Sacramento County CSA Report - Final 5-30-17

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014TOTAL CALLS 7453 6384 6406 5545 5670NO WEAPONS INVOLVED 5241 4067 3684 2872 2898WEAPON INVOLVED * 2212 2317 2722 2673 2772FIREARM 62 57 49 51 30KNIFE OR CUTTING INSTRUMENT 173 173 176 157 160OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON 448 426 485 468 511PERSONAL WEAPON** 1529 1661 2012 1997 2071*Penal Code section 13730 does not require that the type of weapon involved in a domestic violence-related call be reported.**Hands, feet, etc.Analysis of Maltreatment IndicatorsReviewing the child maltreatment indicators, there are some key areas to highlight. Sacramento Countyis seeing a decline in teen births, which is a positive indicator. The reasons for the decline are not clear.Some reasons could be more teens may be delaying or reducing sexual activity, and more of the teenswho are sexually active may be using birth control than in previous years.There has been a decline in the number of domestic violence calls over a five year span. Though thistrend is positive, it may not necessarily show a decline in incidents of domestic violence. There could besome unreported incidences. In fact there was an increase in use of personal weapon of all callsreported in 2014.The demand for affordable housing appears to be of great need. The cost of housing, both in sales andrental market, has been increasing and rental vacancy rate is down. Furthermore, the highest requestfor assistance from 2-1-1 calls was for housing services.Child fatalities have declined, with the majority of deaths being of natural causes. Children five yearsand younger continue to be the most vulnerable age group. They made up of nearly three fourth of thechild maltreatment deaths.When looking at race/ethnicity factors, Black or African American children and families showed higher California - Child and Family Services Reviewmaltreatment indicators compared to any other race. Black or African American children were morelikely to live in poverty and die at a higher rate. Drug arrest was also higher among Black or AfricanAmerican adults.Geographically South Sacramento (zip codes 95823, 95824 and 95828) showed high maltreatmentindicators. Of all individuals admitted to alcohol and drug treatment services in Sacramento County,South Sacramento ranked in the top three for methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol as a primarydrug of choice. South Sacramento is the highest region for adults, children and foster care receivingservices through Mental Health System of Care. This region of Sacramento also has the highest rate ofchild death.Child Welfare Placement PopulationChildren with Allegations:Sacramento County has seen a decrease of children with allegations since 2012 with a notable decreaseof 523 children in 2015 when compared to 2012. Conversely, California numbers of children withallegations as a whole have continued to increase from 486,341 in 2012 to 501,411 in 2015, a difference 50

of 15,070 additional children with allegations. In 2012, Sacramento County had 21,028 children with allegations, which lessened only by six children in 2013 (21,022 children). However, numbers continued to drop by 183 children in 2013 (20,839 children), and then again in 2015 by 334 children ending with 20,505 total children with allegations for that year. The bar graph below illustrates total children with allegations received in Sacramento County between the years 2012 and 2015 as compared to California. Sacramento California 63 to 21,100 505,000 21,000 500,000 20,900 495,000 20,800 490,000 20,700 485,000 20,600 480,000 20,500 475,000 20,400 470,000 20,300 20,200 Data Source36 Children with Allegations by age group: Sacramento County has seen a slight decrease overall in referrals for children under age one between the years of 2012 through 2015 by 122 referrals. In contrast, California has seen a continued increase for this population, amounting to 1,317 additional children with allegations in 2015 when compared to 2012 numbers. Sacramento has also seen a gradual decrease of allegations for children between the ages of one and five since 2012 and for children ages eleven through seventeen since 2013, while California numbers have increased. Significant is that both Sacramento and California have had an increase in allegations for children ages six through ten; 426 additional referrals for Sacramento County in 2015 when compared to 2012, and 13,269 additional referrals for California. The table on the next page shows number of children with allegations by age group for Sacramento County between the years of 2012 through 2015.California - Child and Family Services Review Sacramento County Children with Allegations by Age Age CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Under 1 1,931 1,904 1,947 1,819 '1-2 2,558 2,540 2,476 2,277 '3-5 4,006 3,827 3,705 3,564 '6-10 5,705 5,822 6,015 6,131 4,983 5,079 4,920 4,915 '11-15 1,845 1,850 1,776 1,799 16-17 21,028 21,022 20,839 20,505 Total Data Source36 36 http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/51

