DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE AND OUTCOMES DATA

Demographic Profile (Both CWS-FC and general population)-Orange County Data Report

Demographics of General Population

Based on Census 2001 Supplementary Summary estimates, Orange County's population numbered 2,939,547, making it the second largest county in California, trailing behind Los Angeles County. Nationwide, Orange County ranks as the fifth most populated county. Orange County has averaged a 2% annual population increase since 1990 and growth is expected to continue with population projections of over 3 million by 2005, and over 3.6 million by 2030.

Orange County continues to experience increasing racial and ethnic diversification of its population. According to the Census 2001 Supplementary Summary, 50.5% of the County's population is Non-Hispanic White. Hispanics or Latinos of any race accounted for 31.8% of the County's population. All other races and ethnicities did not show significant change, maintaining at 13.5% for Non-Hispanic Asians, and 1.5% for Non-Hispanic Blacks or African-Americans, with all other races at 3%. Of the total youth population under 18 years of age, 42.4% were Hispanic or Latino of any race. By examining the Census data by racial category, Non-Hispanic White youths were 39.9% of the total youth population ages 0 to 17 in Orange County. Non-Hispanic Asian youths were 12.0%, non-Hispanic Black or African Americans were 1.8%, and "some other race alone" were 20.5%. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders youths were only 0.4% of the youth population in Orange County and American Indian or Native Alaskan youths were 0.8%. Of all the youths in Orange County, 6.4% were of two or more races. In the years to come, the County's racial and ethnic diversification will primarily continue as a result of natural increases (births minus deaths), in contrast to migration and relocation.

Orange County's population is relatively young, with a median age of 32 years. While the bulk of the County's residents fall into the 35 to 54 year age-range, projected growth among the various age groups differs by ethnicity. The proportion of Non-Hispanic White residents from the "Baby Boomer" generation is expected to increase as they age and begin to retire, while all other races and ethnicities show significant growth in the child and young adult populations. In addition, Orange County's population under the age of 18 will increase. In 2000 the under 18 population rose to 768,419, 7% higher than the 717,547 in 1997. It is estimated that by the year 2010, the population under the age of 18 will reach 885,353 children, with the 10 to 17 age group being the most rapidly growing cohort. It will number 407,333, compared to 240,715 for the 0 to 4 age group and 237,305 for the 5 to 9 age group.

Education Level

In 2001/02 there was a total of 2,532 high school dropouts, which represents 1.7% of the total enrollment of 9-12 grade students in 2001/02. This compares favorably to the state one year dropout rate of 2.7%.

In 2001/02, there was a four year derived high school dropout rate of 7%, which is lower than the statewide four year derived rate of 10.9%. In Orange County, Santa Ana Unified School District had the highest four year derived dropout rate of 9.6% and Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District had the lowest four year derived rate of 1.6%. The one year high school dropout rates are highly disproportionate across different ethnic groups. Hispanic or Latino dropouts had the highest rate of 2.8%, followed by African American (2.4%), Pacific Islander (1.5%), Non-Hispanic White (1.3%), American Indian or Alaska Native (1.2%), Asian (0.8%), and Filipino (0.4%).

The four year derived dropout rate has declined slightly from 7.9 in 1998/99 to 7.0 in 2001/02. In Orange County, 78.8% of the population over 25 years of age had completed high school in 2001.

According to Census 2000, nationally 33% of high school graduates ages 25 to 29 had earned a bachelor's or a higher degree. In Orange County, 31% of high school graduates aged 25 and over had earned a bachelor's or higher degree.

(Please note that the Demographics and Education information above is from The 9th Annual Report on the Conditions of Children in Orange County 2003, an annual report sponsored by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Children and Families Commission of Orange County.)

Economy

In recent years Orange County has grown to be one of the strongest regional economies. The gross county product (GCP) was forecasted to reach $133 billion in 2001. The "Chapman Model" projects average annual job growth of 1.6% in 2003, the lowest growth in nearly a decade, of roughly 23,000 new jobs. While the County's rate of job growth has slowed from past years, median family income also declined to $75,600 in 2003. As of March 2003, the civilian labor force was approximately 1.52 million people. The number of employed persons was 1.51 million during the same month. Over the 2002-05 period, job growth is forecasted to increase by approximately 143,000 jobs.

Socioeconomics

According to March 2003 figures, the unemployment rate for Orange County was 3.8%, up from .2% the prior year. Although the unemployment rate has consistently been below state and national averages, poverty, on the other hand, has increased in both number and proportion. Of more concern is that poverty rates are highest among persons under 18 years of age; between 16.7% to 31.5% of Orange County children were living in poverty in 1999. Even in communities with large numbers of wealthy people and high average incomes, there may also be large numbers of people with low incomes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2001, 11.7% of the population lived below the official federal poverty guidelines (FPL 2001, family of four, $17,650) In 2003, the federal poverty level (FPL) for a family of four (two adults and two related children) was $18,400 compared to the FPL of $16,276 in 1997.

In 2001/2002, 5% of Orange County children (19,520) received nonassistance food stamps through the Orange County Social Services Agency. However, in 2001/2002, 289,475 residents were eligible for the Food Stamp Program with only 32,809 receiving services, leaving 75.4% not accessing services. In 2001/2002 there were 103,264 Orange County participants served by WIC, up from 20,138 in 1990/1991.

