1. No category

Quarterly Child Protection Checkup:
Assessing Child Protection Reform in Los Angeles County
March 30, 2015
Introduction
When Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors committed themselves, and the myriad public
agencies they oversee, to overhauling the county’s rangy child protection system in 2013, they
undertook a daunting task.
In almost two years, the process, which began with the convening of a Blue Ribbon Commission
on Child Protection (BRC),1 has forced increased attention on children and has elucidated the
countless obstacles facing such a large network of systems in keeping children safe. What has
emerged is the notion that children should be the orienting principle to which all agencies
submit.
Vulnerable children and their families have little-to-no political capital. So adults, powerful
adults, must override the temptations of political expediency to forge a future for Los Angeles
that is bent toward justice for children. Some would say that such a future is more the
provenance of dreams than practical reality. But, Los Angeles County has been consistently
“dreaming” for almost two years now, to meaningful effect in some areas.
In this, our third “Child Protection Checkup,” we describe the county’s latest steps toward a
system that better protects children. The most concrete examples are in naming an interim
director of child protection,2 opting into state funding to increase payments to relative caregivers3
of foster children, and coming up with a plan to pair public health nurses and child abuse
investigators4 when responding to reports of child maltreatment.
But what may be more profound than these concrete examples of progress is the slow turn of a
county, one that has more children than most states, towards putting children first.
On February 15, Robert Greene of The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial5 highlighting the
Board of Supervisors’ intent to write a new mission statement that would prioritize child safety.
“Child protection is not part of the official marching orders of, say, the Department of Health
Services, so it isn't part of the evaluation of that department director's performance,” Greene
1
Ridley-Thomas, M., Antonovich, M. (June 18, 2013). Motion Establishing a Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection, The
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/77802.pdf
2
Loundenback, Jeremy (March 4, 2015). Fesia Davenport Takes Driver’s Seat in Office of Child Protection, The Chronicle of
Social Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/fesia-davenport-takes-drivers-seat-in-office-of-child-protection/954
3
Renick, Christie (Sept. 30, 2014). Los Angeles Opts Into State Relative Caregiver Funding Program, The Chronicle of Social
Change: htps://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/los-angeles-opts-into-state-relative-caregiver-funding-program/8234
4
Office of Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas (Jan. 13, 2015). Board Moves Forward on Child Protection Recommendations:
http://ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov/humanservices/index.php/category/children-family-services/
5
Greene, Robert. (Feb. 5, 2015). Mission Statement could help L.A. County focus on Child Protection, The Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-ed-child-protection-mission-statement-20150206-story.html
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
1
wrote. “With a solid mission statement in place, it would be part of the evaluation of all the
directors of all county departments and agencies.”
While Greene conceded the chronic inanity of many mission statements, the editorial did serve to
showcase the potential of an orienting principle of child protection applied across all the systems
that touch vulnerable children and families.
“I’d like to see a powerful declaration by the Board of Supervisors espousing that the well-being
of children is the highest priority in the county of Los Angeles, and that they are setting up an
office of child protection to ensure this outcome,” said outgoing BRC transition team co-chair
Leslie Gilbert-Lurie. The board voted to adopt the new mission statement on March 246. It
simply reads: “The safety and well-being of all of our children are of highest priority in the
County. Consequently, County departments and agencies will work together as a team to provide
the highest quality services to children and families.”
With the advent of new, powerful data sets coupled with re-distributive policies that are gaining
traction in California, such a cross-agency child protection orientation—dreamy as it may
sound—could actually become a reality.
In December, the Children’s Data Network (CDN), a recently established and increasingly
influential research center at the USC School of Social Work, released a slew of data7 that
describe the scope of child maltreatment in every California county.
CDN linked birth records for the more than one million babies born in California in 2006 and
2007 to Child Protective Services records through their fifth birthdays. By age five, 5.1 percent
of California babies born in 2006 and 2007 had substantiated reports of abuse and neglect. That
is 55,881 babies, toddlers and preschoolers.
This is five times the rate of substantiated abuse one would glean from federal data provided by
the Department of Health and Human Services, which has consistently reported that about one in
100 American children will be confirmed victims of abuse or neglect in a given year. These
important population-level statistics in California come on the heels of a blockbuster national
study released last summer that found that by age 18, one in eight American children will be
substantiated victims of child maltreatment.8
The importance of these findings is two-fold. First, they provide the opportunity for a much
smarter allocation of resources to target services to families that have a high number of “risk
factors” for subsequent abuse, such as no father on a birth certificate, a teen mother, a mother
with a history of child welfare involvement, the use of public health insurance or mothers
without a high school diploma. Second, the sheer scope of the child maltreatment threat exposes
6
Kuehl, S., Solis, H. (March 24, 2014).Motion by Supervisors Kuehl and Solis, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors:
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/92381.pdf
7
Heimpel, Daniel (Dec. 2, 2014). New Study Shows Heightened Child Abuse Threat, The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/new-study-shows-heightened-child-abuse-threat/8866
8
Rinker, Brian (June 4, 2014). New Study Finds 1 in 8 U.S. Children Maltreated, The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/new-study-finds-1-in-8-u-s-children-maltreated/6884
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
2
the inadequacy of the current child protection system to meet it, and begs for all systems to pitch
in.
Knowing which children are at greatest risk for abuse at the time of birth could allow for novel
approaches to preventing abuse. The county could ramp up voluntary services like nurse home
visiting programs or help new mothers sign up for the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) Program. Additionally, as USC Professor Jacquelyn McCroskey
argued in a February 2015 Huffington Post blog post,9 support should be provided to foster
county “coordination with cities, schools, community-based agencies and grassroots groups that
work with potentially susceptible families and children on a daily basis.”
New Zealand is in the final stages of rolling out just such a system to preemptively address child
maltreatment. Here in the U.S., Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is hoping to use a predictive
risk-modeling tool within the next year.
Despite the Orwellian overtones10 of a computer-generated risk assessment tool playing a role in
the decisions made by child-abuse investigators, Los Angeles County is testing a prototype11 that
would spit out maltreatment risk scores12 that investigators could have in-hand when making an
investigation. And the idea of applying predictive analytics prior to a report ever being filed is
gaining currency at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration.
