ccassc agenda november 21, 2019 sea venture hotel
TRANSCRIPT
1
CCASSC AGENDA November 21, 2019
Sea Venture Hotel 100 Ocean View Avenue Pismo Beach, CA 93449
https://www.seaventure.com
10:00-10:15 Introductions 10:15-12:00 Self Sufficiency CalWORKs Program
CalOAR Implementation Challenges with meeting WPR and implanting CalOAR Make up of Committees-type of staffing Training
Home Visiting Initiative Data Report Collaborative efforts Counties are doing
Child Care
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch
1:00 – 2:00 Cal Fresh Program
Participation and Churn
Funding Methodology
2:00-3:15 Whole person Care/Integrated Services
3:15-4:15 Open Discussion
County Initiatives
Roundtable
4:15-4:30 University Report – Fresno State
2
CCASSC AGENDA November 22, 2019
Sea Venture Hotel 100 Ocean View Avenue Pismo Beach, CA 93449
https://www.seaventure.com
8:30 – 9:00 Breakfast
9:00 – 9:15 New Officers – Scott Pettygrove
9:15 - 9:30 CalSWEC Update – David Foster
9:30 – 9:45 BREAK
9:45 – 10:00 Update Adult Services/Training – David Foster
10:00 – 10:15 CDSS Outcome/Accountability – Federal Penalties – David Foster
10:15 – 10:30 SJVPHC Directors Joint Meeting – David Foster
10:30 – 10:45 Homeless – Scott Pettygrove
10:45 – 11:00 Directors Retreat in December – Scott Pettygrove
11:00 – 11:15 Update Cal ACES – Chair Scott Pettygrove
11:15 – 11:30 CCASSC Budget 2020 – David Foster/Kelly Woodard
11:30 – 11:45 Meetings Next year: David Foster
January 30 & 31, 2020 – Adult Services
April 30 & May 1, 2020 – Child Welfare
July 30 & 31 2020- Student Stipends
December 17 & 18 2020 – Self Sufficiency
CCASSC Quarterly Meeting
August 15-16, 2019
Sea Venture Hotel, Pismo Beach
Day 1 In Attendance: D. Foster, K. Harwell, S. Pettygrove, S. Pearl, A. Guerrero, M. Miller, V. Leyva, Sue
Powers (Student Stipend), Jeanine Yoder (Student Stipend), T. Belton, D. Neira, I. Barrera, D. Drake, C.
Uetz, B. Hundal, C. Kothari, D. Martinez, M. Connor, J. Webb, H. Himes
Student Stipend Presentations
Sue Powers, MSW, California State University Stanislaus
Vicarious Trauma Training for all Title IV-E
Jeanine Yoder, MSW, California State University Fresno
Resilience and Shadow of Collective Trauma; The Mennonites Great Traumatic Trek to Canada
Discussion:
How do we identify “Right Fit” during recruitment?
The group expressed a need for further discussion around social work readiness.
APS Packet – Scott Pettygrove
BAA is offering 10 stipend spots funded by ACL (also supporting the APS Leadership Group)
An additional 10 spots will be funded out of the extra training dollars
o CCASSC counties need to look at how their counties can secure spots
New DSS Director and Adult Services Director are experiencing tension
Currently the APS liaison position is vacant
The adults meeting had a brainstorming session around how to spend the additional training
dollars. Some suggestions:
o Send workers to the NAPSA Conference
o Promote a APS Conference
Central Academy is fully ready to implement training in the central region, but do not have a
contract
o ACTION: Chevon will approach the subject at CWDA and will report back
Kathy will reach out to Juan Ramirez
Chevon volunteered Baljit Gill
Lunch
Casey Family – David Foster & Andrea Sobrado
CalWORKS 2.0 – As a result of the discussion around the Question, “how do you know when you are
fully implemented?” David invited Andrea Sobrado to elaborate.
Andrea shared a CPM graphic with the group that offers some clarity around CPM values and
implementation
Self Sufficiency Directors are meeting for the first time to discuss a cross regional support
Andrea shared a Draft Fall 2019 – Summer 2020 Roadmap
o Families First – How does it overlap? – Could be a vehicle to help integrate CPM across
the board. It supports CPM with a prevention focus
o Plans are in place to meet with a Casey Family representative to explore a crosswalk of
CPM and Families First
Not all Directors are feeling comfortable with Casey Family Programs (CFP)
Scott asked the Directors if they were implementing CalWorks 2.0
o Kathy is ready to bring self-sufficiency directors together
o David discussed trying to find a way to use the Families First Prevention Act –
exploration only
Andrea said Families First language can be dropped and instead move the focus on key
strategies for cross agency teaming
o The group felt comfortable with Self-Sufficiency Directors engaged together
o It was expressed that there may be more interest in a FFPSA crosswalk going forward
Mental Health Specialty/Mental Health Providers/penalties DHCS – David Foster
o Everyone got conditional passes except Mariposa and Tulare who passed
o The financial penalties are catastrophic
o David asked the group if they wanted to do anything
o Chevon believes it will change by next year
o Counties were given technical assistance on how to count
o Chevon said we will continue to track it
CFPIC Updates – Scott Pettygrove & Juliet Webb
o When Juliet was brought on board she was asked to Look at what CFPIC provides and how they
can diversify
o Current projects include: CPM; PACT; CSEC Training, evaluation, and support; RFA
implementation; YEP; CWS CARES Tribal consultation; Foster Youth Ed Task Force; Child Welfare
Directors Development Program & Prevention Cabinet
o Historically CFPIC has been children’s focused, however they want to grow their support for
Adult Services, and Self-Sufficiency projects/efforts
o CFPIC is currently looking for board members
o What opportunities do YOU see for CFPIC collaboration with CCASSC? Other suggestions?
o Support with avoid making the same missteps
o Support for implementing CANS
o Support getting a handle on how we do practice
Juliet sited CPM
o OCAT Assistance
BREAK
Over the break Chevon talked to Diane Boyer said she too is concerned about the APS training
contract not moving forward but no concerns about spending the money.
“So You Think You Want to be a Director” Update on Series Development – David Foster & Howard
Himes
o Intent of the training: to give potential Directors real life scenarios and give them the
opportunity to think them through. The training does not give trainees a list of do’s and don’ts
of being a Director.
o Devin suggested a title change because some Directors want to have others take the training
that may not want to be a Director. Others like the catchy title.
o Howard said the title is negotiable
o First training is the First week of October
o Howard explained the Pre-Training Activities to the Directors
o Pre-Conversation with the Director
o Self-assessment of their knowledge and experience around the various topics in the
training
o The first day of training is around Interviewing
o Simulated Interview panel with board members etc.
o The second day is around Political Relationships
o Days three and four is around Labor Relations – Ethics & Legal, Audits & Reviews
o Days five and six - Finance & Organizational Change
o Scott Pettygrove will participate in this portion of the training
o The reality exposure is a strong component of the training.
Logistics:
Starts in October 2019 (PILOTING)
Training at Sea Venture, Pismo
Three two day trainings
Looking for cohorts of 12
Includes Projects
Academy will pay for food and Howard’s time
ACTION: David mentioned that if any county can’t cover the room cost, the Training Academy would
cover that cost.
University Reports
Fresno State – Dr. Barrera
Dr. Barrera asked the group, what can Fresno State do better for the Graduate Program?
o David asked is there a form or a way community members can make suggestions regarding the
curriculum revisions.
o Delfino talked about retention rates and how or if that is addressed in the classroom.
o Anita suggested County specific seminars – making practice feel more real.
o Anita also noted the new workforce wants to see a career and longevity in Social Work. The
county culture can make or break that.
Dr. Barrera asked if the majority of the workforce is TitleIVE or Non-TitleIVE?
o Majority of workforce is non-Title IVE
Dr. Barrera encouraged the Directors to visit the university
o Cindy Uetz suggested an Internship Program
Scott suggested taking some time in one of the meetings to discuss an overview of the structure of the
system
David said one hurdle is that most graduate students do not have a background in social work.
CSU, Stanislaus – Valerie Leyva
Response to Dr. Barrera’s question
o Internships are highly regulated
o Curriculum changes require a long lead time
Report
o Have 400 applicants
o Utilizing Sim Labs
o Primarily admitting students with social work background
o Searching for a Title IVE program director
o Competing with for Profit Universities that are paying field instructors
CCASSC & SJVPHC Joint Meeting – Howard Himes
o Meeting rescheduled due to low RSVP
o Howard going to re-tool
o Howard will attend one of their meetings to share his work in Napa
o The conversation he’d like to have is to drive the importance of working together to accomplish
what they need to do. It’s the most logical relationship.
Day 2, August 16, 2019
In Attendance: D. Foster, K. Harwell, S. Pettygrove, S. Pearl, A. Guerrero, M. Miller, V. Leyva, T. Belton, D.
Neira, D. Drake, C. Uetz, B. Hundal, C. Kothari, D. Martinez, M. Connor, H. Himes
Future Meetings
Next meeting November 21-22, 2019 – Self Sufficiency
Doodle Results:
January 30-31, 2010 - Adults
April 30 & May 1, 2020 – Children’s
July 30-31, 2020 – Student Stipends
December 17-18, 2020 – Self Sufficiency
ACTION: Stephanie will send out topics connected to the future dates.
NOTE: Delfino offered their new center as a potential space for a meeting.
University Report Continued
Fresno State’s Dean has resigned so the College is without a Dean for the remaining academic
year.
CalSWEC
Currently recruiting for Executive Director
Juliet’s seat on the CalSWEC advisory board is now open
o ACTION: Delfino volunteered to take the open seat
o ACTION: Chevon will share this information with the board on the next executive call
Cal SAWS:
Monthly meeting (1:00 today) – Kathy has invited all who have interest to join the meetings
In the merging of LRS and C4 and CalWIN, the group is looking at how to retain the functionality.
Currently working on imaging
Kathy asked the group if they are getting what they need
o Information goes through primary points of contact but they need to take the time to
get that out to the appropriate person.
o ACTION: Kathy will get a current org chart out to everyone
o Scott emphasized the importance of asserting our regions interests
o Findings need to be reviewed by our region to make sure they match
o ACTION: Scott suggested inviting Peggy Macias to join the call
Kathy announced that they will be voting today on Data Retention Policy
o All social service data is/should be available to all agencies
o Delfino believes HIPA needs to be rewritten and corrected in the legislation
Kathy wanted to make sure all counties are getting the information and they will be keeping
everyone in the loop.
New CDSS Director (Kimberley Johnson) – Expected changes in direction.
Chevon said Kim is interested in race and equity issues so that will most likely be a focus
Kim McCoy-Wade will influence enhancements in Adult Services
CCR will most likely be a focus as well
Discussion ensued around the issue of equitable allocation of Child Care funds
The discussion of fixing the methodology needs to happen
Kathy raised the question “is this a nose into universal child care?”
Chevon suggested this would be a good topic for the CCASSC/SJVPHC partnership
Homeless Committee Announcement – Scott Pettygrove
Survey going out to all 58 counties
Governor’s Advisory commission on homeless
Looking at not only what you are doing but what is CDSS doing
Sept. 6th Central open meeting with the regional task force
o ACTION: Kathy will send more information on the meeting
“Scattered Site” housing information is forthcoming
Scott mentioned asking the Self Sufficiency folks to include a piece in their presentation
Kathy is reinventing the wheel. She’s creating a Division of housing and homeless services
proposal.
o ACTION: Kathy will share her proposal with the group
Merit System - Cindy Uetz
Chevon’s system has been overseen by county HR
ACTION: David suggested talking to Tracy Belton who experienced an audit in San Benito
ACTION: Kathy will also send contacts to Cindy.