With respect to affordable housing, Orange County continues to be among the most inaccessible places to live for low and moderate-income earners, with the average monthly rent being $1,206. In 2002, the fair market rent on a one-bedroom apartment reached $934, $1,155 for a 2-bedroom apartment and $1,607 for a 3-bedroom apartment. The hourly wage needed for a household to afford the fair market rent of a one-bedroom apartment was $17.96, for a 2 bedroom apartment was $22.21, and a 3-bedroom apartment was $30.90. In addition, only 22% of Orange County households could afford to buy the median price home at $432,630 in July 2002, up 20.3% from July 2001. Only 37.7% of homes sold during the first quarter of 2002 were affordable to a family earning the median income of $75,600.

Health Care

As of January 31, 2003, 163,433 children were enrolled in Medi-Cal. In addition,

62,470 children were enrolled in Healthy Families, 309 children in Kaiser Permanente's Cares for Kids and 4,270 in California Kids. Children not enrolled in a health plan are eligible for health assessments through the CHDP program, which provided over 140,000 health exams to children in 2001/02.

A survey conducted by the Orange County Health Needs Assessment in 2001

(OCHNA) found that approximately 69,000 (9%) Orange County children remain

uninsured, a decrease from the 90,000 (13%) uninsured children estimated in 1998. Of all children with no health care coverage, 49% are Hispanic or Latino, 37% Non-Hispanic White, 6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 4% Vietnamese, 2% African American, and 2% other. This is consistent with the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) of 2001, which found that 9.8% (74,970) are uninsured. In addition, the CHIS found that 51,000 uninsured children are eligible for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.

From January 1999 to January 2003, enrollment in Medi-Cal and Healthy Families alone has increased by 87%. With the implementation of Healthy Families in July 1998, and Kaiser Permanente's Cares for Kids in September 1998, there has been an improvement in access to health care services for low-income families. The Access for Infants and Mothers (AIM) program founded in 1992 enrolls approximately 30 to 40 expectant mothers and infants each month for services. In January 2003, AIM served 38 mothers and infants. In addition, California Kids Healthcare Foundation was founded in 1992 as a non-profit organization that provides premium-subsidized preventive and primary healthcare services to uninsured children ages 2 through 18. As of April 1, 2003, 5,496 children were enrolled in the program.

In 2001, the Children's Healthcare Access Initiative (CHAI) was formed to address the large number of children who did not have access to medical services and comprehensive health insurance. CHAI is a public-private effort whose mission is to ensure all Orange County children have access to health care and a medical home. In 2003, CHAI began working with local organizations to develop strategies for families to increase access to health care as part of its strategic plan to increase the number of children enrolled in health insurance programs.

Enrollment continues to grow and participants are being encouraged to take advantage of the services available. However, no data are available on the number of enrollees who actually use medical services or on the number or type of services enrollees use. In addition, between 2 - 3% of children enrolled in Healthy Families disenroll from the program in any given month.

Education System Profile

Enrollment

Paralleling the growth in youth population in Orange County, public school enrollment has also increased 31% since 1991/92 (390,908 students). A total of 517,218 students were recorded in Fall 2003. The total public school enrollment increased 28% between 1993/94 and 2003/04. Orange County schools continue to serve an ever-growing population of pupils with diverse language and educational needs.

For Spring, 2003, English Language Learners (ELL) students accounted for 159,145 (30.7%) of the K-12 students in Orange County. In 2003/2004, 198,540 (38.%) students of Orange County's total public school enrollment participated in the Free and Reduced Lunch program (FRL).

There are 28 school districts serving K-12 students in Orange County. Fall 2003 enrollment indicates that Orange County Elementary school districts had a total of 101,703 students, 20% of the total public school enrollment. The Orange County high school districts' enrollment was 64,556 students, or 12.2% of the total enrollment. The highest enrollment for Fall 2003 was for the unified school districts with 342,342 students, 66% of the total enrollment. Orange County Department of Education operated schools had an enrollment of 8,617 students, 1.6% of the total enrollment.

Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity

In 1991/92, the Non-Hispanic White student population represented the largest racial or ethnic group in the county's K-12 public school enrollment at 50.7%. Hispanic or Latino students were the second largest racial or ethnic group representing 33.1% of students, followed by 13.5% Asian, Pacific Islander, or Filipino; 2.1% Black; and 0.5% American Indian or Alaska Native. In contrast, in Fall, 2003, the largest racial or ethnic student group represented in the county was the Hispanic or Latino student population at 44.05%. The non-Hispanic White student population was the second largest racial or ethnic group representing 37.26% of students, followed by 12.39% Asian, 1.85% African American, 1.6% Filipino, .6% Pacific Islander, .53% American Indian and 1.71% other.

Special Education

As of December 1, 2002, there were 50,555 (9.8%) special education students in Orange County. The number will be recalculated in November for December 1, 2003.

API Data

Orange County has been collecting API score data since 1999/2000. In the four years since API data collection began, Orange County schools have increased in API scores. The districts with greatest improvements were seen in Santa Ana Unified (27%), Fullerton Elementary (23.9%), and La Habra City (20.6%). The average API scores across all Orange County school districts ranged from 528 (Huntington Beach Union) to 820 (Fountain Valley Elementary). In 2003, 45% of all schools In Orange County were above 800.

CWS OUTCOMES AND C-CFSR DATA INDICATORS

OUTCOME 1: Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

Outcome Indicators 1A and 1B-Recurrence of Maltreatment

This measure reflects the percent of children who were victims of child abuse/neglect with a subsequent substantiated report of abuse or neglect within specific time periods.