Children with Allegations by Ethnicity:In Sacramento County, Black children with allegations have been decreasing since 2013, and 2015 saw277 less Black children with allegations when compared with 2014; however, overall the decrease hasonly amounted to 1% since 2012. California had an increase in 2014 of 1,183 Black children withallegations but then a decrease in 2015 of 1,551 Black children, bringing its total number 1,061 lowerthan in 2012. White children with allegations have steadily decreased since 2012 with the largest dropalso in 2015 of 430 less White children when compared to 2014, amounting overall to an 8.3 %reduction of White children with allegations since 2012. California numbers of White children withallegations have similarly continued to drop since 2012. Asian/Pacific Islander and Native Americanchildren with allegations have maintained similar numbers in Sacramento County since 2012 whileCalifornia has seen a decrease for Asian/Pacific Islander children with allegations and an increase forNative American children with allegations. The table below compares ethnic groups with referralsreceived between the years of 2012 through 2015 in Sacramento County. Sacramento County Children with Allegations by Ethnic Group Ethnic Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Black 5,360 5,367 5,307 5,030 White 6,799 6,746 6,664 6,234 Latino 4,327 4,386 4,206 3,828 Asian/PI 917 1,005 970 918 Nat Amer 212 213 203 213 Missing 3,413 3,305 3,489 4,282 Total 21,028 21,022 20,839 20,505Data Source36Children with Allegations by Type: Sexual Abuse Sexual AbuseSacramento Physical Abuse California Physical Abuse2012-2015 Severe Neglect 2012-2015 Severe Neglect General Neglect General Neglect California - Child and Family Services Review Exploitation Exploitation Emotional Abuse Emotional Abuse Caretaker Caretaker Absence/Incapacity Absence/Incapacity At Risk, Sibling At Risk, Sibling Abused AbusedData Source36 52

The Pie chart above illustrates that Sacramento County, similar to California, has the highest number of children with General Neglect allegations followed by Physical Abuse allegations; however, while California’s numbers have been increasing for General Neglect from 226,159 in 2013 to 231,944 in 2015, Sacramento’s numbers have been decreasing since 2012 from 11,379 to 10,335 in 2015. In regards to children with Physical Abuse allegations, Sacramento County saw an increase of 612 of this type from 2012 through 2014 and then a decrease of 72 for Physical Abuse in 2015. In comparison, California’s numbers for children with Physical Abuse allegations have risen significantly from 92,068 in 2013 to 98,694 in 2015, an increase of 6,626 children with Physical Abuse allegations. Sacramento County receives its third highest referral numbers in Sexual Abuse allegations, while in California, Sexual Abuse allegations are in fifth place with third being At Risk, Sibling Abused. Also, in California, Sexual Abuse allegations have risen from 40,863 in 2013 to 42,344 in 2015 in comparison to Sacramento County having an increase of 129 Sexual Abuse allegations between the years of 2012 through 2014 but then a decrease of 66 when compared to 2012 and a decrease of 195 when compared to 2014. In fourth place, Sacramento County has seen an increase in Severe Neglect allegations since 2012, although there was a slight decrease of 51 referrals in 2015 when compared to 2014. In contrast, California had a regular and substantial increase of Severe Neglect allegations, from 7,466 referrals in 2012 to 9,136 referrals in 2015. Sacramento County saw a jump in children with Emotional Abuse allegations from 382 in 2014 to 486 in 2015, a difference of 104. In contrast, California saw a reduction of children with Emotional Abuse allegations from 44,066 in 2014 to 43,759 in 2015, which amounted to 307 less over all. Children with Allegations for Exploitation in Sacramento County remained mostly low and similar in 2012, 2014, and 2015 with an increase from 4 to 8 referrals in 2013. California’s numbers for children with Exploitation allegations were also low; however, there was an increase of 60 in 2015 when compared to average numbers received in 2012 through 2014 of 159 children with Exploitation allegations compared to 218 in 2015.California - Child and Family Services Review Children with At Risk, Sibling Abused allegations in Sacramento County have mostly declined since 2012 with its lowest number of 141 in 2014 and its second lowest number of 192 in 2015 when compared to the high of 327 in 2012. California’s numbers for children with At Risk, Sibling Abused allegations have risen somewhat from 68,178 in 2012 to 68,469 in 2015. Both Sacramento County and California have had a decrease in children with Caretaker Absence/Incapacity allegations over the last several years. The table below shows number of allegations by type for Sacramento County between the years of 2012 through 2015. Sacramento County Children with Allegations by Type Allegation Type CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 1,762 Sexual Abuse 1,828 1,871 1,957 7,014 651 Physical Abuse 6,474 6,769 7,086 10,335 5 Severe Neglect 478 555 705 486 60 General Neglect 11,379 11,130 10,491 192 Exploitation 4 84 Emotional Abuse 375 330 382 Caretaker Absence/Incapacity 161 123 73 At Risk, Sibling Abused 329 236 14153