Video Recording – Kathy
Kathy asked, “Does any CIU team have video recording devices?”
Unanimously – No
UC Davis Resource Center Changes
CWDA Workforce Development
Structure changes
A lot of decisions are being made without all Directors present.
Dave McDowell looking at PIP to determine where we need to focus training.
As a result, Concurrent Planning Training will be a focus
All CARES dollars have been removed
They plan to have a Statewide Learning Management System by the first of the year.
o Looking at Blackboard
2020 Legislative and Budget Priorities from CCASSC to CWDA
Outreach and Enrollment for MediCAL Survey on how to spend the additional funds – Cindy Uetz
None of the other Directors have heard anything
o ACTION: Chevon will check in and report back out
Adjourn
State of California—Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health Care Services
RICHARD FIGUEROA ACTING DIRECTOR
GAVIN NEWSOM GOVERNOR
California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM)
High Level Summary
The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) has developed a framework for the upcoming waiver renewals that encompasses broader delivery system, program and payment reform across the Medi-Cal program, called CalAIM: California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal. CalAIM advances several key priorities of the Administration by leveraging Medicaid as a tool to help address many of the complex challenges facing California’s most vulnerable residents, such as homelessness, insufficient behavioral health care access, children with complex medical conditions, the growing number of justice-involved populations who have significant clinical needs, and the growing aging population. This proposal recognizes the opportunity to provide for non-clinical interventions focused on a whole-person care approach via Medi-Cal that target social determinants of health and reduce health disparities and inequities. Furthermore, the broader system, program, and payment reforms included in CalAIM allow the state to take a population health, person-centered approach to providing services and puts the focus on improving outcomes for all Californians. Attaining such goals will have significant impact on an individual’s health and quality of life, and through iterative system transformation, ultimately reduce the per-capita cost over time. DHCS intends to work with the Administration, Legislature and our other partners on these proposals and recognizes the important need to discuss these issues and their prioritization within the state budget process. These are initial proposals whose implementation will ultimately depend on whether funding is available.
Background and Overview Medi-Cal has significantly expanded and changed over the last ten years, most predominantly because of changes brought by the Affordable Care Act and various federal regulations as well as state-level statutory and policy changes. During this time, the DHCS has also undertaken many initiatives and embarked on innovative demonstration projects to improve the beneficiary experience. In particular, DHCS has increased the number of beneficiaries receiving the majority of their physical health care through Medi-Cal managed care plans. These plans are able to offer more complete care coordination and care management than is possible through a fee-for-service system. They can also provide a broader array of services aimed at stabilizing and supporting the lives of Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
Depending on the needs of the beneficiary, some may need to access six or more separate delivery systems (managed care, fee-for-service, mental health, substance use disorder, dental, developmental, In Home Supportive Services, etc.). As one would expect, need for care coordination increases with greater system fragmentation, greater clinical complexity, and/or decreased patient capacity for coordinating their own care. Therefore, in order to meet the behavioral, developmental, physical, and oral health needs of all members in an integrated, patient centered, whole person fashion, DHCS is seeking to integrate our delivery systems and
High Level Summary
Medi-Cal has significantly expanded and changed over the last ten years, most predominantly because of changes brought by the Affordable Care Act and various federal regulations as well as state-level statutory and policy changes. During this time, the DHCS has also undertaken many initiatives and embarked on innovative demonstration projects to improve the beneficiary experience. In particular, DHCS has increased the number of beneficiaries receiving the majority of their physical health care through Medi-Cal managed care plans. These plans are able to offer more complete care coordination and care management than is possible through a fee-for-service system. They can also provide a broader array of services aimed at stabilizing and supporting the lives of Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
2
align funding, data reporting, quality and infrastructure to mobilize and incentivize towards common goals.
To achieve such outcome, CalAIM proposals offer the solutions to ensure the stability of Medi-Cal program and allows the critical successes of waiver demonstrations such as Whole Person Care, the Coordinated Care Initiative, public hospital system delivery transformation, and the coordination and delivery of quality care to continue and be expanded to all Medi-Cal enrollees. CalAIM seeks to build upon past successes and improve the entire continuum of care across Medi-Cal, ensuring the system more appropriately manages patients over time through a comprehensive array of health and social services spanning all levels of intensity of care, from birth to end of life. To do this, we must change the expectations for our managed care and behavioral health systems. Holding our delivery system partners accountable for a set of programmatic and administrative expectations is no longer enough. We must provide a wider array of services and supports for complex, high need patients whose health outcomes are in part driven by unmet social needs and make system changes necessary to close the gap in transitions between delivery systems, opportunities for appropriate step-down care and mitigate social determinants of health, all hindering the ability to improve health outcomes and morbidity.
Key Goals CalAIM has three primary goals:
• Identify and manage member risk and need through Whole Person Care Approaches
and addressing Social Determinants of Health;
• Move Medi-Cal to a more consistent and seamless system by reducing complexity and
increasing flexibility; and
• Improve quality outcomes and drive delivery system transformation through value-
based initiatives, modernization of systems and payment reform.
The reforms of CalAIM are comprehensive and critical to the success of the delivery system transformation necessary to improve the quality of life for Medi-Cal members as well as long-term cost savings/avoidance that will not be possible to achieve absent these initiatives. Furthermore, these reforms are interdependent and build off one another; without one, the others are not either possible or powerful. Below is an overview of the various proposals and recommendations that make up CalAIM.
Identify and Manage Member Risk and Need through Whole Person Care Approaches and Addressing Social Determinants of Health
• Require plans to submit local population health mangement plans.
• Implement new statewide enhanced care management benefit.
• Implement in lieu of services (e.g. housing navigation/supporting services, recuperative care, respite, sobering center, etc.).
• Implement incentive payments to drive plans and providers to invest in the necessary infrastructure, build appropriate enhanced care management and in lieu of services capacity statewide.
• Evaluate participation in Institutions for Mental Disease Serious Mental Illness/Serious Emotional Disturbance Section 1115 Expenditure Waiver.
• Require screening and enrollment for Medi-Cal prior to release from county jail.
CalAIM has three primary goals:
3
• Pilot full integration of physical health, behavioral health, and oral health under one contracted entity in a county or region.
• Develop a long-term plan for improving health outcomes and delivery of health care for foster care children and youth.
Moving Medi-Cal to a More Consistent and Seamless System by Reducing Complexity and Increasing Flexibility
Managed Care
• Standardize managed care enrollment statewide
• Standardize managed care benefits statewide
• Transition to statewide managed long term services and supports
• Require Medi-Cal managed care plans be National Committee for Quality Assurance accredited
• Implement annual Medi-Cal health plan open enrollment
• Implement regional rates for Medi-Cal managed care plans Behavioral Health
• Behavioral health payment reform
• Revisions to behavioral health inpatient and outpatient medical necessity criteria for children and adults
• Administrative behavioral health integration statewide
• Regional contracting
• Substance use disorder managed care program renewal and policy improvements
Dental
• New benefit: Caries Risk Assessment Bundle and Silver Diamine Fluoride for young children
• Pay for Performance for adult and children preventive services and continuity of care through a Dental Home
County Based Services
• Enhance oversight and monitoring of Medi-Cal Eligibility
• Enhance oversight and monitoring of California Children’s Services and the Child Health and Disability Prevention program
• Improving beneficiary contract and demographic information For detailed descriptions of the CalAIM proposals please refer to the full CalAIM document located on CalAIM page of the DHCS website.
Advancing Key Priorities CalAIM aligns with and advances several key priorities of the Administration. At its core, CalAIM recognizes the impact of Medi-Cal on the lives of its beneficiaries well beyond just accessing health services in traditional delivery settings. CalAIM establishes a foundation where investments and programs within Medicaid can easily integrate, complement and catalyze the Administration’s plan to impact the State’s homelessness crisis, support reforms of our justice systems for youth and adults who have significant health issues, build a platform for vastly more
Standardize managed care benefits statewide
Enhance oversight and monitoring of Medi-Cal Eligibility
Enhance oversight and monitoring of California Children’s Services and the Child and Disability Prevention program
Improving beneficiary contract and demographic information
CalAIM aligns with and advances several key priorities of the Administration. At its core, CalAIM recognizes the impact of Medi-Cal on the lives of its beneficiaries well beyond just accessing health services in traditional delivery settings. CalAIM establishes a foundation where investments and programs within Medicaid can easily integrate, complement and catalyze the Administration’s plan to impact the State’s homelessness crisis, support reforms of our justice systems for youth and adults who have significant health issues, build a platform for vastly more
4
integrated systems of care and move toward a level of standardization and streamlined administration required as we explore single payer principles through the Healthy California for All Commission. Furthermore, CalAIM will advance a number of existing Medi-Cal efforts such as Whole Person Care and the Health Homes Program, the prescription drug Executive Order, improving screenings for kids, proliferating the use of value-based payments across our system, including in behavioral health and long-term care. CalAIM will also support the ongoing need to increase oversight and monitoring of all county-based services including specialty mental health and substance use disorder services, Medi-Cal eligibility, and other key children’s programs currently administered by our county partners. Below is an overview of the impact CalAIM could have on certain populations, if enacted and funded as proposed: Health for All: In addition to focusing on preventive and wellness services, CalAIM will identify patients with high and emerging risk/need and improve the entire continuum of care across Medi-Cal, ensuring the system more appropriately manages patients over time, through a comprehensive array of health and social services spanning all levels of intensity of care, from birth and early childhood to end of life. High Utilizers (top 5%): It is well documented that the highest utilizers represent a majority of the costs in Medi-Cal. CalAIM proposes enhanced care management and in lieu of services benefits (such as housing transitions, respite and sobering centers) that address the clinical and non-clinical needs of high-cost Medi-Cal beneficiaries, through a collaborative and interdisciplinary whole person care approach to providing intensive and comprehensive care management services to improve health and mitigate social determinants of health. Behavioral Health: CalAIM’s behavioral health proposals would initiate a fundamental shift in how Californians (adults and children) will access specialty mental health and substance use disorder services. It aligns the financing structure of behavioral health with that of physical health, which provides financial flexibility to innovate, and enter into value-based payment arrangements that improve quality and access to care. Similarly, the reforms in CalAIM simplify administration of, eligibility for, and access to integrated behavioral health care. Vulnerable Children: CalAIM would provide access to enhanced care management for medically complex children to ensure they get their physical, behavioral, developmental and oral health needs met. It aims to identify innovative solutions for providing low-barrier, comprehensive care for children and youth in foster care and furthers the efforts already underway to improve preventive services for children including identifying the complex impacts of trauma, toxic stress and adverse childhood experiences by, among other things, a reexamination of the existing behavioral health medical necessity definition. Homelessness and Housing: The addition of in lieu of services would build capacity to clinically linked housing continuum via in lieu of services for our homeless population, including housing transitions/navigation services, housing deposits, housing tenancy and sustaining services, short-term post hospitalization housing, recuperative care for inpatient transitions and day habilitation programs. Justice Involved: The Medi-Cal pre-release application mandate, enhanced care management and in lieu of services would provide the opportunity to better coordinate medical, behavioral
5
health and non-clinical social services for justice-involved individuals prior to and upon release from county jails. These efforts will support scaling of diversion and reentry efforts aimed at keeping some of the most acute and vulnerable individuals with serious medical or behavioral health conditions out of jail/prison and in their communities, further aligning with other state hospital efforts to better support care for felons incompetent to stand trial and other forensic state-responsible populations. Aging Population: In lieu of services would allow the state to build infrastructure over time to provide Managed Long-Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) statewide by 2026. MLTSS will provide appropriate services and infrastructure for home and community-based services to meet the needs of aging beneficiaries and individuals at risk of institutionalization and should be a critical component on the State’s Master Plan on Aging.
