)

4. Family Reunification requires that once the child has to be removed from the home because of immediate danger, the agency try to place the child with a relative before placement in a stranger's home or in a shelter. Then, the agency must make "reasonable efforts" to help get the child safely back home again. A social worker establishes a "reunification plan" and makes services available. For instance, addicted parents must complete a drug program and prove they can put their child's needs before their own. Abusive parents must go into therapy and show that they have learned to control their violence."⁽⁵³⁾

FOSTER PARENT PAYMENT ISSUES

Issues:

1. Why would anyone want to be a foster parent?

2. Why give up part of your home, your life, and your income to an often thankless child?

3. Is it altruism and commitment to one's community?

4. Is not protection of all children is a civic responsibility?

History

As far back as the late 1800s, a spirited debate has accompanied the payment of foster parents. Charles Loring Brace, (1876) a leader in early foster care once noted that paid fostering altered "an act, which is at once one of humanity and prudence, into one of purely business." To guard against the pure mercenary who might attempt to become a foster parent, reimbursement of costs was always kept to a minimum. Zelizer (1985) also suggests that early foster care parent agencies were encouraged to reject foster parents who did not personally provide more for the child than their rate would pay for.⁽⁵⁴⁾

Societies throughout the world have developed social systems with shared responsibility for children. Abused or neglected youth (were) "redistributed" to other members of the social network either temporarily or permanently for protection.... To pay parents well, and thereby "professionalize" foster care, might diminish the charitable aspect of the work and increase that facet of the job that resembles a businesslike transaction.⁽⁵⁵⁾

The Shortage of People Willing to Be Foster Parents

Part of the way that good business executives lure the most qualified workers to their organization is by offering quality training and a salary that indicates status, professionalism and value.

The pool of people willing to be traditional foster parents is decreasing as women move into the labor market and the number of single parents increases.

Issues:

1. Is this the way foster care is going or should be going?

2. Can we expect families to lower their standard of living, to give up privacy and mobility for purely altruistic reasons?

3. Should foster care pay more clearly reflect all the costs of fostering?

See Chapter V: Children in the Dependency System with Various Needs, and the sub-chapter there on Very Young Children and the growth of specialized foster care (SFC).

KINSHIP CARE

The expansion of Kinship foster care is, perhaps, the most dramatic shift to occur in child welfare practice over the past 15 years. In some large states, Kinship care has fundamentally changed child welfare services. For example, in Illinois, the Kinship foster care case load increased from 3,700 children in 1986 to over 16,000 children six years later. New York saw Kinship care grow at an even more accelerated pace, increasing from about 100 children to about 24,000 during the same period.

In California, of the 92,000 children in the foster care system, approximately 44,000 (48%) are in Kinship care. Kinship care in California has been steadily increasing: from 40% in 1988 to 45% in 1993. State supported Kinship is fairly new. It has developed since 1979 after court ruling in Illinois that relatives should be given financial support if they care for children who are the responsibility of the Dependency System, having been removed from their primary parent. Before that ,most Kinship care was informal, you just took care of your sister's kids. Some drew AFDC but no separate records were kept. State law now directs that the first priority for placement must be with a relative of the child, so long as such a placement is in the best interest of the child.⁽⁵⁶⁾

California has two levels of payment to children in Kinship care. The higher rate is "the full federal Title IV-E or Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (FDC-FC) foster care payment rate" if certain criteria are met: the child was removed from the parent's home by court order; was receiving AFDC or was AFDC-eligible at the time of removal; the placement is court ordered; the home is generally "licensable" and proper application is made. Sixty percent of California children in Kinship care meet these criteria, while the remaining receive the lower AFDC rate.⁽⁵⁷⁾ This assistance is not restricted by the time limits of California's present CalWORKS program because the assistance is to the child.

Children in Kinship care are usually in a more stable placement, but are slower to be reunified with their parents and much less likely to be adopted. Frequently they are in regular contact with the birth parent, are with someone they knew before placement which may reduce the trauma of placement, and remain in a community that is familiar. Siblings are often placed together or remain in close contact.