“Something we recommended along those lines was that a county-wide cross-department
prevention plan be put in place that takes into account the factors that make children most at
risk,” Gilbert Lurie said during a Media for Policy Change class at USC’s Price School of Public
Policy on March 4.13 She pointed out that there is a balance between the “constitutional rights”
of individuals and the possible societal good of using predictive analytics. “You can’t say just
because someone is poor, just because someone has a parent who was abused or neglected, you
can’t say, therefore, children can be looked at definitively as being abused or neglected, because
they are at risk.”
Once the considerable ethical challenges associated with predictive analytics are solved, there
remains the challenge of paying for the services that come along with any such prediction. There
are two ways to get at this: using funding existing within other departments toward this end, and
increasing funding based on need. Both require a child-maltreatment-prevention orientation.
The first plan was envisioned by the Blue Ribbon Commission. In calling for the establishment
of a director of child protection, the BRC aimed to create a position that would make child safety
9
McCroskey, Jacquelyn (Feb. 3, 2015). Improving Child Welfare: Why Community-Based Prevention Must be Part of the
Reform Equation, The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacquelyn-mccroskey/improving-child-welfarew_b_6592074.html
10
Heimpel, Daniel (Oct. 27, 2014). Preventive Analytics, The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/preventive-analytics/8384
11
ibid
12
Gardner, Andrea (Jan. 13, 2015). Can an algorithm predict child abuse? LA County child welfare officials are trying to find
out, Southern California Public Radio - KPCC -: http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/01/13/49191/can-an-algorithm-predict-childabuse-la-county-chi/
13
Video of Leslie Gilbert Lurie and Philip Browning (March 2015). Media for Policy Change Class at USC’s Sol Price School of
Public Policy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr3QXFYHY80
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
3
a primary concern across agencies. This has been definitively bolstered by the new countywide
child protection mission statement.
Two recent statewide political developments show that there exists political will for distributing
resources based on need. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF),14 which became part of
the state budget in 2013, was predicated on the idea of “concentration grants” wherein school
districts and county offices of education with higher numbers of students who were receiving
free and reduced lunch, English language learners or students in foster care should be granted
more money.
In November of last year, California voters passed Proposition 47, which lowered sentences for
nonviolent offenders. Less than a year later, the new law is already reducing prison expenditures,
according to a report issued by the Legislative Analyst's Office in February.15 In the next fiscal
year, the report estimated savings could reach $200 million and would be directed toward mental
health services, substance abuse treatment and efforts to fight truancy for children in California
public schools.
In January, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to pair public health nurses with
DCFS investigators and boost money spent on screening at medical hubs. The Department of
Public Health is allocating $2 million to augment services provided at the county’s seven
medical hubs, according to a statement released16 by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas in
January.
All of this is to say it is not so far fetched to think that it is possible for policymakers to distribute
resources to those who need it most. In Los Angeles County, this could mean moving toward
a child-protection orientation that comes with re-distribution of money and the focus
necessary to actually make a difference.
But the road is still unsure. The transition team met for the last time on March 16,17 marking an
end of the BRC’s work. Now it is in the hands of the newly minted interim child protection
director and the five supervisors18 to keep the reforms moving apace.
Understanding the news media’s unique power to impel action, Fostering Media Connections
is offering these quarterly “Child Protection Checkups” in the hopes that they will spur continued
attention and nourish the reform effort.
We are not advocates, but rather a clutch of journalists focused on what the county has done to
implement the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommended reforms.
14
Heimpel, Daniel (May 1, 2013). The Kids May be Alright, The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/opinion/the-kids-may-be-alright/2669
15
Taylor, Mac (Feb. 2015). The 2015-16 Budget: Implementation of Proposition 47, The Legislative Analysts Office:
http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/budget/prop47/implementation-prop47-021715.pdf
16
Office of Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas (Jan. 13, 2015). Board Moves Forward on Child Protection Recommendations:
http://ridley-thomas.lacounty.gov/humanservices/index.php/category/children-family-services/
17
Renick, Christie (March 17, 2015). Sun Sets on Los Angeles County’s Child Protection Reform Team, The Chronicle of Social
Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/sun-sets-on-los-angeles-countys-child-protection-reform-team/9689
18
Heimpel, Daniel (March 18, 2015). Leslie Gilbert-Lurie’s Final Word on Child Protection Reform in L.A., The Chronicle of
Social Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/leslie-gilbert-luries-last-word-on-child-protection-reform-in-l-a/9706
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
4
We have used the transition team’s “Recommendation Matrix”19 as a template to track the
county’s progress. The commission’s April 2014 recommendations are broken into broader
categories, each of which includes a list of related recommendations, any action taken to date
and any impending action.
Through original reporting, we aim to make this admittedly bureaucratic document come to life,
and show where the reform effort is moving forward and where it has stalled.
Our hope is that county leadership, the child protection and child welfare communities, and our
colleagues in the news media will use our third “Child Protection Checkup” to better understand
and accelerate the pace of change to improve the lives of vulnerable children.
We accept this checkup’s limitations. First, we have only listed those recommendations that we
thought imminently actionable and of highest importance. Second, we have focused most of our
attention on those recommendations that have seen the most movement. Thus, this enterprise is
biased by what we, our sources and the powers that be have designated as important.
Transition Team for the Office of Child Protection. (Oct. 7, 2014). Status Update on the Implementation of the
Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection Recommendations: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/87415.pdf
19
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
5
Quarterly Checkups
Each category in this checkup includes a description of why it is important, the progress to date
and any future opportunities for advancement.
The categories of reform and the particular recommendations we focus on in this report are as
follows:
I.
Consolidation of Authority
The BRC called for an Office of Child Protection20 to oversee and integrate child-serving
agencies around the goal of preventing and responding to child maltreatment, and to promote
general child welfare. To accomplish this, the commission first directed the Board of Supervisors
to name an “oversight team” (the transition team) to set the parameters for that office.21 The
Board of Supervisors is currently working with the second of two head-hunting firms to hire a
director for the new office.22 The board hired an interim director23 early in 2015 who is working
in the county’s Chief Executive Office.
II.
Maltreatment Prevention and Early Intervention
The BRC called for a more rigorous early intervention system to mitigate the potential for
maltreatment after an allegation of abuse is reported to the Department of Children and Family
Services (DCFS) or law enforcement. It also made recommendations that, while outside the
purview of classic child protection, would bolster child maltreatment prevention efforts.