November 7, 2019 The Honorable Danny Davis The Honorable Jackie Walorski Chair, Ways & Means Subcommittee on Ranking Member, Ways & Means Worker and Family Support Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Charles Grassley The Honorable Ron Wyden Chair, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 Re: Support for Family First Transition Act (H.R. 4980; S. 2777) Dear Chairman Davis, Ranking Member Walorski, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Wyden:
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) support the Family First Transition Act (FFTA). The bill will assist California’s counties in their efforts to implement the Family First Prevention and Services Act (FFPSA) and avoid potentially negative impacts on services to children, youth and families in waiver states during the transition to FFPSA.
Both CSAC and CWDA represent county agencies which help serve local communities through a broad range of vital programs and services, many of which work to ensure the health and well-being of residents. Counties in California are responsible for protecting children and supporting families, including those involved in the child welfare system. We are working to implement the FFPSA and are modifying our Continuum of Care Reform (CCR; AB 403) that was already underway in order to comply with the new law. Our years-long experience with CCR at the state and county level has demonstrated that planning and implementing our state/county and now federal reforms will take time to implement successfully.
We support the FFTA in its entirety. Our comments follow:
Phase–In of Well Supported Requirement: Our counties have worked with the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse (CEBC) for over a decade. The CEBC helps to identify and disseminate information regarding evidence-based practices relevant to child welfare. CWDA recently provided comments to the Federal Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse on services and programs it should consider for inclusion. Given the small number of programs the Clearinghouse has identified to date, we support the two-year delay through FY 2021 of the
2
requirement so that the Clearinghouse may consider and add additional federally-reimbursable, evidence-based prevention programs counties could offer to support families and their children.
Transition Funding to Implement FFPSA: Implementing our state and county CCR reforms has been time-consuming and costly. Given the overlay of the FFPSA, we welcome the bill’s recognition of the additional time it is now taking to implement the federal law and the flexible federal funding provided to support our FFPSA implementation initiatives. The estimated $52.8 million to be allocated to the State with no state/county matching requirements acknowledges and supports those efforts.
Short-Term Funding for Waiver States and Counties: CSAC and CWDA support the two-year transition funding for the seven current waiver counties in California which are implementing efforts to expand services and supports available to children and families, increase family engagement and child safety, and improve permanency outcomes. The transition funding under the bill provides them with some additional time and funding certainty as they work to transition to implementing the FFPSA. We also appreciate the provision that the receipt of waiver transition funding does not affect the overall transition funding provided to all states.
To give our counties planning and funding certainty, we urge passage of this measure before the end of the year. We also want to continue to work with you in the future to further improve the FFPSA as it is being implemented, given a number of provisions we identified prior to the enactment of the FFPSA which were not included in the final law.
Thank you again for your leadership in introducing the Family First Transition Act. We support the bill and stand ready to work with you to enact it into law before the end of 2019.
If you have any questions about our positions, please contact Justin Garrett, CSAC’s Legislative Representative for Human Services at [email protected] (916.327.7500); Cathy Senderling-McDonald, CWDA Deputy Executive Director at [email protected] (916.443.1749); or Tom Joseph, CSAC and CWDA Washington Representative at [email protected] (202.898.1446).
Sincerely,
Justin Garrett Cathy Senderling-McDonald Legislative Representative Deputy Executive Director California State Association of Counties County Welfare Directors Association
Below is a description of the case review items with improvement goals contained within the CFSR Program Improvement Plan. These
descriptions are designed to provide a quick look at what is needed in a case to achieve a “Strength” rating for each of the items. It should be
noted that this is NOT a complete discussion of the nuances of the items, and there are circumstances where cases may seem to have these
characteristics, but other factors must be considered. Finally, this guide should not be a replacement for more robust analysis of case review
data to determine what areas county practice could be improved.
Item Strength Rating Criteria Sample Activities Contributing to Strength Rating
Item 1: Timeliness
of initiating
investigations of
reports of child
maltreatment
All referrals received during the PUR need to be initiated
AND face-to-face contacts completed within the state
required timeframes (24-hr or 10-day).
IF either of the above is not met, delays that were beyond
agency control may contribute to a “Strength” rating.
Circumstances beyond the agency’s control may include:
o Other agencies such as law enforcement or other
public agencies such as county or state child
welfare agency causing a delay;
o Child/family not located despite efforts to locate
them;
o Parents/caregivers denying access to a child
despite agency efforts to locate them or initiate
face to face contact.
Circumstances within the agency’s control may include:
o Delays in assignment of cases for investigation,
o Delay in agency efforts to begin initiation of a
report (i.e. beginning efforts on day 8 of a report
assigned a 10-day timeframe and unsuccessfully
initiating within the 10-day timeframe);
o Delay in or failure to cross-report or request
assistance from another county or jurisdiction
when there is known information about a child or
Efforts to initiate referrals assigned to investigate
begin as soon as possible
Request assistance or support with initiation from
other agencies as soon need or other location is
known
Agency attempts initiation through a variety of
approaches including home visiting, phone calls,
address verification. Multiple attempts are made
over the course of the designated timeframe and
various times of the day.
family’s location.
Item 2: Services to
family to protect
children in the
home and prevent
removal or re-
entry into foster
care
Agency made concerted efforts to provide for appropriate
services for the family to prevent entry (or re-entry to
foster care) OR;
Agency concerted efforts were NOT made to provide for
appropriate services AND a child was removed because it
was necessary to ensure the child’s safety.
Intensive In-Home Supportive Services
Wraparound Services
Childcare Services
Substance Abuse Treatment
Item 4: Stability of
foster care
placement
There is only one placement and the current placement (or
most recent for closed episodes) is stable.
There are placement changes (more than one placement)
AND the placement changes were planned to achieve the
case goals or meet the needs of the child AND the most
current placement is stable.
Utilizing the Child and Family Team meeting to
help plan for services to address issues affecting
placement stability or to plan for placement
change
Placing children back in the same home after
runaway episodes whenever possible
Moving children from non-relative care to relative
care when possible, in the child’s best interest and
supports achievement of the permanency goal
Item 5:
Permanency Goal
for Child
Permanency goal (incl concurrent if applicable) is specified
in the case file (unless in care less than 60 days),
ALL permanency goals (primary and concurrent) in effect
were established in a timely manner (TYPICALLY no later
than 60 days, but could be sooner if the reviewer
determines that based on length of time in care, case
circumstances, or needs of the child supported the
Establishing concurrent permanency goals for
children (formally or informally) based on needs
of the child and case circumstances as early as
possible
Assessing appropriateness of all possible
alternatives for permanency for all children
Re-considering and advocating for the change in
permanency goal being established sooner) and
permanency goals are appropriate to child’s needs for
permanency and to the circumstances of the case.
ALSO children need to have been in care for less
than 15 months of the most recent 22, AND the
child does not meet ASFA criteria for TPR. All of
these conditions must be met, OR;
Child was in care MORE than 15 of the most recent
22 months AND agency petitioned for TPR in a
timely manner (not common in California), OR;
Child has not been in care for 15 of most recent 22
months, the child meets ASFA criteria for TPR,
AND the agency petitioned for TPR in timely
manner, OR
The child meets ASFA criteria for TPR, the agency
did NOT petition for TPR timely, AND one of the
exemptions listed on page 7 applies.
permanency goals that have been in place in for a
long time, but no longer align with the child’s
needs, desires or in some instances parent
circumstances
Agency engages in efforts to assess and address
child, parent or caregiver concerns about
permanency and barriers to adoption or
guardianship
Item 6: Achieving
reunification,
guardianship,
adoption, or
OPPLA
Agency and court made concerted efforts to achieve
permanency in a timely manner:
Reunification in 12 mos
Guardianship in 18 mos
Adoption in 24 mos
EXCEPTION:
If delayed, and justification for the delay is
evident, this may indicate a “Strength”
[Example: Adoption is the goal and there is
evidence that the agency has made
concerted efforts to find a home a special
Agency engages in ongoing relative searches and
family finding to locate possible permanency
options for a child
RFA approvals occur without significant delays
that affect timeline for achievement of the
permanency goal
Court reports are filed, hearings are held timely
and address issues of the case and need for
permanency
Agency diligently and actively work
simultaneously on concurrent permanency goals
needs child and an appropriate family has
not been found; or, a pre-adoptive
placement disrupted despite concerted
efforts of the agency to support it]
IF OPPLA is the goal (only appropriate for
children 16 yrs or older), the agency and
court made concerted efforts to place the
child in a living arrangement that can be
considered permanent until discharge
from foster care
Item 13: Child and
Family
Involvement in
Case Planning
Agency made concerted efforts to actively involve child in
case planning (i.e., consult with the child as
developmentally appropriate) regarding goals and services,
explained the plan, and terms used in language that the
child can understand and included the child in case
planning meetings (not just initial case planning)
Agency made concerted efforts to actively involve
mother(s) in case planning (i.e., involve mother in
identifying strengths and needs, identifying services and
service providers, establishing the goals in case plans,
evaluating progress toward goals, and discussing the case
plan).
Agency made concerted efforts to actively involve father(s)
in case planning (i.e., involve father in identifying strengths
and needs, identifying services and service providers,
establishing the goals in case plans, evaluating progress
toward goals, and discussing the case plan).
Knowledge of case plan is NOT evidence of active
involvement
Evidence of a Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting
occurring is NOT evidence of active involvement.
Engaging parents in case planning related to the
well-being needs of their children after
reunification services have been terminated or
may not have been offered to them (when
possible and in the best interest of the child)
Case plans are explained in a language that
children can understand (when developmentally
appropriate)
Age appropriate discussions are had with children
regarding the case plan or goals of the case
Establishing case plan goals and objectives with
children and parents; and modifying case plans
whenever possible based on their feedback
Utilizing the Child and Family Team meeting to
facilitate the engagement and involvement of
families in the case planning process whenever
possible
Item 15:
Caseworker Visits
with Parents
Frequency of visits with mother were sufficient to address
issues of safety, permanency, and well-being of the child
and promote achievement of case goals.
Frequency of visits with father were sufficient to address
issues of safety, permanency, and well-being of the child
and promote achievement of case goals.
“Compliance” with regulations of a visit once each
month does NOT automatically indicate sufficient
frequency
The quality of visits with mother was sufficient to address
to address issues of safety, permanency, and well-being of
the child and promote achievement of case goals.
The quality of visits with father was sufficient to address to
address issues of safety, permanency, and well-being of
the child and promote achievement of case goals.