The caregiver knows the situation of the birth parent and can communicate with the social worker when problems arise, or if reunification is being discussed. These caregivers are often older, less educated, less financially stable and in poorer health than other foster parents. They may require more supportive services and assistance in accessing needed services.⁽⁵⁸⁾ They are also often closely linked economically with the birth families. The caregiver may have been contributing to the child's care before the placement.

If reunification with the birth parent takes place, this assistance ceases. The parent may be involved in the CalWORKS program but only if she qualifies and assistance will be restricted to the time-limits of the program.⁽⁵⁹⁾

Issues:

1. Does the difference in the rate of reimbursement and services by the counties for foster children and children in Kinship care and for families that reunify discourage reunification?

2. Will the time limits of Welfare Reform and California's new CalWORKS program further discourage reunification of these families? (See Appendix E: The Effects of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA)

For more information on Kinship Care see Appendix B: The California Policy Summit on Kinship Care.

California's Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project: Kinship Permanence Component

California's Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project was approved by the Federal Department of Health and Human Services on August 19, 1997, permitting implementation of three pilot projects serving approximately four thousand foster children in up to 32 counties or locations over the next five years. One of these is the Kinship Permanence Component which will allow specified adolescent children living in long-term, stable, relative placements to continue receiving a federal foster care payment after guardianship is established and dependency dismissed. The children must be at least 13 years of age and therefore be 18 years old by the end of the period of the waiver. The children will be placed in the custody or guardianship of the relative, and the county will no longer provide supervision. The children will continue to receive the basic foster care payment rate, continue to be eligible for Medi-Cal, and be informed of their eligibility for Independent Living Program services at age 16. The Children and their care-givers have to agree to the arrangement and meet criteria. (See also Chapter IX: Funding for California's Dependency System, the sub-chapter on California's Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project)

The goals of this Component are to increase the level of legal permanency for these children, reduce the court and Child Social Worker caseload where services are not required, and increase the number of children who feel they have a "family for life", someone who will be there for them, emotionally after emancipation. The program, being implemented this year, will be available to children in four to ten counties in the first year and will be reviewed in 2002.

ISSUE:

Infants and young children placed with family have a much more stable placement, but are less likely to be adopted or have permanency. Often the caregivers are older, less well educated, and have fewer fiscal resources than adoptive parents might have. They require more time and services from child protective workers than children in licensed foster homes.

GROUP HOMES

In 1990, about six percent of children entering foster care for the first time were placed in Group Homes. By 1996, eight and one-half percent of these children were placed in group homes. In 1990, 8.6% of all foster children were in group homes and by 1996, that percentage was 8.2%.

Twelve percent of the children in Group Homes were under the age of 6. In big counties, six percent of those in group homes were under six years of age. No research has been done to determine why there are so many young children are in group homes. It is possible that they are infants with special needs or babies in group homes for foster children who are also parents. (See Chapter V: Children in the Dependency System with Various Needs, the section on Very Young Children)

The proportion of children placed in group homes increased with age. In small counties, group homes were almost never used for children under six years. In Los Angeles County, 17% of the children in group homes were younger than six. More than 20% of the teenagers in care were in Group Homes. The number of children in Foster Family Agencies (FFA) homes has risen drastically but the Child Welfare Research Center (CWRC) at U. C. Berkeley suggests this is because foster homes are qualifying as FFA's.⁽⁶⁰⁾

An FFA may be a not-for-profit multi-service agency that arranges with the county to provide a certain number of foster family homes, which the FFA supports with services to handle high-risk kids in a home-like setting. Other FFA's run a group home or two. Foster homes that qualify as FFA's are paid a little more than the regular Foster Family rate, but not as much as a group home.

Group homes in California are relatively new. They began in the early '70s when California closed large mental health hospitals and child welfare facilities in the name of "deinstitutionalization". Counties then contracted with private nonprofit organizations, group homes, to care for these children.

There were problems in the early years: there was a shortage of experienced operators, the industry was basically unregulated, and a few took advantage of it. Some were run by social workers who looked it as a way to really "make a difference". Others operated by the faith community and other charities, though without formal training worked long and hard to turn the lives of these children around.

Unfortunately, in others, children were abused, forced to participate in the beliefs of their caretakers, and untrained workers tried "behavior modifications" that were cruel and harmful. With little monitoring by the government, it was possible to cut back on food, clothing, education and program to make a profit for the operators.