In terms of early intervention, the BRC called for the county to adopt a risk-assessment model
developed by Eckerd, a private child-welfare service provider based in Florida. To help it gauge
risk of future maltreatment, Eckerd aggregates information about prior incidents with child
protective services and other factors to rate the relative danger to children24,
The BRC also recommended that the county send public health nurses out with DCFS
investigators on every investigation of an allegation of child maltreatment for children under age
one. In addition, the BRC recommended that all children under age five who were “under the
supervision of DCFS” should be given priority enrollment in Head Start, Early Head Start and
Home Visitation programs.
20
Renick, Christie. (Jan. 22, 2014). A Child Safety Czar for Los Angeles. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/a-child-safety-czar-for-los-angeles/4976
21
Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection. (April 18, 2014). The Road to Safety for Our Children,
Final Report of the Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection:
http://ceo.lacounty.gov/pdf/brc/BRCCP_Final_Report_April_18_2014.pdf
22
Loudenback, Jeremy. (July 29, 2014). Transition Team Considers Powers of New Child Welfare Czar. The Chronicle of Social
Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/transition-team-considers-powers-of-new-child-welfare-czar/7690
23
Loudenback, Jeremy (March 4, 2015). Fesia Davenport Takes Driver’s Seat in Office of Child Protection, The Chronicle of
Social Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/fesia-davenport-takes-drivers-seat-in-office-of-child-protection/9549
24
Florida Dept. of Children and Families. (Jan. 2014). Department of Children and Families to Utilize Evidence-Based Risk
Analysis to Protect Florida’s Most Vulnerable. Press Release: http://www.myflfamilies.com/press-release/department-childrenand-families-utilize-evidence-based-risk-analysis-protect-florida
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
6
On the prevention side, the BRC called on the Department of Public Health and First 5 LA to
work together toward a comprehensive prevention plan.25
III.
General Health and Children’s Mental Health
The commission called for expanded mental health services for all children and youth involved
with the child welfare system.
It also directed agencies providing mental health treatment to such children to reduce reliance on
pharmacological interventions.
Lastly, it prioritized assessing and improving the performance of the county’s seven Medical
Hubs which provide initial assessments of children who are reported as suspected victims of
child abuse or neglect and provide comprehensive health care to children in the foster care
system.
IV.
Workforce & Contracts
Los Angeles County’s child welfare system encompasses much more than the DCFS. Public
health nurses, substance-abuse specialists and a wide array of private providers work in varying
degrees of cohesion to support the county’s child protection and child welfare needs. The BRC
recommended that the county implement performance-based contracting, which would be based
on measures of child well being determined by DCFS and other appropriate agencies.
DCFS social workers regularly deal with caseloads that are well above national standards in
many cases, although the county has taken some steps over the past year to alleviate the pressure.
Instead of directly calling on the Board of Supervisors to hire more caseworkers, the commission
recommended the board increase its oversight of DCFS’ strategic plan and ratchet up assessment
of caseworker compliance on visiting standards and other measures.
V.
Child Placement
California was the last state in the union to routinely pay foster caregivers more than kin
caregivers who take in their family members. On June 20, 2014, California Gov. Jerry Brown
created a $30 million fund26 to help counties pay these two critical caregiver groups the same
amount of money as part of the 2014-2015 state budget.
The BRC recommended that Los Angeles County, with a Title IV-E Waiver that allows
flexibility in funding, equalize stipends to these families as soon as possible.
25
Renick, Christie. (Sept. 25, 2014) Movement on Child Maltreatment Prevention in Los Angeles. The Chronicle of Social
Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/movement-on-child-maltreatment-prevention-in-los-angeles/8203
26
Step Up Coalition. (June 20, 2014). CA Makes Historic Investment in Foster Children Raised by Relatives. Step Up Website:
http://stepupforkin.org/budgetsigned/
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
7
In addition, the BRC latched onto a proposal that died in the state legislature during the 2014
legislative cycle, which would have involved foster youth rating and assessing foster care
placements.27
VI.
Law Enforcement
The BRC paid strong attention to the role law enforcement agencies play in protecting children.
The commission called out the county’s Electronic Suspected Child Abuse Reports system, often
referred to as E-SCARS,28 and recommended that all appropriate agencies use the system to its
full capacity as well as develop an early warning system for high-risk cases. The BRC also
recommended additional mandatory training related to child abuse and E-SCARS for all officers.
27
Assemblymember Matt Dababneh Fact Sheet for AB 2583. (2014). California Youth Connection website:
http://calyouthconn.org/assets/files/AB%202583%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
28
Renick, Christie. (Feb. 23, 2014). Los Angeles’ Child Abuse Reporting System Underfunded & Underutilized. The Chronicle
of Social Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/los-angeles-award-winning-child-abuse-reporting-systemunderfunded-underutilized/5341
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
8
I. Consolidation of Authority
Why It’s Important
After reviewing hours of testimony from caregivers, social workers, public officials and many
others involved in Los Angeles County’s child welfare system, the BRC recommended creating a
new county office to oversee child safety. The BRC’s final report highlighted that responsibility
for the safety of children is scattered across many agencies at the county level:
“No single entity is held accountable for what happens to at-risk children before, during, and
after they are in the County’s care. Previous attempts at reform have not been sufficient because
no single entity is charged with integrating resources across departments for the benefit of
children.”
In approving the BRC’s recommendations, the Board of Supervisors moved forward with plans
to create an Office of Child Protection with the hopes of increasing coordination, communication
and oversight of the many different child welfare-related agencies and entities in the county.
Oversight includes creating a system to measure performance, actively holding various agencies
accountable for results and making sure adequate resources are available to ensure the safety of
children in Los Angeles County.
Even as the supervisors approved the new oversight body, Supervisor Don Knabe offered the
lone dissenting voice,29 saying that the new office would create “new layers of unnecessary
bureaucracy” for agencies involved in the child welfare system.
The Office of Child Protection comes on the heels of other attempts at promoting oversight and
coordination of different child-related county agencies. Former Los Angeles County CEO
William T. Fujioka was tasked with a similar mandate to break down silos seven years ago, but
the Board of Supervisors limited his powers after little progress had been made, according to an
article by Garrett Therolf of the Los Angeles Times.30
The county could also look to the state’s Child Welfare Council, which has done a good job of
convening the state’s child welfare leaders but lacks the authority to put far-ranging reforms into
action. Other jurisdictions that have integrated services, such as Shasta County,31 could be
examined as well.