Quality considers length of visits, location being
conducive to open conversation such as a private
home rather than at court, restaurant, etc.;
focused on issues related to case planning, service
delivery, and goal achievement
If one of the parents meets exemption criteria and the
other parent is rated as “Yes” on both items, then the item
is rated a strength.
Exemption criteria include:
Parental rights were terminated during the
entire PUR
Parent’s whereabouts were unknown
during the entire PUR despite efforts to
Face to face contacts occurs at the required
minimum basis AND when necessary based on
case circumstances and needs of the family
Visits with the parents occur in the home when
the goal is reunification, parents are making
reasonable progress and the goal will be achieved
soon
When possible, face to face contact with parents
occurs in a less restrictive setting other than the
agency office
locate the parent
Parent was deceased during entire PUR
It is documented that during the entire
PUR it was not in the child’s best interests
to involve parent in case planning
o Bypass or termination of
reunification services is not an
automatic disqualification for
parent involvement in case
planning related to the child
During entire PUR parent indicated that
he/she does not want to be involved in the
child’s life and this is documented in the
case file.
General notes:
Concerted efforts of the agency is the typical standard NOT whether the family followed-through or a specific goal is achieved.
At the option of the state, the child is being cared for by a relative at the 15/22- month timeframe.
The agency documented in the case plan a compelling reason for determining that termination of parental rights would not be in
the best interests of the child.
The state has not provided to the family the services that the state deemed necessary for the safe return of the child to the
child’s home.
Compelling reasons are as follows:
o There is a permanency goal of return home, approved by the Court and the child is expected to be reunited with
parents within 6 months.
o The child is a specified age (suggested age is 14) or older and objects to being adopted.
o The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems or a serious medical condition and reunification remains
an appropriate goal.
o The child has a permanency goal other than adoption (i.e., permanency with kin through guardianship and is
expected to achieve that goal within 12 months of establishing the goal.
o Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished rights or consented to adoption by a relative or identified
caregiver, or have indicated that they will do so within 30 days. If relinquishment or consent does not occur
within specified time frame, the compelling reasons determination should be eliminated.
o A petition for adoption has been filed with the Court.
o The parent is terminally ill, does not want parental rights terminated and has designated the child’s present
caretaker, with the caretaker’s agreement, as the child’s permanent caretaker.
o The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as defined in 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11.
o There are no or insufficient legal grounds for filing a TPR because required reasonable efforts have not been
made.
o There are international legal obligations or compelling foreign policy reasons that would preclude terminating
parental rights.
o State specific compelling reasons- Tribal Customary Adoption W&IC Section 366.26 (c)(1)(B)(vi)(III)
o The parent has maintained regular visitation and the child would benefit from the ongoing relationship
o Interference with sibling relationships
DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:
QUESTIONS? Kate Acosta (559) 240-7701
January, 17 2020
10:00 am – 4:00 pm
CCTA Training Room
1625 E. Shaw Ave.
Ste. 106
Fresno, CA 93710
Leveraging our Learning from CFSR Case Reviews
& CQI Efforts
A one-day strategy session for Child Welfare Leadership, Workforce Development & CDSS partners
OVERVIEW:
This convening will offer an opportunity for Central Region Child Welfare leaders,
CDSS, and workforce development partners to engage in discussion regarding CFSR
Case Review data and CQI efforts including:
Discussing strategies for sharing and utilizing data gathered through CFSR Case Reviews
Exploring successes and barriers with integrating CFSR case reviews with other CQI efforts to improve practice
Developing skills as a leader to identify, analyze and act upon the patterns in practice identified through CFSR case reviews
Share successes and challenges with implementation and partnership with CDSS
PREPARATION: Prior to the convening, please meet with your CFSR case review team and CQI leads
to explore the following questions:
What are the patterns in practice that are emerging in CFSR Case Reviews?
What successes have we had with integrating CFSR case reviews with other CQI efforts?
What barriers have we run into?
What communication and feedback loops do you have in place to share, analyze and act upon data gathered through CFSR case reviews?
What else can I do as a leader to support the connection of data gathered through CFSR case reviews and workforce development or practice improvement?
What supports and challenges are encountered with CDSS partners?
TARGETED AUDIENCE: Agency Directors
Directors may elect to bring 1-2 Deputy Directors who oversee Child Welfare
/ CFSR Case Reviews and CQI
PRESENTORS: Dave McDowell – Branch Chief, Children’s Services Operations and Evaluation Branch
Heather Pankiw – Bureau Chief, Performance and Program Improvement Bureau - Case
Review Section
Julie Cockerton – Case Review Manager, Performance and Program Improvement Bureau -
Case Review Section
REGISTRATION: https://cqi_leadership_convenin
g.eventbrite.com
Deadline to Register:
January 10, 2019
Family First Transition Act The draft proposal includes three provisions to help states, tribes, counties, and cities implement the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA): Phase-In of 50 percent “Well Supported” Requirement for Prevention Services Reimbursement BACKGROUND: FFPSA requires that at least 50 percent of state claims for the new foster care prevention funding be for “well supported” programs (the highest of three evidence categories—promising, supported, and well supported). Programs that meet each of the three evidence categories will be listed on a clearinghouse contracted through HHS, either as the result of a review initiated by HHS or after a state indicates a program should meet the clearinghouse requirements and HHS has approved it for transitional funding while it is being reviewed and rated. PROVISION: The draft would delay this requirement for two years (through FY 2021), and then allow spending on both “supported” and “well supported” programs to count toward that 50 percent requirement in FYs 2022 and 2023. In FY 2024, the requirement that 50 percent of claims be for well supported programs would resume. This would allow states to receive reimbursement for a wider range of evidence-based foster care prevention programs while HHS builds up the clearinghouse. Transition Funding to Help States Implement Family First BACKGROUND: States report incurring a number of costs as they plan for and transition to a system that provides federal matching funds for the provision of prevention services to help children stay safely at home instead of entering foster care. States may also need to implement some changes to improve their use of appropriate congregate care. PROVISION: The draft would provide states with a total of $500 million in one-time, flexible funding to support their implementation of FFPSA and reduce any adverse fiscal effects due to startup costs, waiver transition, and improving foster care safety and quality. After a 3 percent set-aside for tribes, the funding would be distributed, without a match or any other reservations, using the same formula as is used to distribute Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services funding (Section IV-B Part 1 of the Social Security Act).
Short-Term Funding Certainty for States with Expiring Waivers BACKGROUND: A total of 22 states, the District of Columbia, and one tribe have negotiated statewide or county-specific child welfare waivers that have allowed them to use funding on families or for services not authorized under the traditional foster care program. In 2011, Congress enacted a law requiring those waivers to sunset by the end of FY 2019.
PROVISION: The draft would provide temporary grants to states or jurisdictions with expiring waivers if they face a significant loss of funds as they transition away from child welfare waivers. The grants would be provided separately from IV-E reimbursement, to make up a portion of the difference between what the state received in IV-E reimbursement and the temporary guarantee level. Specifically, any state or jurisdiction with a waiver ending would be guaranteed to receive the following:
In FY 2020, not less than 90 percent of the amount they negotiated to receive under their waiver for FY 2019; and
In FY 2021, not less than 75 percent of the amount they negotiated to receive under their waiver for FY 2019
Temporary guarantee funding would be in addition to the transition funding provided to all states, and all-states transition funding would not be considered in calculating the guarantee.
State Amounts State Amounts
Alabama 8.3 million Montana 1.7 million
Alaska 1.0 million Nebraska2
3.0 million
Arizona212.4 million Nevada2
4.8 million
Arkansas25.4 million New Hampshire 1.5 million
California252.8 million New Jersey 9.5 million
Colorado2
7.7 million New Mexico 3.8 million
Connecticut 3.0 million New York2
21.4 million
Delaware 1.4 million North Carolina 17.1 million
District of Columbia20.6 million North Dakota 1.0 million
Florida228.9 million Ohio2
18.2 million
Georgia 18.6 million Oklahoma2
6.5 million
Hawaii2 2.0 million Oregon26.2 million
Idaho 3.4 million Pennsylvania216.8 million
Illinois2
17.9 million Rhode Island 1.4 million
Indiana2
11.6 million South Carolina 8.6 million
Iowa 5.0 million South Dakota 1.5 million
Kansas 4.7 million Tennessee210.8 million
Kentucky2
7.8 million Texas 47.3 million
Louisiana 7.7 million Utah2
7.0 million
Maine 2.0 million Vermont 0.9 million
Maryland27.1 million Virginia 11 million
Massachusetts 6.7 million Washington2
9.7 million
Michigan 15.8 million West Virginia23.0 million
Minnesota 7.8 million Wisconsin28.7 million
Mississippi 5.8 million Wyoming 0.8 million
Missouri 9.9 million
1 State allocations on this table are estimates calculated by the Congressional Research Service based
on most recent available data and the formula specified in the legislation. Official allocations would be
calculated by the Department of Health and Human Services after enactment.
2 These amounts would be in addition to any funding received under the separate funding certainty
provision for jurisdictions whose 1130 waivers are ending September 30.
Source: Congressional Research Service
Estimated State Allocations Under Family First Transition Act1
State of California—Health and Human Services Agency Department of Health Care Services
RICHARD FIGUEROA GAVIN NEWSOM ACTING DIRECTOR GOVERNOR
$20 MILLION ONE-TIME FUNDS FOR COUNTIES TO INITIATE FUTURE WHOLE PERSON CARE PILOTS
October 18, 2019
Overview
California’s Whole Person Care Pilot program coordinates health, behavioral health and social services in a patient-centered manner with the goal of improved beneficiary health and well-being. Low-income populations are more likely to experience a multitude of health, behavioral health, and social needs, requiring them to seek care across multiple and fragmented systems. The need for a Whole Person Care approach arose due to unmet social, behavioral health, and health needs within vulnerable populations, and from the existing fragmentation of organization and financing of current health and human services systems.
California has successfully worked with twenty-five (25) Whole Person Care Pilot programs to provide target populations with a range of comprehensive services and supports to address unmet needs and improve the quality and outcomes of high-risk populations. The 2019-20 Governor’s Budget encourages additional counties to initiate Whole Person Care-like pilot capacity with a one-time funding allocation of $20 million and multi-year spending authority through June 30, 2025 from the Mental Health Services Fund.
The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) will provide start-up funding to counties that are not currently participating in the state’s Whole Person Care Pilot program based on a county’s demonstration of interest and letters of support from local partners within the county.
The funding allocation methodology considers prevalence of homelessness, the geographical cost of living using Fair Market Rent (FMR) and individuals who are mentally ill and are experiencing homelessness using the Point in Time Count (PIT).
Interested counties may request funds from DHCS to perform the following administrative and programmatic activities that may include:
• Core program development, planning, and support • Staffing, including but not limited to consultants, county employees, contracted
employees, navigators, outreach specialists, and peers. • Administrative costs • IT infrastructure • Program governance
Managed Care Quality and Monitoring Division 1501 Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 997413, MS 4400
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413 Phone (916) 449-5000 Fax (916) 449-5005
www.dhcs.ca.gov
Managed Care Quality and Monitoring Division 1501 Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 997413, MS 4400 Sacramento, CA 95899-7413Phone (916) 449-5000 Fax (916) 449-5005 www.dhcs.ca.gov
Application for One-Time Funding Page 2
Managed Care Quality and Monitoring Division 1501 Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 997413, MS 4400
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413 Phone (916) 449-5000 Fax (916) 449-5005
www.dhcs.ca.gov
• Training • Ongoing data collection, analysis • Marketing materials • Intensive care management • Recuperative care/respite care/activities of daily living • Housing services and supports, including but not limited to rental subsidies,
security deposits, navigation, landlord outreach and liaison, 24-hour warm line, maintaining housing, utility assistance, capital household needs (refrigerator for insulin), homeless prevention/interventions, etc.