Group homes in California are now subject to a number of federal regulations, i.e. group homes are licensed under Federal Title 22 codes just as are child care centers and retirement homes. Title 22 covers health and safety regulations--are fire alarms in place, are exits blocked, is the refrigerator cold enough. Counties do their own review of program, services and fiscal audits.⁽⁶¹⁾

California reviews for rate of funding each year, relying heavily on self reporting by the group homes. The state rates group homes on a scale from one to fourteen, depending on the type of care they provide, the amount of supervision, ability to restrict children, treatment they have available, and the education of the staff. Los Angeles County has no homes below a level four. Payment is determined by the rating level of the home.

Any care facility that houses six or more children is considered a "group home". Most group homes are small and try to integrate the children into the community. The residents attend local schools, earn points for a pizza night out, and live as "normal" a life as possible. The young people are closely supervised, have a structured life, with a counselor on duty around the clock in most cases, and a complicated schedule of counseling, tutoring and other services.

Lower rated homes, those run by couples, do not have awake night care. The foster parents are supposed to be available round the clock, however, just like real parents. The advantage is they are a part of a larger organization. If they have a crisis at 2 a.m., they call the main office and staff is there in minutes. This is how Vista del Mar in Los Angeles works. Cottages are as family-like as possible, but they are on the campus of a larger organization.

Group homes are paid based on the rating level. All of these services are very staff intensive, and turnover and burnout are problems for most providers. Payment for a base line worker, one who gives direct service to children but does not have a professional accreditation, is calculated at $7.10 an hour. A level 7 home receives about $2,800 a month per child. This is meant to cover room, board, clothing, transportation, medical and dental care, a counselor on duty around the clock, a clinical supervisor, a case manager, a house supervisor, psychological services and whatever recreational or enrichment services, such as tutoring, a child may need. Some homes use the help of volunteers and fund-raising to enrich the experience for their young residents.

Group Homes for Teens

Often children in the Dependency System have a history of problems, multiple placements, and shattered hopes. Many of these children, as they enter their teen years, find it difficult to fit into a home-like environment, even the best ones. They are unable to deal with the intimacy and emotional demands of family life. For these children their last and best hope is a community care facility, more commonly known as group homes.

Residential Treatment Center

A home for six severely emotionally disturbed (SED) children requires a staff of approximately 15 including relief and backup workers. When you add the social workers from the county, the psychologist, and the teachers, children often have contact with 20 adults in charge during a week. Staffing at any home rated twelve or above is at a ratio of one to three 24 hours a day with awake overnight staffing. Los Angeles County Probation will not place children in any facility below this level.⁽⁶²⁾

Many of the larger programs run a range of services. They provide a residential treatment center with a high rating. They have an accredited on-site school. Most children, by the time they are placed in a group home, have had repeated school failures as well as repeated placement failures. An on-campus school enables them to provide "seamless" services where the teacher is a part of the treatment team and can consult with other staff. They also operate "step down" programs with small six bed foster family homes in the neighborhood as transitional housing. School can be arranged in the best interest of the child and they can come back to the campus for services as needed. This can either be a transition to family reunification or to emancipation, more usually the latter. Some have special programs. Maryvale in Los Angeles is an all girl Residential Treatment Center which houses 88 girls, many sexually abused, and runs its own FFA as transitional housing.⁽⁶³⁾

Programs may be accredited, but this is not required. There are several accrediting agencies; California has a peer review accreditation program. Accreditation by the National Council on Accreditation, a part of the Child Welfare League is very highly regarded.

WRAPAROUND SERVICES

The Wraparound process is not a program or a type of service. It represents a fundamental change in the way services are designed and delivered. It is a value based and unconditional commitment to create services on a "one kid at a time" basis to support normalization and inclusive options for children and youth with complex needs and to support their families. ⁽⁶⁴⁾

The Wraparound Service Delivery Model is based on the recognition that, for the most disturbed young clients of the Child Welfare System, there is a tremendous variety in how symptoms and problems manifest themselves among individual clients and over time. As a result, service delivery should be sensitive to these differences. This is accomplished through the delivery of individualized care where services are tailor-made to address the unique needs and preferences of each child, adolescent, and family in the major "life domains" of residence, family, emotional social, medical, legal, educational, vocational, safety, and cultural areas." ⁽⁶⁵⁾

At its core the Wraparound process is based on interventions, which are collaborative, community based, emphasize the strengths of families and children, and include the delivery of highly coordinated, individualized services for children and families.⁽⁶⁶⁾

Present California Models

Program Uplift (Uniting Partners to Link and Invest in Families of Today) is a collaborative between Santa Clara County and Eastfield Ming Quong, in operation since 1994. AB 2297 (Cunneen) (Chapter 274, Statutes of 1996) institutionalized this pilot project.