Substantial Risk . . . . . . . . Missing 21,028 21,022 20,839 20,505 TotalData Source36Sacramento County and California, during the years of 2012 and 2013, had similar percentages inregards to disposition of allegations, with highest numbers being unfounded, followed by Inconclusiveand then Evaluated Out. Sacramento was also aligned with California with number of substantiatedallegations being in fourth place from 2012 through 2015. In 2014, Sacramento’s highest amount ofallegations were Inconclusive versus California’s being Unfounded during that year. Additionally in2015, Sacramento County had their highest amount of allegations being Evaluated Out while inCalifornia the highest were again in the Unfounded category. Conversely, in California, Evaluated Outallegations were in third place while for Sacramento County, Unfounded allegations were in third place.The table below shows children with allegations by disposition type. Sacramento County Children with Allegations by Disposition Type Disposition Type CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Substantiated 3,350 4,076 4,260 4,348 5,782 5,566 5,786 5,277 Inconclusive 6,356 6,090 5,687 5,071 5,480 5,275 5,090 5,554 Unfounded 255 60 15 16 20,505Assessment Only/Evaluated Out 21,028 21,022 20,839 Not Yet Determined TotalData Source36Children with Substantiated Allegations:The bar graph below shows that between the years of 2012 through 2015 Sacramento County’s childrenwith substantiated allegations have been gradually increasing, while in California they have beendecreasing, especially in 2015. Sacramento California5,000 86,000 California - Child and Family Services Review4,000 84,0003,000 82,0002,000 80,0001,000 78,000 76,000 0 74,000 72,000Data Source36Children with Substantiated Allegations by Age:In Sacramento County, the highest amount of children with substantiated allegations in 2012 through2015 were among ages 6 through 10 and then three through five, followed by 11 through 15 and thenunder one. Age groups least likely to have substantiation were children under 1 and children 16 to 17years. Similarly, in California, the highest amount of children with substantiated allegations were among 54

ages 6 through 10 and lowest in children 16 and 17 years. California differed with Sacramento County in that their second highest substantiations were among the 6 through 10 age group with ages 3 through 5 falling in third place. In Sacramento County, this trend was reversed. The table below displays number of children with substantiations in Sacramento County by age during the years of 2012 through 2015. Sacramento County Children with Substantiated Allegations by Age Age Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Under 1 666 '1-2 567 664 686 662 '3-5 826 '6-10 526 664 673 1,190 '11-15 763 16-17 677 791 838 241 Total 4,348 817 977 1,098 Data Source36 594 764 739 169 216 226 3,350 4,076 4,260 Children with Substantiated Allegations by Ethnicity: In Sacramento County, White followed by Black children have the highest number of substantiated allegations with Latino children coming in third, followed by Asian/Pacific Islander and then Native American children. In California, the highest number of substantiated allegations were found among Latino children with second highest in White and then Black children. Fourth and fifth places were the same as Sacramento County: Asians/Pacific Islander and then Native American children. The table on the next page below shows children with substantiated allegations by ethnicity in Sacramento County between the years of 2012 and 2015. Sacramento County Children with Substantiated Allegations by Ethnicity Ethnic Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Black 979 1,105 1,118 1,162 White 1,109 1,377 1,400 1,344 Latino 787 917 1,034 991 Asian/P.I. 167 281 261 218 Nat Amer 51 56 52 67 Multi-Race 0 0 00California - Child and Family Services Review Missing 257 340 395 566 Total 3,350 4,076 4,260 4,348 Data Source3655