• Ability to fund non-traditional housing such as purchasing homes or transitional/”bridge” housing
• Purchase of mobile units (vans) for mobile health and BH services
Letter of Interest/Application
Each county must delegate a single organization that will serve as the primary contact. This entity must submit a Letter of Interest, that will serve as the application, along with letters of support from community partners, to DHCS indicating how the county will use the funds for the purposes outlined in the Overview. A signed Board of Supervisors resolution will serve as the final agreement as outlined in Step 4 below and is due to DHCS by January 31, 2020.
All application documents should be sent to the mailbox: [email protected]
Operational Guidelines
Deliverable/Activity Date
1. DHCS releases notification and application for one-time funds 10/18/2019
2. Applications due to DHCS 12/02/2019
3. DHCS notifies applicants of the final decisions 01/02/2020
4. Written formal acceptance is submitted to DHCS 01/31/2020
5. Funding fully processed and released to approved applicants 03/31/2020
6. Evaluation and Summary Report Due to DHCS 90 days after full fund expenditure
7. Final date of funding availability for encumbrance or expenditure 06/30/2025
Evaluation and Summary Report
Counties are required to submit an evaluation and summary report within 90 days after the full expenditure of funding. The report shall include the disposition of funds, the services provided, and the number of individuals who received services.
Application for One-Time Funding Page 3
Managed Care Quality and Monitoring Division 1501 Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 997413, MS 4400
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413 Phone (916) 449-5000 Fax (916) 449-5005
www.dhcs.ca.gov
Methodology
Governor’s Budget Proposal: Building on the $100 million one-time General Fund proposed in the Governor’s Budget for Whole Person Care Pilots, the Governor’s 2019-20 budget includes a one-time augmentation of $20 million from the Mental Health Services Fund for counties that do not operate Whole Person Care Pilots. With this funding, additional counties are able to develop and implement essential programs and infrastructure to focus on coordinating health, behavioral health and critical social services, such as housing. Priority will be given to individuals with mental illness who are also homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. The funding methodology is described below:
1. Prevalence of homelessness: 50 percent of the funding is allocated in proportion to the total number of people experiencing homelessness in the county. The county’s number of homeless people is from the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Point in Time (PIT) count numbers from 2017. The HUD web link is below. The query is by “Continuum of Care” (COC). Each county generally has its own COC that is responsible for completion of the PIT count, though some exceptions are noted below.
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-populations-and-subpopulations-reports/?filter_Year=2017&filter_Scope=CoC&filter_State=CA&filter_CoC=&program=CoC&group=PopSub
DHCS used the 2017 PIT count because it may have more complete data as compared to the 2018 or 2019 counts. According to local methods in the various areas, certain counties’ PIT counts are combined with one or more surrounding counties. In these cases, DHCS estimated the county’s PIT count by comparing its overall population to the other county(ies) in its COC.
In this category, DHCS set a minimum allocation at $250,000 for each county. Some counties would have been below the $250,000 minimum. For counties that were over the $250,000 minimum, DHCS reduced their allocations, in a proportional manner, to raise the other counties up to the $250,000 minimum.
2. Cost of living: 25 percent of the funding is allocated in proportion to the cost of living in the county. DHCS used the federal HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR) Efficiency (i.e. studio apartment) amounts for each county area to assess cost of living, or more specifically the average cost of basic housing in the county. The amounts reflect the average monthly rental cost of a studio apartment in each county. DHCS used the 2019 FMR. The web link is below.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2019_code/select_Geography.odn
Application for One-Time Funding Page 4
Managed Care Quality and Monitoring Division 1501 Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 997413, MS 4400
Sacramento, CA 95899-7413 Phone (916) 449-5000 Fax (916) 449-5005
www.dhcs.ca.gov
3. Prevalence of individuals who are mentally ill and are experiencing homelessness: 25 percent of the funding is allocated in proportion to the total number of individuals who are mentally ill and are experiencing homelessness in the county as compared to the total in all of the eligible counties. The county’s number of individuals who are mentally ill and are experiencing homeless is from the HUD PIT Severely Mentally Ill subpopulation count numbers from 2017.
County Allocations
County Allocation
County Allocation
Alpine $390,572.03 Nevada $445,868.49
Amador $431,035.49 Plumas $408,491.08
Butte $1,068,155.14 Sacramento $2,621,406.87
Calaveras $395,483.09 San Luis Obispo $827,627.19
Colusa $392,717.59 Santa Barbara $1,166,412.39
Del Norte $426,206.02 Sierra $440,139.43
El Dorado $467,853.41 Siskiyou $431,935.08
Fresno $894,377.20 Stanislaus $925,697.87
Glenn $389,498.47 Sutter $445,569.08
Humboldt $744,418.66 Tehama $424,424.84
Imperial $540,686.89 Trinity $379,559.90
Inyo $453,318.25 Tulare $587,707.41
Lake $555,136.76 Tuolumne $513,935.52
Lassen $418,556.65 Yolo $592,155.86
Madera $490,633.63 Yuba $434,369.48
Merced $482,441.40
Modoc $364,974.84
Mono $448,633.99 Total $20,000,000.00
CalSWEC (/)Home (/home) » CalSWEC Center Director Kimberly Mayer Is Ready to Lead
CalSWEC Center Director Kimberly Mayer Is Ready to LeadOctober 14, 2019
Kimberly Mayer, CalSWEC’s new Center Director, brings a wealth of leadership, workforce development, and cross-systems experience(https://calswec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/�les/calswec_cd_kimberly_mayer_bio-photo.pdf) to the position, including collaborating withCalSWEC and Regional Training Academies in her previous roles at the California Institute for Behavioral Health Solutions (CIBHS). As shebegins her term on October 14, Kim shares her thoughts on what excites her about her new role, the challenges facing CalSWEC, and whate�ective leadership entails.
Q: As someone who proudly identi�es as a social worker, tell us about what motivated you to become a social worker.
A: I grew up in the East Bay and was always interested in my mother’s career as aneducational psychologist, working with children and families in the local school district. Iknew that I was interested in some type of service-related profession and saw myself in arole where I could impact service delivery systems. As an undergraduate student at Cal, Imajored in social welfare and also coordinated a Berkeley Social Welfare DeCal coursesponsored by the University YWCA (now the Berkeley-Oakland YWCA), focused oncommunity service. Working at the YWCA after graduation with various student andcommunity programs cemented my desire to complete a graduate degree in social work.My focus in the social work program at Columbia University was social administration andplanning. New York City provided a great laboratory for �eldwork experience!
Q: What excites you most about your new role as CalSWEC Center Director?
A: I’m excited about being part of CalSWEC in a time of ongoing policy changes on thestate and federal levels a�ecting social workers and social service systems, and to ensureCalSWEC’s leadership role and relevancy in that environment. Over the past several yearsat CIBHS, I collaborated with di�erent CalSWEC and Regional Training Academy sta� on afew initiatives. I look forward to being part of a very talented group of professionals in theCenter who manage a range of statewide projects and contracts focused on child welfareeducation and in-service training and behavioral health workforce development. Beingpart of Social Welfare at Berkeley is a big strength of CalSWEC, and I look forward to forging relationships with Dean Burton along withfaculty and sta�.
Q: You’ve said your strengths are in collaborative management, innovative programming, and workforce development. How doyou envision applying these at CalSWEC?
A: CalSWEC is a statewide program with wide reach in California. The roles of social workers in child welfare, behavioral health, andhealth are increasingly multifaceted, emphasizing cross-systems collaboration. In the past three years at CIBHS, I’ve facilitated a seriesof regional convenings across the state, learning from county child welfare, behavioral health, and juvenile probation leaders—including the County Welfare Directors Association and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association—on how they areimplementing various components of Continuum of Care Reform (CCR). I’ve also had the opportunity to work with graduate socialwork faculty on several campuses, focused on developing programs to increase the local behavioral health workforce. I hope to bring abroad statewide perspective on child welfare education and training, along with behavioral health workforce development.
Q: Having served on CalSWEC’s Advisory Board, you’re familiar with the challenges and opportunities CalSWEC faces. What are youthinking about tackling �rst?
A: The �scal environment in 2019 in California is very di�erent than when CalSWEC was formed in 1990. Ensuring that CalSWEC ismeeting the obligations to its partners, including UC Berkeley, the California Department of Social Services, the Regional TrainingAcademies, and the universities in the consortium, is critical. The sunsetting of the 10-year Mental Health Services Act WorkforceEducation and Training (MHSA WET) funding has impacted CalSWEC, along with many other education and training programsstatewide. Seeking new opportunities with other funding sources is important.
From a social work practice perspective, I’m interested in how we are educating and training social workers to operationalize workingwith a trauma-informed perspective. Long term, I’d like to see CalSWEC develop an initiative that encompasses social work practiceand aging.
Q: Having served in leadership positions at CIBHS as well as at Contra Costa Health Services, what are some re�ections you haveon e�ective leadership?
A: I see the importance of building trust with sta� and also ensuring that we are ful�lling the mission of CalSWEC. Having worked in alarge county health department, along with a behavioral health consultancy (plus other employers), I’ve had the opportunity to witnesshow day-to-day leadership, driven by consistency, creativity, and �exibility can impact organizations. For the past two years at CIBHS, Iworked with the California Future Health Workforce Commission as the lead behavioral health consultant, facilitating a group ofstakeholders from education, behavioral health provider organizations, health plans, and advocacy organizations. It was a tremendouseducation, and I think good leaders need to be continuous learners, too.
Q: Anything else you’d like to add?
A: CalSWEC was formed in 1990, which was around the time I �nished my undergraduate degree. I’m one of three generations of Calgraduates in my immediate and extended family and could not be prouder to become part of the UC Berkeley community!
—
TOPICS
2019 (/topics/2019)calswec (/topics/calswec)Our Work (/topics/our-work)
Leadership. Partnership. Workforce Development.
(http://www.berkeley.edu)
Copyright © 2019 UC Regents; all rights reservedPowered by Open Berkeley (https://open.berkeley.edu)
Privacy Statement (https://open.berkeley.edu/privacy-statement)
Back to Top
By Public Affairs, UC Berkeley | JUNE 24, 2019
CAMPUS & COMMUNITY, CAMPUS NEWS, PEOPLE
Linda Burton named new dean ofBerkeley’s social welfare school
Chancellor Carol Christ and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Paul Alivisatos
issued the following message to the campus community:
Dear campus community,
We are delighted to announce that Linda Burton, current James B. Duke Professor of
Sociology at Duke University and former dean of social sciences at Duke’s Trinity
College of Arts and Sciences, has accepted our offer to become the next dean of the
UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare. She will begin her term here on September 1,
2019.