To accomplish this, the Board of Supervisors is pinning its hopes on finding an experienced
leader who has a solid understanding of child welfare issues as well as experience leading
change in “entrenched organizations.”32
29
Renick, Christie. (June 11, 2014). Los Angeles Moves on Sweeping Changes in Child Welfare Despite Supe’s Vigorous
Dissent. The Chronicle of Social Change. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/los-angeles-moves-on-sweeping-changes-inchild-welfare-despite-supes-vigorous-dissent/7069
30
Therolf, Garret. (June 10, 2014). L.A. County supervisors vote to hire ‘child protection czar’. The Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/countygovernment/la-me-foster-reform-20140611-story.html
31
Heimpel, Daniel. (February 9, 2014). Not Your Average Czar. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/more-than-your-average-czar/5185
32
Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. (July 8, 2014). Recruitment for Director of Office of Child Protection. Board
Correspondence: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/86911.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
9
According to search firm Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates Inc., “[t]his Director will be the
chief advisor to the County Board of Supervisors in drawing together the many specialized
elements of child safety-related policies and programs, principally delivered through seven
Departments and four other agencies, as integral parts of a single, unifying and sustained County
strategy which defines target outcomes, measures of success and major timing milestones.
He/she will report directly to the Board, which is vested with ultimate executive, legislative and
quasi-judicial authority over County policies and operations.”
What’s Happened So Far
On December 8, the county CEO’s office released an estimate of what the county spends on
children each year—a little more than $7 billion—a number that underscores the complexity of
the overlapping child-serving systems in the county.
The county’s interim CEO, Sachi Hamai, has moved the Office of Child Protection (OCP)
forward by appointing an interim director, DCFS’ Fesia Davenport, and by providing office
space, staff and other resources. During the February 9 transition team meeting, Davenport said
that the OCP is in the process of identifying its short-term priorities and conducting outreach
regarding the cross-departmental recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission.
When asked about the role of the OCP, Lisa Mandel, Chief Deputy for Supervisor Sheila Kuehl,
said, “It’s not only getting everybody in the same room, but also looking for ways that the board
can take the lead on efficiencies, sharing of funding—blending of funding and blending of staff.”
“There are many opportunities to do things better with a focus on child safety,” Mandel said.
“The OCP is going to be the one to pull everyone together and make recommendations. They’re
a convener, yes, but they’re also going to be the one tasked with what can we do better and
what’s not working and how can we fix it.”
The executive search team originally hired to find the permanent director of the OCP was
released from its contract in December, and the search appeared to stall for about eight weeks.
However, the search is once again underway with Carmel, Calif.-based consultants Hamilton,
Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. at the helm. Though the language of the job description 28 has
been retooled, the spirit of the position remains unchanged: s/he will act as a liaison between
various county departments and the Board of Supervisors.
With the two new county supervisors in office, child protection reform may garner more
attention than it has in recent months. When the transition team presented to the Board of
Supervisors on January 6, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, who took the place of long-time Supervisor
Zev Yaroslavsky, volunteered to take on the task of drafting a new county-wide mission
statement emphasizing child protection, one of the BRC’s recommendations that had gotten no
traction to date.
In question at the end of 2014 was the role of the transition team going forward. Team members
voiced concern that their actions were not in line with the Board of Supervisors’ vision for the
team.
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
10
“I think we need to go back to the board motion that created this transition team,” said transition
team member Antonia Jimenez during the December 8 meeting. “Because I think that what the
board put into the board motion and the role that the transition team thinks it should be playing
are not one and the same.”
Co-chair Gilbert-Lurie expressed concern about the lack of collaboration between the Board of
Supervisors and the transition team. “I would feel that our public meetings with the board have
been almost defensive … my experience is that groups like these can be so much more effective
if there were a clearer agreed-upon role for the transition team and sort of proscribed ways that
we interact with each other,” Gilbert-Lurie said during the same December meeting.
Supervisor Kuehl’s chief deputy, Lisa Mandel, pointed out the inherently awkward nature of the
transition team’s structure.
“Generally the model is you have the experts make the recommendations, issue the report and
they’re done. It’s the implementers who actually implement,” Mandel said in an interview. “In
this case, because so much of these recommendations don’t fall in any department…so many
things are outside the scope of DCFS, who can take accountability? I’ve never seen a situation
where a transition team was asked to implement recommendations when they weren’t really in a
position to. It’s awkward and challenging, but they’re doing a great job.”
The transition team voted in December to continue to meet twice per month. The plan was to
focus on those issues that had not yet been addressed, like foster parent recruitment, and to
maintain pressure on efforts already underway, such as reforming the medical hubs and pairing
public health nurses with social workers.
In 2015, the transition team only met once each month, and its February presentation to the
Board of Supervisors was postponed to March 3 at Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s request. It
was postponed once again at the transition team’s request. During the team’s March 16 meeting,
team members voted unanimously to adjourn permanently, officially handing the reins to the
Office of Child Protection. And on March 17, co-chairs Mitchell Katz and Gilbert-Lurie
informed the board that the transition team had disbanded.
The Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a county mission statement on child safety on March
24, 2015. 33
Supervisor Hilda Solis said in a statement later that day that “this Mission Statement is not just
another piece of County paper. It is the heart and soul, as well as the guide, for how to move
ahead on child protection issues. It is the roadmap for a cultural shift that is long overdue.” Solis
co-authored the motion to approve the mission statement with Supervisor Kuehl.
What’s Next
33
Office of Child Protection. Mission Statement Package: http://priorities.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/OCPMission-Statement_March-2015.bm_.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
11
Interim OCP Director Fesia Davenport appears to be invested in her temporary role and intent on
bringing change to the county.
“I think the board expects leadership from the OCP,” she said in an interview. “I anticipate they
don’t want me to wait to be directed to act. I’m not going to wait and say ‘I don’t know if I
should wait on this public health nurse initiative.’ They want leadership, they want action.”
“They want advice on a number of issues, a boots-on-the-ground [approach]—those will
probably be regular board updates,” she said. “The board is inundated with information, and
there are so many partners in the network, and people have different ideas on how we can
improve child welfare, so one of the things OCP can do is filter some of that information for the
board.”