First Entries into Care by Year: California First Entries into Care Sacramento First Entries into Care 24,500 24,000 1400 23,500 1200 23,000 1000 22,500 22,000 800 21,500 600 400 200 0 Sacramento CaliforniaData Source36The line graph above shows Sacramento County’s first entries into care increased gradually from 2012through 2014 and then declined just below its 2013 number in 2015. In contrast for California, there wasa spike in first entries between 2012 and 2013 and then a gradual decline through 2014 followed by asignificant decline through 2015.First Entries into Care by Age:In Sacramento County, the highest amount of first entries coincided for the most part with the highestage group of children with substantiated allegations, which was with ages 6 through 10 and then threethrough five. This trend was also similar with California. Also found in both Sacramento County andCalifornia, were third highest entries with children ages 1 to 2 and fourth highest with ages 11 through15, followed by “younger than one month” or “one month to eleven months”. In Sacramento Countythere was a shift in 2015, during which time, children “under one month” moved up to fourth placehaving increased from 151 in 2014 to 179 first entries in 2015. The table on the following page showsSacramento County’s first entries by age from 2012 through 2015. Sacramento County First Entries by Age: California - Child and Family Services Review Age Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 <1 mo 179 1-11 mo 130 158 151 124 '1-2 yr 182 '3-5 yr 103 139 168 191 '6-10 yr 216 155 203 198 168 '11-15 yr 59 16-17 yr 163 210 236 . 18-20 yr 1,119 167 232 225 Total 118 160 183Data Source36 40 52 43 ... 876 1,154 1,204 56

In 2013, a shift from highest first entries into care moved from Black children to White children with increases of 22 more White children than Black in 2013, 54 more in 2014, and 25 more in 2015. Black children have the second highest entries since 2013, followed by Latinos who have an average of 87 less entries per year than Black children. California in contrast, has highest entries into care within Latino children. Both California and Sacramento are similar in regard to White children having higher numbers of entry when compared to Black children, and both also have their lowest entry numbers with Native Americans followed by Asian children. The table below shows Sacramento Count first entries by ethnicity for the years of 2012 through 2015. Sacramento County First Entries by Ethnicity: Ethnic Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Black 362 White 312 369 378 387 Latino 283 275 391 432 43 Asian/P.I. 25 Nat Amer 208 268 296 19 Missing 1,119 50 99 60 Total 19 17 17 Data Source36 12 10 21 876 1,154 1,204 Subsequent Entries into Care: Subsequent Entries California Subsequent Entries Sacramento 6,900 6,800 450 6,700 400 6,600 350 6,500 300 6,400 250 6,300 200 6,200 150 6,100 100 6,000 50 0California - Child and Family Services ReviewSacramento California JAN2012-Total Total DEC2012 JAN2013-Data Source36 DEC2013 JAN2014- DEC2014 JAN2015- DEC2015 JAN2012- DEC2012 JAN2013- DEC2013 JAN2014- DEC2014 JAN2015- DEC2015 The line graph above shows Sacramento County’s subsequent entries into care numbers in comparison to California between the years of 2012 through 2015. Sacramento County’s pattern of subsequent entries into care was similar to first entries on the previous page, showing an increase from 2012 through 2014 and then a decline in 2015 just below the 2013 number. Specifically in 2013, there were 79 more re-entries than 2012, and in 2014 there were an additional 60 re-entries. Then in 2015, the number decreased by 66, which compared to 2012, was an increase of 73 re-entries but only an increase of 6 when compared to 2013. California’s pattern was different, in that there was a decline from 2012 to 2013 of 83 less re-entries, then a spike in 2014 of 168 more re-entries followed by a large drop in 2015 of 531 less re-entries.57