Orange County's rate of recurrence of abuse or neglect within the specified time period is 5.8%. This is lower than the national standard of 6.1%, and significantly lower than the California average of 11.2%. Low rates of recurrence of abuse or neglect validates Orange County's efforts to prioritize child safety as the number one concern for all CFS staff. Summarized below are some things that Orange county does well in preventing recurrence of abuse, as well as some issues that may contribute to the reported level of re-abuse.

Resource Issues

· Orange County policy does not require a substantiated allegation to provide voluntary Family Maintenance services. This policy results in the provision of intensive preventive/early intervention services to families before areas of concern escalate and require court intervention.

· The wide range of services available to Orange County families, both with and without court intervention, provide families with supportive services that reduce the risk of subsequent abuse.

· The currently reduced availability of community services due to budget constraints results may result in fewer supportive services to at-risk families, particularly if current budget cuts continue.

Data Entry Issues

· Staff who screen and investigate allegations may not enter duplicate reports (reports of child abuse or neglect that have already been investigated) appropriately in CWS/CMS, resulting in duplicate counts for the same incidences of abuse or neglect.

· Reports of historical abuse received after children begin receiving services appear as subsequent abuse in CWS/CMS. The field in CWS/CMS indicating date of abuse is rarely completed, so queries of subsequent abuse include reports of historical abuse.

Practice Issues

· The SDM Risk and Safety Assessments are completed for all cases where allegations of child abuse or neglect are investigated. Cases indicating unresolved safety issues are opened for court-ordered or voluntary services. Cases with no immediate safety issues, but with elevated levels of risk for further abuse, are provided either voluntary CFS family maintenance services, or are referred for community-based services.

· Families who do not present with immediate safety issues requiring court intervention, but who are at risk for future abuse or neglect may refuse voluntary services. The Agency's inability to follow up with these families leaves them without needed services, and therefore vulnerable to recurrences of abuse or neglect.

· Increased services to a family may result in increased child abuse reporting as mandated reporters become aware of previously unreported issues. This does not necessarily indicate reoccurrence of abuse so much as it is a reflection of the increased focus on the family.

Quality Development Activities

· Training for CFS staff regarding safety and risk assessments has been enhanced to increase workers' ability to complete accurate assessments and provide an appropriate level of services. Mandated refresher training for Structured Decision Making (SDM) tools was completed by all staff in March, 2003.

Outcome Indicators 1C-Rate of child abuse and/or neglect in Foster Care

This measure reflects the percent of children in foster care who are abused or neglected while in foster care placement. Due to current data constraints, the data is limited to children who are in licensed foster homes or FFA foster homes.

Orange County's rate of abuse or neglect of children in licensed and certified foster homes within the specified time period is .20%. This rate is lower than the national standard of .57%, and only one quarter of the California average of .81%. This data indicates that Orange County does an excellent job of placing children in safe homes, and then providing the on-going supervision and support necessary to maintain safety. Additionally, feedback from stakeholders, including emancipated youth, provides experiential validation for data reporting a low incidence of abuse in care. Issues that may impact the rate of abuse and/or neglect of children in foster care include:

Practice Issues

· Orange County contracts with the State to license its own foster homes. The licensing social workers provide additional support and information to foster families. Additional support is provided through a foster care liaison and three support social workers, as well as a dedicated unit of social workers known as "The Team" who enhance caregivers' abilities to care safely for children through education and training.

· A group of social workers monitor quality of care in group homes, and investigate allegations of abuse and neglect in foster homes, FFA homes and group homes.

Probation Department

· The Probation Department has a dedicated deputy probation officer position that monitors group homes on an annual basis as well as responding to any situations that require investigation.

· The Probation Department has a part-time deputy probation officer who serves as the Foster Family Agency Coordinator. She meets with them on a monthly basis, and provides other support as needed.

Other Systemic Issues

· Data in this area has been captured for abuse in licensed and FFA foster homes only. Data regarding abuse in group homes and relative/NREFM homes was not previously captured in CWS/CMS. The CWS/CMS application was recently changed to address this issue.

· Feedback from emancipated youth indicates that group home staff may escalate staff and youth involved in confrontations. Further training in de-escalation is suggested.

Probation Department

· Probation officers see probation placement youth at the placement facility at a minimum of one time per month.

Quality Development Activities

· Stakeholder feedback indicates that some out of home abuse may not be identified because social workers do not always see children away from their caregivers. The Agency has recently adopted a policy regarding child contacts:

· Children are to be seen monthly. At least every other month, the contact is to occur in the child's home, with his or her caregiver present, and with an opportunity to meet with the child alone.

OUTCOME 1: CONCLUSION

Orange County has continued to perform well in the area of protecting children from subsequent abuse. Although prevention of recurrence of maltreatment will continue to be a priority in Orange County, this factor will not be included in the County's System Improvement Plan.

Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

Outcome Indicator 2A-Rate of Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect in Homes Where Children Were Not Removed

This measure reflects the occurrence of abuse or neglect of children who remain in their own homes while receiving child welfare services following a substantiated allegation of child abuse or neglect.

Orange County data indicates an 8.0% of recurrence of abuse under these circumstances, in contrast to a state average of 9.5%. As this is a state standard only, no national standard is available. Factors supporting the low rate of recurrence of abuse and neglect when children are not removed include:

Practice Issues

· Orange County does not require a substantiated allegation to provide voluntary family maintenance services (FMNC) to at-risk families who do not require court intervention. As of April, 2004, there were 1,093 children and their families receiving FMNC services.

· The Structured Decision Making (SDM) tool is used by Emergency Response staff to make decisions regarding child removal and provision of follow-up services.