The OCP’s website34 appeared earlier this year and content continues to be added. Currently it
publicizes meetings and houses documentation related to the reform activities underway.
34
Office of Child Protection website: http://priorities.lacounty.gov/childprotection/
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
12
II. Maltreatment Prevention and Early Intervention
Why It’s Important
In June of 2014, Yale University researcher Christopher Wildeman and colleagues, including the
University of Southern California’s Emily Putnam-Hornstein, published35 results after sifting
through 5.6 million child abuse records housed in the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data
System.
The findings were startling. By age 18, one in eight American children will have the experience
of a social worker entering their home and determining that they were abused.
“Looking at the annual percentages, it’s easy to say this is really tragic, but the implications on
society are slight because the numbers are small,” Wildeman said in an interview with The
Chronicle of Social Change.36 “But when 12.5 percent of kids are being maltreated, it is much
harder to ignore.”
This is consistent with findings yielded by data-linkage efforts in California. On December 2, the
new and increasingly influential Children’s Data Network partnered with the California Child
Welfare Indicators Project to release a spate of studies showing that one in seven of all California
babies born in 2006 and 2007 had been reported for abuse or neglect by age five.37
This is nearly three times the annual rate of child abuse reports in California. The clear
implication is that the child maltreatment threat is bigger than leaders in the field had previously
thought.
What’s Happened So Far
First 5 LA and the Department of Public Health have been tasked to move forward in convening
a workgroup whose function is to create a countywide maltreatment prevention strategy.
Transition team member Patricia Curry was named as the team’s representative in the
workgroup. Curry indicated during the December 2014 transition team meeting that the agencies
were unsure of their role, who they should report to and what authority they have in making
recommendations to other agencies and departments. To date, what the workgroup has
accomplished is unclear, although OCP Director Davenport has met with First 5 LA since taking
office.
“Having the OCP on board and having a single person be accountable for a prevention plan
would be huge,” said Genie Chough, Supervisor Kuehl’s deputy for children’s services in an
interview with The Chronicle of Social Change. “That’s been one of the many barriers to
succeeding in this area. It is all over the place and so to have one person be accountable for this
35
Wildeman, C., Emanuel, N., Leventhal, J.M., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Waldfogel, J., Lee, H., (Aug. 2014) . JAMA Pediatrics:
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1876686#Conclusions
36
Rinker, Brian. (June 4, 2014). New Study Funds 1 in 8 U.S. Children Maltreated. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/new-study-finds-1-in-8-u-s-children-maltreated/6884
37
Heimpel, Daniel. (December 2, 2014) New Study Shows Heightened Child Abuse Threat. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/new-study-shows-heightened-child-abuse-threat/8866
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
13
and facilitating all these partnerships would be huge. It’s bigger than DCFS. They take the lead
after the family is brought to our attention but there’s a lot of work that can be done in our
communities that doesn’t involve DCFS.”
In October 2014, the Los Angeles County CEO’s office delivered a report38 to the transition team
that outlined a plan to pair public health nurses with social workers for home visits for children
up to 24 months of age. The report also included a draft of an assessment tool that public health
nurses would use during home visits.
Since then, the Board of Supervisors voted to enact this recommendation, with the Martin Luther
King, Jr., Medical Hub being the “first site to begin this partnership,” according to a January
2015 statement from Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas’ office.39
When asked about the status of the public health nurse initiative in February, Davenport said in a
statement via email, “We’re moving towards implementation of this key reform, which was
recommended by the Blue Ribbon Commission, but we do not yet have a specific launch date.”
She also reported that the Service Employees International Union is supportive of the initiative
and wants to be part of the implementation process. Getting buy-in from the SEIU, which
represents social workers, could be critical to the initiative’s success.
In November, The Chronicle of Social Change reported that Los Angeles County’s DCFS was
developing a predictive risk-modeling tool called AURA, or Approach to Understanding Risk
Assessment, which looked at serious incidents - including child death - over a three-year period
to determine a risk score.40 KPCC’s Andrea Gardner followed with a look at AURA in January.41
When asked for an update in February on the widespread use of AURA, DCFS stated in an email
that “AURA is being independently validated by DCFS. There is a work group working on how
it would be utilized should it be deemed a valid tool.”
“We’ve done a pilot with…SAS and they’ve looked at all sorts of factors and we haven’t come
to a decision if this is a good score or not,” said DCFS’ Director Philip Browning to students at
USC on March 5. “So my hope is that we can come up with a risk assessment tool that would be
something that could assist a social worker, but it can’t make the decision for the social worker.”
What’s Next
“The Office of Child Protection is in the process of scheduling implementation meetings with
key County departments,” Davenport said in an email. The first meeting was set for March 3. “In
addition to County departments, representatives from SEIU will be regular partners in these
38
Los Angeles County: Health Services for Children in the Child Protection System:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/xpanel/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TT_CEO_PHN_10.27.14.pdf
39
Board Moves Forward on Child Protection Recommendations (January 13, 2015): http://ridleythomas.lacounty.gov/index.php/child-protection/
40
Heimpel, Daniel. (October 27, 2014) Preventive Analytics. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/preventive-analytics/8384
41
Gardner, Andrea (Jan. 13, 2015). Can an algorithm predict child abuse? LA County child welfare officials are trying to find
out, Southern California Public Radio - KPCC -: http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/01/13/49191/can-an-algorithm-predict-childabuse-la-county-chi/
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
14
meetings. Workgroups also have been established to create timelines and develop those things
needed for implementation, including policy, training and the PHN/Social Worker pairing
process. It’s also important to note that DCFS currently has a policy requiring joint visits under
certain circumstances.”
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
15
III. General Health and Mental Health
Why It’s Important:
General and mental health refers to services related to the physical and psychological well-being
of children. Medical issues or developmental problems may often be important signs of child
abuse and neglect. Without better medical care or examination, children in Los Angeles County
may be at risk of further maltreatment, injury or other tragic outcomes.
A major part of the county’s strategy to improve health care and examinations to children in
foster care are its seven Medical Hub clinics. Children reported to DCFS go through a
“minimally invasive screening process” at these hubs. Medical Hubs are part of a program that
offers comprehensive medical and mental health screenings and forensic evaluations for both
children in foster care and those at risk of detention. The Medical Hubs concept was created as a
collaboration among DCFS, the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Health
Services.