Eastfield Ming Quong is a level 14 group home in Santa Clara County, which provides com-munity-based, highly individualized Wraparound services to seriously disturbed children and adoles-cents who ordinarily would be removed from their homes and communities and placed in intensive residential care settings. The youngsters live with birth parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, or in specialized foster care and independent living settings. The goal of the program is to build and maintain normal lifestyles in order to prevent the necessity for more restrictive and more costly out-of-home placements.

California's New Wraparound Services Project

California made a major step in implementing Wraparound Services on October 10, 1997 when Governor Wilson signed SB 163 Solis (Chapter 795, Statutes of 1997) which permits all counties to participate in a five-year pilot program directed at a small number of teenagers with multiple needs who, with their families, are already involved in many parts of the county system. This new program will provide an intensive, coordinated system of services, using Program UPLIFT as a model. Program UPLIFT will provide training to Children's Protective Workers across the state. The California Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention has produced training materials and resource articles.

The individualized service plans will be designed and monitored by Child and Family Teams, who will look at the needs of the individual client (child or family).

The principal characteristics of Individualized Wraparound Care, as adopted by the California:

1. Building and maintaining normative life styles.

2. Insuring services are client and family centered.

3. Providing unconditional care.

4. Planning for the long term.

5. Insuring access and voice for parents and children in the design and delivery of services.

6. Making the commitment to the provision of the least restrictive services.

7. Insuring both interdisciplinary and interagency teaming and collaboration.

8. Funding services with flexible budgets.

9. Establishing community-wide involvement in service design and system evolution, including parents, mental health, juvenile justice, education, social welfare, cultural leaders, housing, civic groups, law enforcement, business leaders and other key stakeholders in the community.

10. Insuring the provision of culturally proficient services.

11. Establishing methods of measurable accountability.

If something is not working, you don't move the child, you change the services until it works. Wraparound programs, like family conferencing and home visitation, are very respectful of families. The fundamental belief is that only a family can be a family, not government. (The government) will become the facilitators of solutions, the supporter for the families. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

Funding of California's Wraparound Services Program

SB 163 allows the wraparound pilot project to go statewide. It authorizes counties to some of their funding for foster children in 12-14 level residential treatment centers and use for other services for this population or for children who would be in these centers if it were not for these services. Slots are funded cumulatively, not individually. The state will fund $1,000 per slot per month, but a county can use more or less to provide the services a child needs. The program is available for all counties. In addition, the state got a federal Title IV-E waiver, to allow federal dollars to be used for wraparound care, but only in 12 Counties. SB 163 allows use of the state share of the money matched by the county share; this money can also be matched with mental health funds to maximize federal claims. Under the Title IV-E waiver, states can receive the federal foster care money, eliminating the need for the additional match.⁽⁶⁸⁾ (For more on California's Title-E Waiver, see Chapter IX: Funding for California's Dependency System, the section on California's Title-E Child Welfare Waiver...)

Over 700 people from around the state have received the three-day Wraparound Introductory Training. On November 19-20, 1997 a workshop on the wraparound process was presented to California's Chief Probation Officers. The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (with 40% of the child welfare load of the state) is working with CDSS to establish a training plan for all DCFS's social workers and their community partners (mental health, probation, education, foster family agencies and others). In spring 1998 CDSS will begin the development of Phase II for Wraparound, which is an intensive, one-on-one consultation with counties on the actual implementation of the wraparound process in specific locations and upon request.

National Picture

Local demonstrations of the wraparound process in North America now number in the thousands, and the field is seeing rapid innovation and development of more effective variations on each procedure.⁽⁶⁹⁾

Previous section. Table of Contents. Next section.