· SDM is utilized to ensure that the most intensive services such as family preservation are reserved for the families at greatest risk of abuse.

· FMNC staff attempt to meet SDM contact guidelines for targeted high and very high risk cases. This includes 3 contacts per month for a high-risk family, and 4 for a very high-risk family.

Resource Issues

· Family resource centers, funded in-part through SSA, provide strength-based, community accessible services to families in some of Orange County's neediest communities.

· FM court families are eligible for all, or almost all services available to families receiving reunification services, resulting in a wide array of high-quality services for families who's children are in their homes.

Process Measure 2B-Percent of Child Abuse/Neglect Referrals with a Timely Response

This is a process measure designed to determine the percent of cases in which face to face contact with a child occurs, or is attempted, within the regulatory time frames in those situations in which a determination is made that the abuse or neglect allegations indicate significant danger to the child.

Orange County's compliance with timely social worker visits is 94%, with a 99% compliance rate for response to situations where children are in immediate danger. Issues that have enabled staff to respond quickly to reports of child abuse and neglect include:

Practice Issues

· Use of the Structured Decision Making (SDM) Response Priority Tool to establish consistent response times on child abuse and neglect referrals (.e.g. Immediate or within 10-days, depending on suspected immediacy of danger to the child).

· It is Orange County's policy to expect a response to a child abuse report indicating imminent danger to a child within 2 to 4 hours under most circumstances. This immediate turn around time for emergency referrals has resulted in an increased ability to protect children, and also a very high degree of compliance with state-mandated time requirements.

Quality Development Activities

· Specified procedures were developed to streamline processing time for new child abuse referrals, resulting in very short time lines from receipt of the report to assignment of a senior social worker to make contact with the child victim(s) and investigate the allegations.

Process Measure 2C-Timely Social Worker Visits with Child

This is a process measure designed to determine if social workers are seeing the children on a monthly basis when that is required.

Orange County averages as compared with California averages are as follows:

April, 2003

May, 2003

June, 2003

CA

OC

CA

OC

CA

OC

84.6%

94.1

85.2

94.3%

85.8

94.3%

Orange County's compliance with timely social worker contacts on continuing cases is higher than the state average, and is in the 94% percentile, which is an acceptable level of compliance. However, due to the importance of regular contact between social worker and child as the foundation for ensuring child safety and adequate provision of services, Orange County has analyzed factors that impact contacts, and has implemented over the past year several strategies to maintain consistent compliance in this area.

Quality Development Activities

· Supervisor conferences are held at least monthly, and more often for new social workers, as needed.

· Supervisors complete quarterly case quality reviews and verify contacts with selected families.

· Business Objects Reports that track contacts are run monthly. Results drill down to the program, unit, worker and case level. These results are shared at monthly managers meetings, and problem solving is used to increase timely and consistent completion of monthly contacts.

· Enhanced training is in process regarding data entry of contacts, timelines for data entry, and entering waivers into CWS/CMS.

· A new Policy and Procedure has been issued describing contact mandates, including data entry requirements.

Probation Department

· Probation contact standards for minors in placement are a minimum of one time per month. Contacts are reviewed monthly by the placement supervisor to ensure compliance.

OUTCOME 2: CONCLUSION

Orange County has a low occurrence of abuse of children in foster care, and a high rate of compliance in monthly contacts. However, as consistent, timely contacts are an essential element to ensure child safety and service provision, CFS management will continue to monitor current practice and foster on-going quality improvement in this area.

Outcome 3: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

Outcome Indicator 3A and 3E-Length of Time to Exist Foster Care to Reunification

This is an outcome measure reflecting the percent of children reunified within 12 months of removal from their home.

Data from the specified reporting period indicates that 57.2% of children were reunified within 12 months, compared to a national standard of 76.2% and a California state average of 65.3%. When looking at entry cohort data, Orange County has a rate of reunifying within 12 months of 33.2%, as compared to a California statewide standard of 34.6%.

Orange County has not seen notable changes in this indicator over the years. Federal outcomes trends from 1999 to the present show Orange County consistently in the 50+% range, which is well below the federal standard of 76.2%. Issues that impact performance in this area include:

Data entry issues:

· Placements need to be entered correctly and timely, especially for Trial Visits/AWOL/Absconded Children.

· Placement episodes need to be ended correctly and timely.

Practice issues:

· Diversion of lower risk families to voluntary and court-ordered family maintenance services results in a family reunification population that represents higher risk and safety levels, resulting in longer times to reunification.

· Orange County data shows that children placed with relatives reunify more slowly than children in foster and group homes. Orange County is committed to placing children with relatives whenever possible, but the slower reunification rate needs to be analyzed and addressed.

· Inconsistent approach to case management, including early engagement of parents in services, delays reunification. This may be particularly true for families with substance abuse issues.

· Staff sometimes struggle when making recommendations to reunify as they must balance both current and historical risk issues.

· CFS staff need to maintain attitudes towards parents and families that are strength- based to facilitate reunification. Stakeholder feedback indicates that the following social worker practices support reunification:

· Timely return of phone calls

· Provision of emotional support to parents, do not be punitive or threatening

· Focusing on one or two short term goals, providing accountability with consistent feedback and reinforcement.

Caregiver issues:

· Caregivers need to be recruited and trained with permanency in mind. Caregivers can provide mentoring to parents, increasing the possibility of reunification and decreasing time to reunification.

· Caregivers and group home providers must be accountable for placement retention, possibly through an outcomes-based contract process.