Dr. Astrid Heger, executive director of the Violence Intervention Program at Los Angeles
County-USC Medical Center and professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern
California, conducted an assessment42 of the strengths and weaknesses of the county’s seven
Medical Hubs last fall. Dr. Heger reported back to the transition team on October 27, 2014, about
the medical hubs, and she stated that she had already seen positive change during the time she
spent on the assessment.
Following is a brief overview of Heger’s findings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
42
VIP-L.A.C.-U.S.C. Medical Center: Needs additional professional staff to provide walkin screenings and forensics for DCFS and shorten wait times.
East San Gabriel Valley: Needs additional administrative and medical staff.
High Desert Ambulatory Health Center: Needs medical leadership; needs forensic
professionals available each day; needs additional medical staff; and needs access to
onsite mental health services and improved access to ongoing mental health services for
foster families.
Olive View-U.C.L.A. Medical Center: Needs additional space and dedicated staff
(current staff are split between assignments, and no staff are dedicated to walk-in
coverage) and needs onsite mental health services.
Harbor-U.C.L.A. Medical Center: Needs additional space/exam rooms; needs space for
mental health services; and needs to extend service hours to 8:00 p.m.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical Center: Needs additional medical staff; needs
organizational chart and leadership; space needs upgrades; needs a special clinic to serve
sexually exploited youth; needs onsite mental health services; and needs to extend service
hours to 8:00 p.m.
Heger, Astrid (November 26, 2013). Blue Ribbon Commission Report: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/82226.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
16
What’s Happened So Far
Funds needed to improve the Medical Hubs had previously been accounted for in the health
services budget, and the Board of Supervisors authorized the $1.9 million allocation on January
13.43
On February 3, the Board of Supervisors voted to relocate the Martin Luther King, Jr. Medical
Hub facility to a property on the southwest corner of 118th St. and Wilmington Ave. in
Willowbrook.44
“I’m confident that we’re in the final stages of figuring out the policies of what kinds of services
we want to provide to which population of foster and investigated children at which point in the
process,” said Supervisor Kuehl’s deputy Chough. “At the minimum, what we need to do to add
an augmentation to the existing hubs in terms of increasing the staff, upgrading the facility, and
adding more hours so we can ensure that there’s no backlog.”
What’s Next
With former transition team co-chair Dr. Mitchell Katz and Dr. Heger keeping an eye on the
process, it is likely that these efforts will continue and progress will be made, in spite of the
daunting task at hand.
“We’re all eager to move on the hubs quickly,” Chough said. “We’ve got different hubs spread
across the different supervisorial districts, and how do we turn on a massive program that no
one’s done before that’s a joint investigation with social workers and the public health nurses?
How do you turn this on when no major jurisdiction has done this before? We want to run this
out slow and learn from our practices as well as take this out to all the different districts. There’s
a lot of complexity—it’s not rocket science but there’s many different kinds of function that the
hubs can provide.”
“The coordination of care across the hubs is a goal on the horizon,” Chough said. “A whole
continuum of care is a priority for Supervisor Kuehl, including programs like nurse-family
visitation, working with the PCIT [parent-child interaction therapy] folks, with the home
visitation, after-care, teen-pregnancy. It’s a matter of weaving together all these pieces of the
quilt to create a stronger network. We can start now--the pieces of the quilt exist now.”
In the October 2014 status update matrix45 created by the county CEO’s office, individuals were
named as responsible parties for a number of the health and mental health recommendations, and
in some cases timelines were specified:
43
Statement of Proceedings for the meeting of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on January 13, 2015.
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/sop/cms1_223381.pdf
44
Statement of Proceedings for the meeting of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on February 3, 2015.
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/sop/cms1_224188.pdf
45
Los Angeles County Health Services for Children in the Child Protection System (October 27, 2014).
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/xpanel/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TT_CEO_Status_Report_10.27.14.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
17
•
•
•
Develop and implement a mandate that non-pharmacological interventions are best
practice -- Dr. Christopher Thompson: 6/30/15
Incorporate trauma-focused assessments and treatments and vulnerability to self-harming
behaviors for teens and transitioning youth -- Terri Boykins: 6/30/15
Provide access to the age-appropriate mental health services for children age 5 and under
in child welfare -- Dr. Sam Chan: 6/30/15
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
18
IV. Workforce & Contracts
Why It’s Important
In December 2013, Los Angeles County social workers went on strike46 to protest high caseloads
and fight for the hiring of more social workers.47 The first strike in more than 10 years by social
workers exposed the difficult conditions faced by DCFS caseworkers.
Frequently overwhelmed with heavy caseloads well above the federal and state recommended
limits,48 caseworkers are often prevented from offering quality service to children in the child
welfare system. In Los Angeles County, social workers often contend with caseloads of more
than 30 per month; national guidelines suggest that a normal caseload is 12 active cases a
month.49,50 And lawyers for children in the county’s Juvenile Dependency Court are also
burdened by dramatically oversized caseloads that impact their ability to offer sufficient services
to their clients.51
“They [caseloads] were in the mid 30s and are now down to 27 in our continued service.
Emergency service is now down to 17. It’s still way too high, no doubt about it,” said DCFS
Director Philip Browning to students at USC on March 5. “We have automated a number of
things that should allow the worker to have more time with the children. Caseloads are critical,
no doubt about it.”
The 14 child deaths (as well as other alarming incidents) described in the 2012 Recurring
Systemic Issues Report52 along with feedback provided to the BRC by a variety of stakeholders
in the community demonstrate that social workers and other front-end caseworkers in the system
are in need of further training. In particular, the BRC’s report suggested specific training be
given to social workers working with children under the age of five. The report also referenced
opportunities for continued learning for DCFS social workers and administrators.
The creation and implementation of a wider set of outcome measures and benchmarks that would
reflect the performance of caseworkers is also being encouraged. For example, the county could
consider tracking the frequency of missed meetings among its social workers.