A Duke faculty member since 2006, Professor Burton has served the university in a
variety of leadership roles over the course of her years there. Most recently, as
director of Duke’s Center for Child and Family Policy from 2017 to 2018, she oversaw a
major research hub that evaluated strategies for improving the lives of families and
brought those ideas to life through relationships with policymakers and public
agencies. In this capacity, she also launched a research and policy initiative that
focused on reframing the narratives around and assessing the effects of policy-
induced trauma on families and children in America’s South.
From 2014 to 2017, Professor Burton served as dean of social sciences at Duke’s
college of arts and sciences. Working alongside the dean of the college, the dean of
natural sciences, and the dean of humanities, she was responsible for the college’s 12
social science departments and programs. Her efforts included building
interdisciplinary ties within the social sciences and across other divisions and colleges,
instilling a stronger culture of mentorship and leadership, fortifying inclusive local
community ties, championing the importance of socially-relevant research in a fast-
paced and changing world, and enhancing and promoting the college’s diversity. As
dean, she also served as interim co-director of the International Comparative Studies
program, chaired an important university-wide committee examining bias and hate
issues on campus, and helped Duke negotiate a historic union contract with its adjunct
professors.
Tweet Share 1.2K Email Print
Linda Burton, currently a professor of Sociology at Duke University, will be the next dean ofthe UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare.
Amidst her administrative service, Professor Burton has maintained a prolific research
record. She is a renowned ethnographer who specializes in longitudinal studies of the
family dynamics that exist among America’s poorest urban, small-town, and rural multi-
generation families. Her work is incredibly wide-ranging: She has examined the
intimate relationships that low-income mothers enter into, complex family structures
across space and time, the careers and pathways open to African-American men and
boys, accelerated life course transitions faced by poverty-stricken children and adults,
and much more. Oftentimes, her research projects are vast in their scale; one of them
saw her direct a team of 215 ethnographers and analysts as part of a three-city study of
poverty, family processes, and child development. She is currently serving as president
of the Sociological Research Association, the international honor society for
distinguished sociologists.
Raised in Compton, California, Professor Burton holds a bachelor’s degree in
gerontology and master’s and doctoral degrees in sociology, all from the University of
Southern California. Prior to her appointment at Duke, she was a faculty member at
Penn State University for more than two decades, and directed its Center for Human
Development and Family Research in Diverse Contexts from 1998 to 2006. You can
learn more about Professor Burton in this story on the School of Social Welfare
website.
Berkeley’s search committee for the School of Social Welfare dean position was
immensely impressed with Professor Burton’s wealth of administrative experience,
inclusive and collaborative leadership style, expertise in mentoring, and commitment
to social justice in both her university service and academic work. We have no doubt
that she will lift Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare – already one of the nation’s best –
to exciting new heights, ensuring that it contributes as much as it can towards building
a more caring, equitable, and just society.
In closing, we would like to express our deep gratitude to the search committee and
especially to outgoing dean Jeff Edleson, who has ably served at the helm of the
School of Social Welfare since 2012 and will continue on in his role through the end of
August.
We hope you will join us in thanking Jeff for his years of service, and in welcoming
Professor Burton to Berkeley.
Sincerely,
Carol Christ
Chancellor
A. Paul Alivisatos
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Tweet Share 1.2K Email Print
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Meet our new faculty:David Barstow,journalism
What you need to knowabout smoky conditionson campus
What will happen toAirBears, email and otherIT systems...
Here’s the plan formakeup classes afterlast...
David Foster <[email protected]>
Nominations for CalSWEC Advisory Board due November 151 message
Kimberly Mayer <[email protected]> Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:12 AMTo: [email protected], Blake Beecher <[email protected]>, "Beuerman, Kari" <[email protected]>, [email protected], Linda Burton <[email protected]>, Swdean Departmental<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Peter Lee <[email protected]>, "Levin, Amy C" <[email protected]>, Nancy Meyer-Adams<[email protected]>, "Toni (Antonette) Navarro" <[email protected]>, STUART R OPPENHEIM <[email protected]>, Mary Rawlings <[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected], Jennifer Tucker-Tatlow <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Janlee Wong <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
Greetings CalSWEC Advisory Board members:
It was great to see many of you last week in Oakland! We had very productive meetings on Thursday and Friday. This is a reminder that we are accepting nominations for 4 vacancies on the CalSWEC Advisory Board throughFriday, November 15th, 2019. These vacancies are the result of attrition over the past several months.
Per CalSWEC bylaws, Advisory Board seats are designated to individuals who represent specific organizations and/or affiliations. We received several nominations during/after last week's meetings. If you have nominations,please forward contact information and the identified seat to Amy Levin by Friday, November 15, 2019. The Nominating committee will review and vet nominees. Amy Levin email: [email protected]
Vacant seats:
CWDA representative (previously held by Juliet Webb, Tulare County)CDSS director or designee (previously held by Mary Sheppard, CDSS)Statewide adult & aging representative (previously held by Lori Delagrammatakis, CDSS)Other stakeholder/representative (previously held by Kimberly Mayer, CIBHS)
Thank you!Kim-- Kimberly Mayer, MSSWCenter DirectorCalifornia Social Work Educa�on Center (CalSWEC)University of California, Berkeley120 HavilandBerkeley, CA 94720-7400email: [email protected]: 510-643-7904Calswec.berkeley.edu
Date: November 18, 2019
To: Central California Area Social Services Consortium
From: Debbie Blankenship, APS Training Project Director
Subject: APS Training Update
This memo is to provide an update on the proposed APS Training deliverables for FY 2019-2022.
APS Training
Deliver Core, Advance and Supervisor Core training in each region, Bay and Valley Mountain. Update and development curriculum. Development and implementation of a Virtual Reality Simulation Lab for APS courses.
Certificates
Issue NAPSA Certificates to County staff who meet eligibility criteria.
E-Learning
Provide E-Learning courses on the LMS system to include NAPSA and Supervisor Core and Advanced training.
Collaboration
Collaborate and Communicate with Partners and Stakeholder Groups.
Training Evaluation
Use standardized statewide evaluation forms for attendees to complete, Maintain use of a standardized database to track trainee training history and record performance scores.
Trainer Development
Identify county personnel (current or retired) content experts, and adult services allied partners who are qualified to offer ongoing training to social workers and others at all levels (introductory, experienced, and supervisory)
Monthly and Annual Reporting
Provide a monthly report to CDSS and PSOC on Training updates and after the end of each FY, submit an annual report to CDSS, CWDA Adult Services Committee and PSOC.
APS Convening
Coordinate and host and APS convening for California County APS Leadership. This convening would focus on standardizing APS Training by building upon what California counties have established.
Timeline of Contract Submission to CDSS
September 9, 2019- Received current approved contract to make amendments.
October 28, 2019- Contract amendment submitted to CDSSS.
November 15, 2019- CDSS emailed to inform us the contract had been packaged, sent to Contracts for their formal sign off. Contract will then go to General Services for final approval.
CFSR Items
Requiring
Measurement Item Description
PIP
Baseline3 PIP Goal5
Item 1
Timeliness of Initiating Investigations
of Reports of Child Maltreatment 68.1% 75.1%
Not enough
applicable cases to
calculate
performance
Not enough
applicable cases to
calculate
performance 72.8% 68.7% 70.2%
Item 2
Services to Family to Protect Child(ren)
in the Home and Prevent Removal or
Re-Entry Into Foster Care 74.2% 81.1% 72.7%
Not enough
applicable cases to
calculate
performance 77.5% 74.7% 78.3%
Item 3
Risk and Safety Assessment and
Management 45.3% 50.3% 45.6% 50.6%
Item 4 Stability of Foster Care Placement 77.2% 81.9% 75.0% 79.7% 78.3% 75.2% 75.2%
Item 5 Permanency Goal for Child 66.1% 71.5% 63.8% 65.4% 64.4% 61.6% 59.1%
Item 6
Achieving Reunification, Guardianship,
Adoption, or Other Planned
Permanent Living Arrangement 49.6% 55.3% 47.7% 48.4% 43.5% 39.8% 38.5%
Item 12
Needs and Services of Child, Parents,
and Foster Parents 20.8% 24.9% 25.0%
Item 13
Child and Family Involvement in Case
Planning 28.9% 33.6% 30.4% 30.4% 30.4% 27.5% 28.2%
Item 14 Caseworker Visits With Child 56.6% 61.6% 57.5% 63.1%
Item 15 Caseworker Visits With Parents 17.1% 21.3% 17.6% 20.5% 20.9% 17.7% 19.5%
Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Round 3
California: Program Improvement Plan (PIP) Measurement
Plan Goal Worksheet
Case Review Items Requiring Measurement in the PIPQ1 Results Q2 Results
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Q3 Results Q4 Results Q5 Results
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
Goal Achieved
MSW Student Research Stipend
Awards – 2020
Background
Each year MSW Students produce excellent research through the thesis requirement necessary
for graduation. Many students are current/former staff members from Public Human Services
departments in the Central California Area Social Services Consortium (CCASSC) region.
Others, are preparing for future careers in public human services agencies. Their history with
and/or commitment to public human services is often evident in the thesis topics selected.
CCASSC members, in partnership with the CSU’s in the Central California region, have
established an MSW Student Research Stipend Program as a vehicle for:
1.) Incentives for students to share their research surrounding Public Human Services in the
Central Region and,
2.) Creation of a forum for students to share their intellectual material with the agencies that
are most likely to benefit.
MSW Student Research Stipend Award Process
The CCASSC Student Research Stipend Award was established in 2009 to highlight student
research contributions in the realm of Public Human Services/Policy and Practice. The stipends
are sponsored through a CCASSC Stipend of $3,000 annually. Up to three stipends; at
$1,000/piece will be provided to MSW students upon recommendations from a selection
committee comprised of a mixture of Central Valley Social Services Directors, University
Representation from CSU Bakersfield, CSU Fresno and CSU Stanislaus along with a CCASSC
staff member. Students from CSU Fresno, CSU Stanislaus and CSU Bakersfield are eligible to
apply.
Selection committee members will be appointed by CCASSC members. An announcement of
the stipend opportunity along with a stipend application will be distributed to CCASSC members
and University partners on or before February 3, 2020. CCASSC members and the universities
will be responsible for distribution of the announcement and application to students prior to the
application deadline.
MSW Student Stipend Award: Support
CCASSC will provide Faculty and Staff support to selected recipients. This will include;
guidance on development of a presentation and power point.
Student Research Stipend: Application Process
Deadline for Submission is: May 1, 2020
Applications should be submitted to: CSU, Fresno Social Welfare Evaluation, Research and
Training Center (SWERT)
Central California Area Social Service Consortium
C/o Kelly Woodard, Research Associate
2743 E. Shaw, Suite 121
Fresno, CA 93710
The application should be submitted on a separate document and include the following:
1.) Name:
2.) University:
3.) Agency employed/placed at:
4.) Thesis/Project faculty advisor:
5.) A brief (800 words or less) description of the research project that includes your topic;
the significance of the topic to public human service policy/practice; the research
question/hypothesis; and a discussion of your results; and implications for public
human service policy/practice. Student applicants must have their graduate
project/thesis completed no later than by May 31, 2020.
STIPEND AWARD RECIPIENTS MUST AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:
Meet with CSU, Fresno Social Welfare Evaluation, Research and Training (SWERT) faculty and
staff advisors as necessary to produce the following:
1.) Produce an “Executive Summary” of the thesis/research project for distribution to
CCASSC member counties.