Judicial issues:

· Contested cases may go 6 months beyond detention before reaching jurisdictional and dispositional findings. This extended trial phase results in lost time for social workers to concentrate on service provision, and for parents to focus on completing services that will support reunification.

· Issues with court timelines delay reunification, including:

· All areas of the judicial system serving children and families (Court, Attorneys, Court Officers, County Counsel & CFS) need to be knowledgeable about and committed to the ASFA timeframes when making decisions or setting hearings and continuances. Timely permanency needs to be seen as everyone's job, sooner and throughout life of case

· Orange County Juvenile Court may tend to take a conservative approach due to appellate decisions, which then encourages Orange County attorneys, judges and CFS staff to be conservative in making reunification recommendations and decisions. As a result of this cautious approach, earlier reunification with supports in place to remediate ongoing risk factors is not attempted.

Other Systemic Issues

· The lack of appropriate, affordable housing is a key issue for residents of Orange County, and results in delays in reunification.

· The lack of rehab/sober living facilities that allow parent and child to be in placement together results in parents enrolling in residential treatment facilities that are not family or child friendly, delaying reunification.

Quality Development Activities

· Orange County has increased accountability for decisions regarding custody, placement and replacements through the First Step Assessment Center, Orangewood Children's Home admission reviews at the Deputy Director level, Team Decision Making and Placement Preservation Meetings.

· Other programs currently in place, such as Wraparound, Multi Disciplinary Review Team, Children's System of Care, Family Group Decision Making and implementation of the Family to Family core strategies support timely reunification.

Outcome Indicator 3A and 3D-Length of Time to Exit Foster Care to Adoption

This is an outcome measure that reflects the percent of children adopted within 24 months of removal of a child from the home.

Although Orange County's rate of children exiting foster care to adoption within 24 months has been low for the last 5 years, recent trends are very encouraging and reflect the Agency's efforts to expedite adoptions to meet the needs of children and families:

This increase in the number of children achieving timely adoption is a significant contrast to the downward trend exhibited from 1999 to 2002:

The most recent outcomes indicating that 24.1% of the adoptions in calendar year 2003 were completed within 24 months of removal is in keeping with the California statewide average of 23.6%. However, this outcome still falls short of the national standard of 32.0%. Although recent concentrated efforts to provide intensive concurrent planning services and to improve time to adoption are showing marked success, there is a continued need for expedited permanency for children. Issues that may be impacting Orange County's rate to adoption include:

Practice Issues

· In Orange County, the concurrent planning process is initiated during the dependency investigations phase, but needs to be integrated throughout the life of the case.

· Children assessed as having a poor prognosis for reunification during the dependency investigations phase are referred for placement in a concurrent planning home, and the assessment for adoptability process begins.

· Early concurrent planning has been successful. A recent research project analyzing a sample of concurrent planning placements indicated that:

· When the initial prognosis for reunification is positive, the child is assessed for adoptability and then placed in a relative/NREFM or regular licensed foster home. Responsibility for concurrent planning for that child is then transferred to the continuing worker, with support from adoptions staff.

· If reunification is not successful, the assigned continuing social worker is to complete a Permanency Planning Assessment form 90 days prior to the permanency hearing to assign the case to the Adoptions Program. However, this sometimes does not occur until the 366.26 hearing is set.

Judicial Issues

Systemic Issues

· Adoptive families may slow the process by not completing paperwork in a timely manner. This may be particularly true with relative adoptions as the relative may have ambivalent feelings about becoming the legal parent.

· As Orange County CFS attempts to find adoptive homes for older and special needs children thought to not be adoptable in the past, the time to adoption statistics will be negatively impacted.

· The California Adoption Initiative generated a large number of adoptive placements, including placements for children for whom an adoptive home had not been previously identified. Although this expanded adoption placements for some children, it negatively impacted the overall time to adoption rates.

· Appropriate funding is needed for CFS to identify and approve adoption placement resources.

· Focus groups with emancipated foster youth have indicated that children's special needs, especially the expressed needs of older children to maintain their own identity (e.g. last names) and their connection to their birth families needs to be considered. Adoption may not be the best plan for all children needing permanency. It is important that each child and family be evaluated individually, and that staff talk with children about permanency, carefully listening to the child's concerns and needs.

· Community feedback indicates a discrepancy between services available for the adoptive child and a foster child, e.g. Independent Living Program services, college scholarships, and agency support when seeking services for special needs of children. These services are not only financial, but involve the need for ongoing supportive consultation and services.

· AAP funding could possibly be used for Wraparound services to support adoptive placements after finalization. Legislative change would be required.

Quality Development Activities

· In June 2004 representatives from the Family Access to Stabilization Team (FAST) trained CFS staff and community stakeholders about reconnecting children with relatives and significant others from their past. This information increased staff's understanding of the importance and the viability of identifying and supporting a significant person in the life of each child. Identification of significant people in the life of children increases permanency options.

· Permanency Planning Mediation training was provided to all continuing and adoptions social workers in June, 2004. This was mandatory training. Additionally, there is a new Policy and Procedure outlining staff's responsibilities in this area.

Probation Department

· Probation Placement staff participated in the June 2004 FAST training and hope to increase the number of minors who are able to be placed with relatives as opposed to group home facilities.

Outcome Indicator 3B and 3C-Stability of Foster Care Placement

These measures reflect the number of children with multiple placements within 12 months of placement.