46
Heimpel, Daniel. (Sept. 23, 2013). Los Angeles Social Workers Plan Walkout. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/los-angeles-social-workers-plan-walkout/4010
47
Mehta, Seema & Sewell, Abby. (December 5, 2013). County social workers strike over pay, high caseloads. Los Angeles
Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-social-worker-strike-20131205-story.html
48
Loudenback, Jeremy. (June 24, 2014). LA County Approves Funding To Hire More Social Workers. The Chronicle of Social
Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/la-county-approves-funding-to-hire-more-social-workers/7299
49
Child Welfare League of America. Guidelines for Computing Caseload Standards:
http://www.cwla.org/programs/standards/caseloadstandards.htm
50
American Humane Association. (2000). SB 2030
Child Welfare Services Workload Study Final Report: http://www.cwda.org/downloads/publications/cws/SB2030Study.pdf
51 ]
Loudenback, Jeremy. (June 18, 2014). California Rejects Bid to Restore Funding for Child Welfare Courts. The Chronicle of
Social Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/la-county-approves-funding-to-hire-more-social-workers/7299
52
Shek Naamani, A. (April 16, 2012) Report Regarding DCFS Recurring Systemic Issues, Children’s Special Investigative Unit,
Board of Supervisors, County of Los Angeles
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
19
What’s Happened So Far
In February, DCFS reported in an email that “our hiring continues and our average continuing
services caseload is 27, down from 32 which it was a year ago.”
Also asked about training, DCFS provided the following updates:
• We have increased the number of “academies” to accommodate our high volume of
new social workers.
• We recently revised the academy training for new social workers to also
accommodate social workers who will go directly to Emergency Response. Previous
academies were designed for new social workers who would report to Continuing
Services.
• We are finalizing the first rollout of posted e-learnings to facilitate accessibility to
training.
• Mr. Browning convened his first meeting of the Training and Staff Development
Advisory Board, a group of inter-disciplinary representatives, to move forward plans
to increase and improve cross-training.
“We developed a case-equity tool that identifies where some areas need more workers than
others,” Browning said on March 5 at USC. “So we have hired 800 new workers and the board
has given more money to hire more workers.”
What’s Next
The October 2014 Status Report from the county CEO’s office listed the following under
“Transparency & Relationship with Providers & the Community”:
•
Adopt outcome measures for performance-based contracting -- Eric Marts: 6/30/15
And under “Training and Workforce Development”:
•
•
•
•
Conduct cross-training with DCFS employees to improve collaboration (include DMH,
DHS, DPH, Dependency Court, Probation) -- Madeline Roachell: 6/30/15 (Estimated
cost: $12 million)
Train personnel (in-house and contract agencies) on how to most effectively work with
age 0-5 population and their families/caretakers -- Madeline Roachell: 3/31/15
University Center for the Child and the Family (UCCF) to submit an annual report on
outcomes aligned with County’s vision -- Madeline Roachell: 6/30/15
Create innovative training for social workers & supervisors; include audit to address
workload -- Patricia Willems-Dennis: 3/31/15
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
20
V. Child Placement
Why It’s Important
Social workers frequently struggle to find adequate placements for children, spending hours
making phone calls or otherwise looking for beds.53
According to the BRC’s final report, as of March 2014, the number of children in out-of-home
placement was 20,676, an increase of 1,257 from the previous year. The most recent available
statistics cited in DCFS’ Biennial Report for 2013-2014 indicate that there are 3,016 private
foster family agency (FFA) homes with 7,113 beds and 586 DCFS-recruited homes with 1,745
beds.54
The distinction between private FFA homes and county-administered homes is an important one.
Many in the child welfare community have questioned the efficacy of having a foster family
placement system that uses both private and public providers.
In December 2013, The Los Angeles Times attempted to shed light on this issue in an extended
feature story.55 While the story did show some significant discrepancies in services offered at
private and public homes, many in the child welfare community, particularly researchers,
questioned the rigor of the Times’ analysis of instances of abuse.
In short, there are too few beds, and too few quality beds. Further, the process of locating those
beds is encumbered by a bifurcated public/private system that has grown more frenetically than
intentionally.
What’s Happened So Far
Last October, Los Angeles County submitted to the state of California a “non-binding letter of
intent” to participate in the relative caregiver funding option program, Counties were waiting for
clarification from the state on how caregiver payments will be calculated, and how the funding
stream may intersect with federal requirements under Title IV-E.56
The Board of Supervisors voted to officially opt into the state Approved Relative Caregiver
funding plan on March 3.57,58 The motion read:
53
Ling, L., Bucher, A., Terp, L., Heimpel, D. (July 3, 2014). Children of the System. Our America with Lisa Ling, The Oprah
Winfrey Network: http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Children-of-the-System
54
Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services Biennial Report for 2013-2014.
http://lacdcfs.org/aboutus/documents/Biennial_Report_LA_Kids.pdf
55
Therolf, Garrett. (Dec. 18, 2013). Private foster care system, intended to save children, endangers some. The Los Angeles
Times: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-foster-care-dto-htmlstory.html#ixzz2nprlV8iw
56
Loudenback, Jeremy (September 4, 2014). L.A. County Weighs Accessing New Money for Relative Caregivers. The Chronicle
of Social Change. Retrieved from https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/l-a-county-weighs-accessing-new-money-forrelative-caregivers/8036
57
SFV Media (March 3, 2015). L.A. County Opts Into Paying Relatives To Adopt Would-Be Foster Kids.
http://sfvmedia.com/sfv/l-county-opts-paying-relatives-adopt-foster-kids/
58
Motion by Supervisors Kuehl And Knabe filed on March 3. http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/91922.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
21
“We, therefore, move that the Board of Supervisors direct the Director of the Department
of Children and Family Services to send a letter to the California Department of Social
Services (CDSS) to: (1) express our gratitude for State leadership and support of this
important, long-overdue program, (2) opt-in to the ARC program by March 15, 2015,
and, (3) inform CDSS that we are working to resolve outstanding implementation issues
and participation in the program will commence at the earliest possible time, and no later
than June 1, 2015 to ensure retroactivity for eligible program participants.”
Advocates are optimistic that this funding stream will make a difference for kin caregivers. “LA
County has taken an important step forward by opting into ARC,” said Angie Schwartz, policy
director for the Alliance for Children’s Rights via email. “L.A. relies on kinship caregivers –
with over 40% of its children placed in kinship care. These families are the unsung heroes of our
child welfare system and now, for the first time, they will finally receive the basic level of
support that is provided to all other foster families.”
In terms of foster home recruitment and placement, DCFS reported advances with the foster care
search engine and involving foster youth in assessing and evaluating foster homes, according to
the February 25 transition team report to the Board of Supervisors.59
What’s Next:
The transition team received a report on February 3, 2015, that the assessment of foster care
recruitment recommended by the BRC is underway, with findings anticipated by April 2015.