2.) Produce a Power Point presentation to be presented by recipient on July 30, 2020.
3.) Stipend recipient’s agreement to permit CCASSC to post the Executive Summary/Final
Graduate Thesis or Project and Power Point presentation materials on the CCASSC
website.
Date: November 21 & 22, 2019
To: CCASSC Membership
From: David Foster, Director Subject: Dissertation – Danny Morris PHd Correlational Study of Extended Foster Care Legislation on Foster Youth Ages 10-17. History/Status As many of you are aware, Danny Morris PhD, Deputy Director with Madera County Department of Social Services partnered with CCASSC and CDSS to conduct a correlational Study of Extended Foster Care to complete his Doctoral Dissertation. The final product was approved in August, 2019. This study examined data tied to over 700 foster youth. Specifically, it examined “if or to what degree the number of foster care placements and number of social workers within the 12 month period, predicted the achievement of legal permanency among foster youth ages 10 – 17, controlling age at entry, gender and ethnicity, in the Central Valley of California after the implementation of California’s Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2015” (Danny Morris, 2019). The study provides insight into the impacts of age, gender, number of social workers, and number of moves, to name a few factors that influence the achievement of legal permanency. A copy of his Dissertation and Statistical Findings is attached.
Correlational Study of Extended Foster Care Legislation on Foster Youth Ages 10 to 17 Years
Danny MorrisGrand Canyon University
August 2, 2019
Committee MembersDr. Andrew MillerDr. Anita BarbeeDr. Laura Stanley
Background & The Gap
• One of the most challenging child welfare issues is the lack of achievement of legal permanency for older foster youth.
• Legal permanency is the legal reunification of a child (age 0 to 21 in California) and his/her guardian.
Citations: Gupta-Kagan, 2015; Peterson et al., 2014
Background & the Gap
• Risk factors for not achieving legal permanency• Modifiable (foster care system) factors
• Foster care placement instability
• Social worker characteristics
• Non-modifiable (youth) factors• Older age
• Male gender
• Black ethnicity
Citations: Courtney & Okpych, 2015; Godsoe, 2013; Lee et al. 2013
Background & the Gap
• California’s Fostering Connections Act (2010)
• Allows foster care youth to remain in the foster care system until age 21
• Implemented to increase the likelihood that older (age >= 10) foster care youth would achieve legal permanency
• Concerns about the Fostering Connections Act (2010)
• Decreased number of older (age >=10)foster care youth achieving legal permanency
• Increased foster care placement instability rates
• Decreased number of available foster care homes and settings for older foster youth
• Increased job-related stress, burnout, and turnover rates among social workers
Citations: Courtney et al. (2013; 2017); Eastman et al. (2016); Roller White et al. (2013)
Background & the Gap
• Need to Conduct Research that Examines:
• The achievement of legal permanency among youth who entered the foster care system in early adolescence
• The collective effects of non-modifiable - age, gender, ethnicity - risk factors on the achievement of legal permanency
• The collective effects of modifiable - placement and social worker -risk factors on the achievement of legal permanency
• If Fostering Connections Act has an effect on legal permanency outcomes, especially among older (age >= 10) foster care youth
Citations: Carnochen et al. (2013a, 2013b, 2013); Courtney et al. (2013, 2017); Roller White et al. (2013)
Problem Statement
It is not known if or to what degree the number of placements and number of social workers within a 12-month period are significantly related to achievement of legal permanency, controlling for pertinent foster care youth variables, among youth who entered the Central Valley, California foster care system at age 10 or older and after the passing of foster care legislation in 2015.
Purpose Statement
To determine if the number of placements and social workers a foster care youth has within a 12-month period are significantly related to achievement of legal permanency status, controlling for pertinent foster care youth variables, among youth who entered the Central Valley (CA) foster care system at age 10 or older and after and after the passing of foster care legislation in 2015.
Research Question
• Do the predictors of number of foster care placements within a 12-month period and number of social workers within a 12-month period predict legal permanency in 2015, post-extended foster care legislation, when controlling for youth age at entry into foster care, gender, and ethnicity?• H1o: The predictors of number of foster care placements within a 12-month period and
number of social workers within a 12-month period do not predict legal permanency in 2015, post-extended foster care legislation, when controlling for youth age at entry into foster care, gender, and ethnicity.
• H1a: The predictors of number of foster care placements within a 12-month period and number of social workers within a 12-month period do predict legal permanency in 2015, post-extended foster care legislation, when controlling for youth age at entry into foster care, gender, and ethnicity.
Variables
Predictors
• Number Placements in Past Year
• Number of Social Workers in Past Year
Criterion
• Achievement of Legal Permanency
Potential Covariates
• Age of Entry into Foster Care
• Gender• Ethnicity• Type of Foster
Care Placement
Sample of Participants
• N = 700 youth, who, as of December 31, 2015, had been placed into the California foster care system at age 10 or older, for at least eight days, were not under the supervision of juvenile justice, and who resided in the Central Valley region in California
Sample of Participants
Age
Mean
17 years
Range
14 to 21 years
Age of Entry
Mean
13.5 years
Range
10 to 17 years
Gender
Female
N = 365 (52%)
Male
N = 335 (48%)
Sample of Participants
Central Valley Study
Ethnicity n % N %
Hispanic 8792 48* 444 63*
Black 4666 25* 65 9*
White 4448 24 172 25
Asian 438 2 13 2
Native American 282 1 6 1
Sample of Participants
Type of Placement
Foster Family
N = 302 (43.1%)
Relative/Guardian
N = 232 (33.2%)
Group Home Setting
N = 166 (23.7%)
Predictor Variables: Descriptive Statistics
Variable M Md SD Range
Min Max
Number of social workers
(past 12 months) 5.1 5 1.9 1 10
Number of placements
(past 12 months) 3.3 2 2.6 1 13
Criterion Variable: Descriptive Statistics
Variable Frequency
n
Percentage
%
Achievement of Legal Permanency
Yes 378 54.0
No 322 46.0
Preliminary Statistical Findings
Number of Social Workers in Past 12 Months
• Females > Males• Black youth > White, Hispanic,
and ‘Other’ youth• Youth in group home settings >
Youth residing with foster family or relative/guardian
Number of Placements in Past 12 Months
• Females > Males• Black youth > White, Hispanic,
and “Other’ youth• Youth in group home settings >
Youth residing with foster family or relative/guardian
Covariate Testing
• Age of entry was significantly associated with achievement of legal permanency, rpb(700) = -.33, p < .001. As the age of entry increased, the likelihood of achieving legal permanency decreased.
• The frequency (percentage) of Black youth who did not achieve legal permanency (n = 45, 69.2%) was significantly higher than the frequencies (percentages) of White youth (n = 76, 44.2%), Hispanic youth (n = 198, 44.6%), and ‘Other’ youth (n = 3, 15.8%) who did notachieve legal permanency, χ²(3) = 21.68, p < .001.
• The frequency (percentage) of youth residing in a group home setting who did not receive legal permanency (n = 117, 70.5%) was significantly higher than the frequency (percentage) of youth residing with a foster family (n = 119, 39.4%) and youth residing with a relative/guardian (n = 86, 37.1%) who did not achieve legal permanency, χ²(2) = 52.79, p < .001. .
• There were no gender differences with regard to achievement of legal permanency.
Testing of Assumptions for Logistic Regression
• Data met the assumptions for logistic regression• Predictor variable normality in the distribution of scores
• Linearity between the predictor and criterion variables
• Lack of multicollinearity between predictor variables
Logistic Regression Findings
Model Fit
• The overall model chi-square (χ²) was significant, χ²(8) = 314.61, p < .001
• The Hosmer and Lemeshow chi-square (χ²) test were not significant, χ²(8) = 8.11, p = .423, confirming good model fit
• The two predictors collectively predicted 78.3% of the correct achievement of legal permanency categorical cases
• The Nagelkerke R2 was .48, a large effect size
Logistic Regression Findings
Covariate Findings
• As age of entry decreased, the probability of achieving legal permanency increased, being younger was associated with a 67% probability of achieving legal permanency.
• Black youth were 3 times more likely to not achieve legal permanency as compared to White youth. 2.5 times more likely to not achieve legal permanency as compared to Hispanic youth, and 8.6 times morelikely to not achieve legal permanency as compared to Hispanic youth.
• There were no significant differences with regard to the type of placement and achievement of legal permanency
Logistic Regression Findings
Predictor Variables
• Both predictors, number of social workers and number of placements in past 12 months, were significantly associated with achievement of legal permanency
• Youth with a higher number of social workers within the past 12 months had a 50% probability of not achieving legal permanency as compared to youth with a lower number of social workers within the past 12 months
• Youth with a higher number of placements in the past year had an 85% probability of not achieving legal permanency as compared to youth with a fewer number of placements in the past 12 months
Theoretical Implications
• Findings from this study added to the existing foster care literature by identifying foster care youth who likely had low levels of social capital
• Youth entering foster care in early adolescence
• Female youth
• Black youth
• Youth in group home settings
• These youth may have entered the foster care system with less familial and extra-familial (extended family) support and could not maintain these connections while in foster care
• Social worker and placement instability may contribute to an inability of the foster care youth to establish and maintain their social capital
Citations: Duke et al., 2017; Raymond-Flesch et al., 2017; Semanchin-Jones & LaLiberte, 2013 ; Yamaguchi, 2013
Practical Implications
• The percentage of youth who achieved legal permanency (54%) was higher than the percentages reported in the literature, which have ranged from 7% to 35%.
• The Central Valley foster care system appears to be effective in reducing the amount of time youth spend in foster care and ensuring that older foster care youth achieve legal permanency.
• The 54% achievement rate suggests that the Act is imparting benefits and may, in fact, be contributing to higher rates of achievement of legal permanency in the Central Valley system
• The high number of social workers (M = 5.1) suggests that the social workers lacked adequate training, had increased caseloads, and/or had high turnover as a result of the Fostering Connections Act.
• The high (albeit commiserate) number of placements (M = 3.3) suggests that the Central Valley foster care system may not have an adequate number of foster care system placements and/or that adolescent foster care youth are more difficult to place
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths
• Study addressed numerous gaps in the literature
• The use of objective, standardized SACWIS data increased the internal study validity
• Internal validity was also enhanced by the inclusion of numerous covariates
Limitations
• Causality could not be determined
• The ethnicity percentages of the sample differed from the population percentages, limiting generalizability of findings
• The sample sizes of Asian and Native American youth were too small to examine individually
• Study findings cannot be generalized to foster care children or youth who entered the system at age 9 or younger
Recommendations for Future Research
• Studies that examine legal permanency rates before and after implementation of Fostering Connections Act
• Longitudinal studies that examine trends in legal permanency achievement (over months, years, or decades), especially among females, Black youth, and youth residing in group homes
• Studies that assess the effects of the Fostering Connections Acts on social worker and placement outcomes
• Studies that expand focus beyond Central Valley
• Studies focusing on Black foster care youth, older youth, and/or youth residing in a group home setting to pinpoint reasons for placement and social worker instability
• Studies that identify social worker factors that are most associated with the achievement of legal permanency among foster care youth
Recommendations for Future Practice
• Provision of sufficient compensation, administrative and managerial support, and educational resources and training to foster care social workers to reduce not only high burnout and turnover rates among social workers but also enhance social worker emotional and professional functioning.