Federal outcome information (point in time) indicates that 73.6% of children in placement experienced 2 or less placements in twelve months. This compares with the national standard of 86.7% and the California state average of 83.9%. State data (entry cohort) indicates 1-2 placements for 48.7% of the Orange County children in foster care, compared with a California state average of 63.2%. Although Orange County needs to improve stability of placement for foster children, the 5 year trend indicates that some improvement has already occurred:

Issues that may impact stability of foster care placements include:

Data Entry Issues:

· Placements need to be entered correctly and timely, especially for Trial Visits/AWOL/Absconded Children.

· Placement episodes need to be ended correctly and timely.

· Caregiver moves need to be documented correctly, as a move rather than a change of placement for the child.

· Guardianship granted to a legal guardian needs to be entered timely and correctly so it does not show as a new placement.

· Admissions to the First Step Assessment Center need to be entered correctly as non-foster care.

Practice Issues

· Stakeholders noted that foster families and group homes must have stronger responsibility/accountability to making placements work. Orange County CFS needs to effectively communicate to staff and caregivers the expectation that despite difficult child behaviors, placements must remain stable.

· Better training of foster and group home staff is needed to address the behaviors of high risk/special needs children in an effort to increase placement stability.

Resource Issues

· Increased resources to support placements in and out of county are needed, particularly in the areas of childcare and respite.

· In early 2004 Orange County's sole therapeutic preschool for children in foster care closed its doors, leaving no resources for this high-need population.

Systemic Issues

· Health and safety standards, particularly in the area of capacity of the home, impede relative placements that might otherwise result in a stable placement for the child.

· Santa Ana, the city in Orange County where the largest percent of children in care come from, is the second most densely populated city in the nation, with many households struggling to manage with very low income and overcrowded living conditions.

· Orange County places many of its children in other counties due to a lack of placement resources within the county. This practice results in children being disconnected from family, community and school. It is in part a result of high real estate prices in Orange County and the number of families with both parents working. This is particularly problematic for placing sibling groups within the County.

Probation Department

· In that all Probation youth have delinquency factors in conjunction with child welfare issues, multiple placements are often the result of the minors AWOLing from placements, or additional delinquent or acting out behavior that necessitates their removal from programs.

Quality Development Activities

· Recent development of First Step, a 23-hour assessment facility, has provided a safe environment where children can have their physical and emotional needs assessed while social workers arrange an expeditious placement for the child. Prior to the development of First Step, children were admitted to Orangewood Children's Home, a licensed emergency shelter, resulting in an initial placement in congregate care.

· Recent training for staff, caregivers and community partners has focused on grief and loss issues for foster children, and the necessity of stable placements.

· Placement Preservation and Team Decision Making Meetings are positively impacting placement stability. Initial outcomes from the Placement Preservation Meetings indicate that 74% of the placements staffed in a Placement Preservation Meeting are preserved. These meetings provide a resource for caregivers who are expressing a desire to have a child removed from their home. See the Service Array section for more information on the impact of Placement Preservation meetings.

· Implementation of the core Family to Family strategies, including Recruitment, Training and Support of resource families is expected to increase stability of placements for children in care.

Outcome 3F and 3G Rate of Foster Care Re-Entry

This measure reflects the number of children who re-enter foster care subsequent to reunification or guardianship.

Federal data outcomes (point in time) indicate that 5.0% of the children exiting foster care to reunification or guardianship re-entered out of home care during the specified time. This compares favorably with a national standard of 8.6% and a California state average of 10.8%. California outcome data (entry cohort) indicates that 10.5% of the Orange County children exiting foster care to reunification or guardianship re-entered out of home care in a 12-month period, compared to a California statewide average of 13.4%.

Issues that may impact rate of foster care reentry include:

Practice Issues

· Birthparents indicated that CFS staff are supportive and encouraging and were able to make a difference in birth parents' positive attitudes towards reunification.

· Parents need to be better prepared for the challenges they will experience after reunification. Included is the need to know how to handle the emotions and behaviors their children will experience, and how to re-build trust with their children. Parents are often overwhelmed, and don't know how to access resources or advocate for themselves and their children.

· CFS staff's communication with the child and parent regarding changes experienced is essential. Staff/child/parent/caregiver communication needs to identify commitment to and mutual goals of family reunification with acknowledgement that the road may not be without difficulties and identify how potential barriers may be resolved

Resource Issues

· Resources are needed to assist families in reunification transition which may occur during and after CFS involvement, including possible on-going mentoring. There are not adequate support resources for reunified families.

· Families with children in out-of-home care receive better services than family maintenance families.

· Multiple sources identify lack of housing as an adverse effect on reunification and on-going family stability.

· Resources such as sober living homes that allow children to live with their parent could contribute to the prevention of custody as well as reentry if the parent relapses.

· Funding, including flexible funding, is needed to support parents according to individual family needs versus services for an identified time frame.

· On Time recovery mentors (a grant-funded program that matched women who had substance abuse and child welfare involvement history as mentors with women who's children were taken into custody due to their substance abuse issues) were identified as being supportive to birth parents. One birth parent commented that she felt the mentor had been through the same situation and it was a relief to have a non-professional there just for her.

Systemic Issues

· Child support collection after reunification adds to stress for reunified families.

Quality Development Activities

· Team Decision Making meetings are currently available for reunification decisions, and will be mandated for all reunification decisions when Team Decision Making is fully implemented in Fall, 2004.

Outcome 3 Conclusion

Though this outcome is an area of need for Orange County in terms of time to adoption and reunification, the impact of somewhat slower reunifications is at least partly mitigated by a strong percentage of successful reunifications. It is the opinion of staff, stakeholders and families that it is better for children to return to their homes more slowly if the extra time has given parents the opportunity to stabilize their lives and homes, resulting in more stable returns, fewer re-entries and increased well being for children in the long run.