The October 2014 Status Report from the county CEO’s office included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Ensure relative caregivers are more fully supported to address a range of needs (i.e.
resource center) -- Rhelda Shabazz: 3/31/15 (Estimated cost: $1 million)
Determine a more streamlined county licensing system for foster homes and supports
for relatives -- Rhelda Shabazz: 3/31/15
Conduct an independent analysis of non-relative foster family recruitment efforts -Rhelda Shabazz: 3/31/15 (funded by the Pritzker Foundation)
Develop a computerized, real-time system to identify available and appropriate
placements based on the specific needs of the child -- Cecilia Custodio (departmentwide implementation is currently ongoing)
Involve foster youth in rating and assessment of foster homes -- Rhelda Shabazz:
12/31/14
59
Report to the Board of Supervisors from the Transition Team for the Office Of Child Protection (March 3, 2015)
http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/91934.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
22
VI. Law Enforcement
Why It’s Important
Although DCFS is typically thought of as the first responder to reports of child abuse, law
enforcement plays a substantial role. In 2013, Los Angeles County’s 46 law enforcement
agencies received 52,109 reports of child maltreatment from DCFS and sent officers to
investigate on nearly 80 percent of cases, according to data from the Office of the Los Angeles
County District Attorney obtained by The Chronicle of Social Change.60
However, within those figures, there remains a high degree of inconsistency in the response of
law enforcement agencies across the county. For the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,
97 percent of child maltreatment cases were investigated. For other law enforcement agencies in
Inglewood, Long Beach and La Verne, rates of in-person investigation were far lower, exposing
wide variations in the way child abuse and neglect is addressed across the county.
“What we need is a change in philosophy,” said Tom Sirkel, who retired as operations and
training lieutenant of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Special Victims Bureau
after 39 years in the organization. “Law enforcement agencies shouldn’t get to choose which
cases they go out to. Like the Sheriff's Department, they need to roll out to every call.”61
Sirkel and others have suggested that the way in which allegations of child maltreatment are
investigated should be rethought. Currently, some law-enforcement departments only give
allegations immediate attention and an in-person visit when the allegations are perceived to have
risen to the level of a crime.
“There are many opportunities to do things better with a focus on child safety,” said Lisa
Mandel, Supervisor Kuehl’s chief deputy. “E-SCARS is an example--the reporting of child
maltreatment to law enforcement. Before they didn’t all cross-report. Some did, some didn’t.”
What’s Happened So Far
In November 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved the request to release funding62 to support
E-SCARS within the District Attorney’s Office as well as DCFS, where the system is housed and
maintained. One month later the county CEO’s office reported that DCFS had discretionary
funds it would use for E-SCARS, rather than drawing down the board-approved funding.
60
Heimpel, Daniel. (May 8, 2014). New “Explosive” Figures on Law Enforcement Response to Child Abuse in LA County. The
Chronicle of Social Change: https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/analysis/rolling-the-dice-on-child-abuse-in-long-beach-lacounty/6517
61
Loudenback, Jeremy. (July 15, 2014). Long Beach Backs Child Abuse Investigation Policies. The Chronicle of Social Change:
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/long-beach-backs-child-abuse-investigation-policies/7503
62
Renick, Christie. “Child Abuse Reporting System Gets Needed Funding in Los Angeles.” November 6, 2014.
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/news/child-abuse-reporting-system-gets-needed-funding-in-los-angeles/8535
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
23
“We’re excited to get the funding for the unit and we are in the process of interviewing for the
paralegal positions,” said Mike Gardjiullo, who oversees the auditing of the E-SCARS Unit at
the DA’s Office, in an interview. “We’ve done our best on training and oversight without
additional funding, and we look forward to seeing the unit grow once the funding comes through.
We’ve really ramped up training about cross reporting within our office, and across different
branches.”
What’s Next
DCFS should soon designate staff (or hire a contractor) to focus on the maintenance and
upgrading of E-SCARS, and with the hiring of additional staff the E-SCARS unit at the District
Attorney’s office should be ramping up to conduct more thorough audits and provide more
trainings to law enforcement across the county.
The October 2014 Status Report63 from the county CEO’s office included the following:
•
•
All Sheriffs and local law enforcement agencies must cross report every child abuse
allegation to DCFS -- Joseph Esposito: TBD
Training of all levels of law enforcement officers must be enhanced to include sufficient
initial and recurrent training on child abuse and E-SCARS -- Joseph Esposito: TBD
63
Los Angeles County CEO’s Office: October 2014 Status Update of BRCCP Recommendations. (October 27, 2014).
https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/xpanel/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TT_CEO_Status_Report_10.27.14.pdf
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
24
Conclusion
The purpose of this quarterly checkup is to assess the health of the child protection reform effort
in Los Angeles County.
In the 11 months since the Blue Ribbon Commission on Child Protection issued its final report,
county leaders have given weight to the work conducted by the BRC by voting to implement the
commission’s recommendations, creating a transition team to help shepherd the implementation
of its ideas, and, finally, by establishing the new Office of Child Protection.
County leadership has made strides in moving an enormous administration closer to better
protecting children, most notably by:
•
•
•
•
Hiring an interim director for the Office of Child Protection
Authorizing funds needed to expand the Medical Hubs system and implement the pairing
of public health nurses with social workers
Opting into the state’s funding stream to equalize payments made to relative caregivers
Adopting a countywide child protection mission statement
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services fields more than 150,000
allegations of child abuse a year, oversees the cases of 30,000 families whose children have been
victims of substantiated abuse and takes care of 15,000 children who have been removed from
their biological parents. It is the largest child welfare system in the world.
While the process to tackle such a complex public policy challenge is daunting, the county has
stayed the course.
As the process rolls forward into new territory with the creation of the Office of Child
Protection, we at FMC hope that those outside of the county administration will help it maintain
the county’s focus on the continued challenge ahead.
The fourth quarterly checkup will be issued in June 2015. In this edition we will focus on the
status of the initiatives, individuals and timelines identified in the matrix created by the county
CEO’s office last October. We welcome feedback and ideas about other areas where we might
direct our attention for the next edition.
We can be reached at [email protected] or 415-416-6187.
www.fosteringmediaconnections.org
25