• Implementation of administrative processes and procedures that are effective in promoting the achievement of legal permanency, especially among Black youth and youth in group home settings.
• Identification and improvement of foster care setting factors that may be problematic and introduce barriers that decrease achievement of legal permanency
• Enhance efforts to recruit more ethnically diverse foster families
Key References
Carnochan, S., Lee, C., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Achieving exits to permanency for children in long term care. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(3), 220-234. doi:10.1080/ 154337 14.2013.788952
Carnochan, S., Lee, C., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Achieving timely reunification. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(3), 179-195. doi:10.1080/15433714.2013. 788948
Carnochan, S., Moore, M., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Achieving timely adoption. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(3), 210-219. doi: 10.1080/15433714.2013.
Cooper, H., Jordan, E., & McCoy-Roth, M. (2013). Older youth and the Fostering Connections Act. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fosteringconnections.orh
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., & Napolitano, L. (2013). Providing foster care for young adults: Early implementation of California’s Fostering Connections Act. Retrieved from http://www.clccal.org/sites/default/files/CA_Fostering_Connections_Chapin_Hall_Study_2013.pdf
Courtney, M. E., Park, S., & Okpych, N. J. (2017). Memo from CalYouth: Factors associated with youth remaining in foster care as young adults. Retrieved from http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/CY_FA_IB0417.pdf
Eastman, A. L., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Magruder, J., Mitchell, M. N., & Courtney, M. E. (2017). Characteristics of youth remaining in foster care through age 19: A pre- and post-policy cohort analysis of California data. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 11(1), 40-57. doi:10.1080/15548732.2016.1230922
Roller White, C., Corwin, T., Buher, A., & O’Brien, K. (2013). The multi-site accelerated permanency project: Technical report. Retrieved from https://www.casey.org/media/MSAPP_12Month_FR.pdf
Tao, K. W., Ward, K. J., O’Brien, K., DiLorenzo, P, & Kelly, S. (2013). Improving permanency: Caseworker perspectives of older youth n another planned permanent living arrangement. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 30, 217-235.
Questions
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Statistical Findings
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: STUDY PARTICIPANTS
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 335 47.9 47.9 47.9
Female 365 52.1 52.1 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0
Ethnicity
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Black 65 9.3 9.3 9.3
White 172 24.6 24.6 33.9
Hispanic 444 63.4 63.4 97.3
Other 19 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0
Type of Placement
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Foster Family 302 43.1 43.1 43.1
Group Home 166 23.7 23.7 66.9
Relative/Guardian 232 33.1 33.1 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0
Age_Now Age at entry
N Valid 700 700
Missing 0 0
Mean 17.1971 13.51
Median 17.0000 14.00
Std. Deviation 2.02233 2.092
Minimum 14.00 10
Maximum 21.00 17
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Age_Now
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 14.00 82 11.7 11.7 11.7
15.00 95 13.6 13.6 25.3
16.00 108 15.4 15.4 40.7
17.00 84 12.0 12.0 52.7
18.00 107 15.3 15.3 68.0
19.00 108 15.4 15.4 83.4
20.00 105 15.0 15.0 98.4
21.00 11 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0
Age at entry
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 10 57 8.1 8.1 8.1
11 96 13.7 13.7 21.9
12 99 14.1 14.1 36.0
13 94 13.4 13.4 49.4
14 88 12.6 12.6 62.0
15 110 15.7 15.7 77.7
16 111 15.9 15.9 93.6
17 45 6.4 6.4 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: PREDICTOR AND CRITERION VARIABLES
Number of
Social Workers
Number of
Placements
N Valid 700 700
Missing 0 0
Mean 5.1243 3.27
Median 5.0000 2.00
Std. Deviation 1.90256 2.590
Minimum 1.00 1
Maximum 10.00 13
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Exit to permanency
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid NO 322 46.0 46.0 46.0
YES 378 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total 700 100.0 100.0
PRELIMINARY INFERENTIAL STATISTICS
Independent Samples T-test: GENDER
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation
Number of Social Workers Male 335 4.9343 1.74801
Female 365 5.2986 2.02080
Number of Placements Male 335 2.95 2.225
Female 365 3.56 2.857
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Number of Social Workers Equal variances assumed -2.541 698 .011
Equal variances not
assumed
-2.556 695.591 .011
Number of Placements Equal variances assumed -3.146 698 .002
Equal variances not
assumed
-3.179 680.222 .002
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
One-way ANOVAS: ETHNICITY
Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation
Number of Social Workers Black 65 5.6615 1.99434
White 172 5.1686 2.00600
Hispanic 444 5.0563 1.83863
Other 19 4.4737 1.83692
Total 700 5.1243 1.90256
Model Fixed Effects 1.89562
Number of Placements Black 65 4.34 2.933
White 172 3.32 2.859
Hispanic 444 3.12 2.411
Other 19 2.58 2.009
Total 700 3.27 2.590
Model Fixed Effects 2.570
ANOVA
df Mean Square F Sig.
Number of Social Workers Between Groups 3 9.731 2.708 .044
Within Groups 696 3.593
Total 699
Number of Placements Between Groups 3 31.356 4.748 .003
Within Groups 696 6.604
Total 699
One-way ANOVA: TYPE OF PLACEMENT
Descriptives
N Mean Std. Deviation
Number of Social Workers Foster Family 302 4.9172 2.02389
Group Home 166 5.8675 1.92761
Relative/Guardian 232 4.8621 1.56198
Total 700 5.1243 1.90256
Model Fixed Effects 1.85933
Number of Placements Foster Family 302 3.07 2.465
Group Home 166 4.70 3.269
Relative/Guardian 232 2.50 1.622
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Total 700 3.27 2.590
Model Fixed Effects 2.455
ANOVA
df Mean Square F Sig.
Number of Social Workers Between Groups 2 60.293 17.440 .000
Within Groups 697 3.457
Total 699
Number of Placements Between Groups 2 245.051 40.662 .000
Within Groups 697 6.027
Total 699
Age at entry
Number of SWs Pearson Correlation .068
Sig. (2-tailed) .065
N 700
Number of Placements Pearson Correlation .055
Sig. (2-tailed) .078
N 700
Chi-square: GENDER and EXIT TO PERMANENCY
Gender * Exit to permanency Crosstabulation
Exit to permanency
Total NO YES
Gender Male Count 145 190 335
% within Gender 43.3% 56.7% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 45.0% 50.3% 47.9%
% of Total 20.7% 27.1% 47.9%
Adjusted Residual -1.4 1.4
Female Count 177 188 365
% within Gender 48.5% 51.5% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 55.0% 49.7% 52.1%
% of Total 25.3% 26.9% 52.1%
Adjusted Residual 1.4 -1.4
Total Count 322 378 700
% within Gender 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
% within Exit to permanency 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.908a 1 .167
Continuity Correctionb 1.705 1 .192
Likelihood Ratio 1.910 1 .167
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.906 1 .167
N of Valid Cases 700
Chi-square: ETHNICITY AND EXIT TO PERMANENCY
Ethnicity * Exit to permanency Crosstabulation
Exit to permanency
Total NO YES
Ethnicity recoded Black Count 45 20 65
% within Ethnicity recoded 69.2% 30.8% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 14.0% 5.3% 9.3%
% of Total 6.4% 2.9% 9.3%
Adjusted Residual 3.9 -3.9
White Count 76 96 172
% within Ethnicity recoded 44.2% 55.8% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 23.6% 25.4% 24.6%
% of Total 10.9% 13.7% 24.6%
Adjusted Residual -.5 .5
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Hispanic Count 198 246 444
% within Ethnicity recoded 44.6% 55.4% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 61.5% 65.1% 63.4%
% of Total 28.3% 35.1% 63.4%
Adjusted Residual -1.0 1.0
Other Count 3 16 19
% within Ethnicity recoded 15.8% 84.2% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 0.9% 4.2% 2.7%
% of Total 0.4% 2.3% 2.7%
Adjusted Residual -2.7 2.7
Total Count 322 378 700
% within Ethnicity recoded 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
% within Exit to permanency 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 21.684a 3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 22.679 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 12.865 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 700
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 8.74.
Chi-square: TYPE OF PLACEMENT AND EXIT TO PERMANENCY
Type of Placement * Exit to permanency Crosstabulation
Exit to permanency
Total NO YES
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Type of Placement Foster Family Count 119 183 302
% within Type of
Placement
39.4% 60.6% 100.0%
% within Exit to
permanency
37.0% 48.4% 43.1%
% of Total 17.0% 26.1% 43.1%
Adjusted Residual -3.1 3.1
Group Home Count 117 49 166
% within Type of
Placement
70.5% 29.5% 100.0%
% within Exit to
permanency
36.3% 13.0% 23.7%
% of Total 16.7% 7.0% 23.7%
Adjusted Residual 7.2 -7.2
Relative/Guardian Count 86 146 232
% within Type of
Placement
37.1% 62.9% 100.0%
% within Exit to
permanency
26.7% 38.6% 33.1%
% of Total 12.3% 20.9% 33.1%
Adjusted Residual -3.3 3.3
Total Count 322 378 700
% within Type of
Placement
46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
% within Exit to
permanency
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 46.0% 54.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 52.793a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 53.569 2 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .005 1 .944
N of Valid Cases 700
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 76.36.
TESTING OF ASSUMPTIONS
Zskewness Statistics
Number_SWs
Number_of_Plac
ements
N Valid 700 700
Missing 0 0
Skewness .054 .065
Std. Error of Skewness .092 .092
Zskewness .580 .710
Box Tidwell
B S.E. Wald df Sig.
Step 1a Number_SWs -.474 1.009 .221 1 .638
Number_of_Placements -.128 .365 .123 1 .726
Number_SWs_log_inter
action
.082 .390 .045 1 .833
Number_Placements_lo
g_interaction
-.011 .148 .006 1 .939
Constant 3.183 1.813 3.082 1 .079
BINARY LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 314.608 8 .000
Block 314.608 8 .000
Model 314.608 8 .000
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 8.112 8 .423
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18
Classification Tablea
Observed
Predicted
Exit to permanency Percentage
Correct
NO YES
Step 1 Exit to permanency NO 239 83 74.2
YES 69 309 81.7
Overall Percentage 78.3
a. The cut value is .500
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Step 1a Age at entry -.402 .053 56.535 1 .000 .669 .602 .743
Ethnicity recoded 10.130 3 .017
Ethnicity recoded(1) 1.015 .394 6.644 1 .010 2.759 1.275 5.970
Ethnicity recoded(2) .895 .362 6.100 1 .014 2.447 1.203 4.977
Ethnicity recoded(3) 2.145 .809 7.030 1 .008 8.546 1.750 41.736
Placement_Type_R
EC
.999 2 .607
Placement_Type_R
EC(1)
.268 .268 .997 1 .318 1.307 .773 2.210
Placement_Type_R
EC(2)
.199 .281 .504 1 .478 1.221 .704 2.117
Number of Social
Workers
-.664 .069 93.423 1 .000 .515 .450 .589
Number of
Placements
-.168 .048 12.341 1 .000 .845 .769 .928
Constant 8.484 1.010 70.522 1 .000 4836.0
51
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Age at entry, Ethnicity recoded, Placement_Type_REC, Number of Social
Workers, Number of Placements.
GCU Proposal Template V8.3 01.18.18