At the direction of the Orange County Child Welfare Services Redesign Planning Council, this outcome, specifically time to reunification and placement stability, will be highlighted in the Orange County System Improvement Plan.

OUTCOME 4: The family relationships and connections of children served by the CWS will be preserved, as appropriate.

Outcome Indicator 4A-Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care

These measures reflect the number of children placed with all or some of their siblings in foster care.

for Social Services Research

The most recent point in time data as of January 1, 2004, indicate there were 3,410 children in child welfare supervised foster care in Orange County.

· 2,072 (61%) had at least one sibling in out-of-home care

· 1,033 (49.9 %) were placed with all their siblings, compared with a California statewide average of 42.0%

· 69.1% were placed with some of their siblings, compared with a California statewide average of 66.4%

· 1,452 (70.1%) were placed with all or some of the siblings

· 620 (30.%) were placed with none of their siblings.

This data indicates a rate of placement with siblings that is more favorable than the statewide average, even though Orange County struggles, due to the high cost of living, to recruit and retain foster families who will take large sibling sets.

Sibling placement by sibling group as of January 1, 2004

# Siblings

Children

All Siblings

All or Some Siblings

None

2

881

61.3%

N/A

38.7%

3

584

53.4%

75.2%

24.8%

4

342

37.4%

76.0%

24.0%

5

116

30.2%

76.7%

23.3%

6+

149

12.1%

83.2%

16.8%

The data above indicates that children with fewer siblings were much more likely to be placed with all of their siblings than children from larger sibling groups.

Sibling Placement by Placement Type

Proportions of children placed with siblings in care, by Placement Type

Type of Care

# of children

Placed With All Siblings

Placed With All or Some Siblings

Placed With No Siblings

Kinship

700

60.3%

79.3%

20.7%

Foster

200

36.5%

58.0%

42.0%

FFA

503

48.5%

79.9%

20.1%

Group

285

29.5%

36.5%

63.5%

Guardian

73

45.2%

63.0%

37.0%

All Others

301

57.5%

74.8%

25.2%

Children placed in kinship homes were more likely than any other placement type to be placed with all of their siblings, and also more likely to be placed with at least some of their siblings.

Sibling Placement by Ethnicity

Proportion of children placed with siblings, by ethnicity:

Ethnicity

Children

Placed With All Siblings

Placed With Some Siblings

Placed With No Siblings

Black

171

36.3%

59.1%

40.9%

White

698

51.9%

66.8%

33.2%

Hispanic

1,110

49.9%

73.8%

26.2%

Asian/Other

62

40.3%

56.5%

43.5%

Native American

***

25.0%

75.0%

25.0%

***Between 1 and 4 children

Black children and Native American children were less likely to be placed with all or some of their siblings than were children of other ethnicities. A sub-committee of Orange County's Self Evaluation Team will explore methods of analysis to better understand outcome data which suggest issues of racial disparity.

(Please note that the data above comes from the October 2003 outcomes data report.)

Practice Issues:

· Siblings sometimes can not be placed together when one sibling is a danger to the other(s)

· Half siblings sometimes go to relatives on different sides of the family.

· Children are sometimes placed in different settings as they need a different level of care.

Systemic Issues:

· A significant challenge in Orange County is the lack of foster homes willing and able to take larger sibling sets. As of January 1, 2004, sibling sets of 3 or more comprised a total of 1,191 children in foster care-- 57% of the total number of children in care with siblings.

· The high cost of housing in Orange County, coupled with current approval requirements for relative caregivers, are issues in recruitment and retention of foster and relative caregivers

· Foster parents and relatives self limit the number of children they will take.

· A lack of adequate supports for caregivers in maintaining special needs children results in children being placed in group care separate from their siblings.

Quality Development Activities:

· Implementation of Family to Family strategies, including Team Decision Making, Community Partnership, and Recruitment, Training and Support to increase the number of foster and kinship families available to care for larger sibling sets. These efforts are specifically focused in the target cities of Santa Ana and Anaheim, where a significant number of the children in care resided prior to removal.

· Systemic barriers related to the high cost of housing, current approval requirements for relatives, and the need for intensive training, support and respite for caregivers caring for behavioral special needs children remain significant challenges.

Outcome Indicator 4B-Foster Care Placement in Least Restrictive Settings

This measure reflects the percent of children placed in each type of foster care setting.

Outcome data indicates that foster children in Orange County are more likely to be placed initially in a group home setting, 77.0%, due to initial placements in Orangewood Children's Home, compared to a statewide average of 20.6%. Additionally, Orange County children are more likely to have a group home as their primary placement (30.2%) than the California statewide average of 9.1% primary placements in group homes. However, the most common primary placement for Orange County foster children is with a relative (35.3%), compared to a California statewide average of primary relative placements of 33.9%.

Orange County's initial placement rate with relatives (9.5%) is considerably lower than the primary placement rate with relatives (33.9%) due to the historical practice of initial, temporary admission of children to Orangewood Children's Home while completing relative and NREFM assessments and clearances. This significantly increased the rate of initial group placement, and the rate of placement moves. However both primary and point in time data show relative placements comprising the largest percentage of any placement type, followed by FFA placements and licensed foster care.

Practice Issues:

· Stakeholder feedback indicates that the goal of finding placements quickly may result in placements that are more restrictive or problematic in the long-run.

Systemic Issues:

· The legal definition of NREFM's is problematic in that it can be difficult to justify a NREFM placement for a newborn or infant as there is no previously established relationship.

· Lack of foster homes for adolescents and children with high levels of special needs.

· Lack of the type of intensive support, training and respite care resources necessary for caretakers of behavioral special needs children, resulting in an increase in group home placements.

Quality Development Activities:

· The First Step Assessment Facility is supporting Agency efforts to place children in the least restrictive setting.

· Other initiatives such as Family Group Decision Making, Team Decision Making, Wraparound, Placement Preservation Meetings, and the Multi Disciplinary Treatment Team strengths and have been acknowledged as such by comments from the majority of core stakeholders.

· It is expected that the on-going efforts of Family-to-Family strategies including Team Decision Making and Recruitment, Training and Support of resource families will result in continued improvement in this outcome.

Outcome Indicator 4E-Rate of ICWA Placement Preferences

This measure reflects the percent of Indian Child Welfare Act eligible children placed in foster care settings defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Third quarter data indicates Orange County placed 50% of ICWA identified children with relatives; 10% with non-relative Indian families, 10% with non-relative non-Indian families; and 30% with families where ethnicity is not identified. Placements with relatives show a 5.6% increase over the previous quarter, while percentages placed with non-relative Indian homes and non-relative non-Indian homes slightly decreased from the previously quarter by 1.1%.

Issues that may impact placement of Indian children in ICWA homes include:

Practice Issues:

· Parents and tribes are often less than diligent in providing timely assertions of Indian heritage.

· It has been suggested that an actual Indian tribe member be employed in an ICWA position.

Systemic Issues:

· Though census data indicates that Orange County has over 19,000 Native American residents, there are no Indian reservations in Orange County and no ICWA recognized Indian tribes. This lack of Orange County Indian resources impacts the goal of maintaining community and ethnic connections for ICWA identified children who do not have relatives as a placement option.

· The low number of ICWA children in out of home care with Orange County limits interaction with Indian tribes.

Quality Development Activities:

· Orange County has recently developed a specialized ICWA unit to prioritize identification of and services to Indian children.

· It is anticipated that increased efforts to contact local (non-recognized) tribe members, as well as recognized tribes from other counties will establish new placement resources for Indian children in Orange County.

OUTCOME 4: CONCLUSION

Orange County continues to put a high priority on identifying and supporting relative and NREFM placements for children in out of home care, and the implementation of Family to Family key strategies will further support these efforts. The First Step Assessment Center was established to eliminate initial shelter placements for many of the children coming into care in Orange County. Additionally, appropriate placement of Indian children is being addressed by the recently dedicated ICWA unit. Due to these efforts already in progress, Family Relationships and Connections will not be selected as a focus item for the Orange County System Improvement Plan.

OUTCOME 8: Youth emancipating from foster care are prepared to transition to adulthood.

Outcome Indicator 8A-Children Transitioning to self-sufficient Adulthood

This measure reflects the percent of foster children eligible for Independent Living Services who receive appropriate education and training, and/or achieve employment or economic self-sufficiency.

Quarterly data from the ILP Annual Statistical Report (SOC 405A) indicates:

· 1,279 Orange County youth received ILP services in the latest quarter

· 69 (5%) of these youth obtained a high school

· 81 (6%) enrolled in a college of higher education

· 12 completed vocational training

· 14 (1%) were employed or had other means of support

It is difficult to analyze the information above without contextual information, such as the number of children emancipating in the specified quarter. Additionally, it is difficult to collect accurate data for the SOC 405a because emancipated youth are not available to provide this information. The data below is provided to clarify emancipation services and outcomes in Orange County:

Independent Living Program (ILP) Annual Statistical Report

Federal Fiscal Year October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003

Youths to whom ILP services were offered during the year

2,254

Youths in the Probation Department who received ILP services

233

Youths in CFS who received ILP services

1,272

Total youths who received ILP services during the year

1,505

Youths who completed high school/GED or adult education

129

Youths continuing and/or currently enrolled in high school, GED or adult education

579

Youths continuing and/or currently enrolled in vocational education or on-the-job training

31

Youths enrolled in college

134

Youths who obtained employment

223

Youths who participated in a supervised, transitional housing placement program (THPP)

18

Issues that may impact provision of services to children transitioning to self-sufficient adulthood include:

Systemic Issues:

· Need for more adequate, affordable and stable housing, in proximity to local educational institutions and employment opportunities.

· Need for more education programs that increase literacy, post-secondary course preparation, and preparation for entry and successful competition in a diverse workforce.

· Development of mentors or other supportive adults to assist foster youth in preparation for academic and employment career paths.

· Availability of adequate transportation to school, training, employment and medical services.

· Need for increased supportive exploration through Emancipation Planning Conferences of the range of resources available upon emancipation from estranged biological and extended family members.

Quality Development Activities:

· Orange County's ILP program has developed a data base that tracks individual youth participation in ILP workshops, vocational assessments, employment training, educational tracking / academic enrichment programs, and transitional housing for both foster youth and emancipated youth.

· Queries will be developed to track percentages of youth taking advantage of all elements of ILP program services. It is anticipated that Orange County youth will benefit with increased positive outcomes as a result of improved data tracking and query methods to guide ILP program plans and services.

OUTCOME 8: CONCLUSION

Orange County will continue to provide quality emancipation services to eligible youth. This outcome will not be a focus item for the Orange County System Improvement Plan.

Probation-The Orange County Probation Department has selected Emancipation Services as a focus item for the Orange County System Improvement Plan.

Top of Page