Subsequent Entries into Care by Age:In Sacramento County, the highest amount of subsequent entries in 2012 was among ages 11 through15; however, between the years of 2013 through 2015 subsequent entries coincided with the highestage group of children with substantiated allegations and highest age group of first entries, which waswith ages 6 through 10. In contrast, second highest subsequent entries were with ages 11 through 15instead of ages 3 through 5 (found with children with substantiated allegations and first entries).Additionally, third highest subsequent entries were found with ages 3 through 5 instead of ages 11through 15 found with children with substantiated allegations and ages 1 through 2 found with firstentries. In California, highest subsequent entries from 2012 through 2015 were with ages 11 through 15except in 2014 when it was with ages 6 through 10. Second highest subsequent entries were with ages 6through 10; however, in 2014 it changed to ages 11 through 15 with a difference of just 61 moresubsequent entries between the two age groups in the whole state. Third highest subsequent entries inCalifornia were found in ages 3 through 5, which was similar to Sacramento County. The table belowshows children with subsequent entries into care by age during the years 2012 through 2015. Subsequent Entries into Care by Age Age Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 <1 mo 1-11 mo 21 21 17 16 '1-2 yr 22 49 44 31 '3-5 yr 42 63 73 58 '6-10 yr 72 99 123 99 84 76 97 77 '11-15 yr 31 29 43 37 16-17 yr 3 17 17 30 18-20 yr 275 354 414 348 TotalData Source36Subsequent Entries into Care by Ethnicity: California - Child and Family Services ReviewIn Sacramento County, the highest amount of subsequent entries per ethnic group was highest withBlack children followed second by White children. This was different with children with substantiatedallegations and first entry numbers from 2013 through 2015 during which time White children hadhigher numbers than Black children. However, it should be noted that in 2015, there were only twomore Black children than White with subsequent entries. Third highest for Sacramento County, alsosimilar to children with substantiated allegations and first entry numbers, was with Latino children,followed by Asian/Pacific Islander and then Native Americans. In California, the highest subsequententries aligned with children with substantiated allegations and first entry numbers for the state:highest were with Latino children, followed second by White, and then Black. California was similar toSacramento County in that their least amount of subsequent entries was found among Native Americansand then Asian/Pacific Islanders. The table on the following page shows subsequent entries into care byethnicity in Sacramento County between the years of 2012 through 2015. 58

Subsequent Entries into Care by Ethnicity Ethnic Group CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 Black 96 124 133 113 White 111 Latino 84 112 121 104 Asian/P.I. 13 Nat Amer 75 87 133 Missing 6 Total 13 17 20 1 348 Data Source36 7 13 7 1 275 354 414 Children in Care: Sacramento County had a decrease of 60 children in care in 2013 (2,206 total) when compared to 2012 (2,266 total); however, that number rose to 202 additional children in care during the year 2014 (2,409 total) and then dropped slightly by 35 children in care (2,374 total). California in contrast had a steady increase of children in care from 2012 (51,745) through 2014 (54,615), but then similar to Sacramento County, had a decrease in 2015 (down by 247 to 54,368). The 2-D Area chart below shows a comparison of Sacramento County and California children in care from 2012 through 2015. Children in Care: 2,450 55,000 2,400 54,500 2,350 54,000 2,300 53,500 2,250 53,000 2,200 52,500 2,150 52,000 2,100 51,500 51,000 50,500 50,000 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14 1-Jul-15 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14 1-Jul-15California - Child and Family Services Review Sacramento California Children in Care Children in Care Data Source36 Children in Care by Age: In Sacramento County, the highest number of children in care from 2012 through 2014 was ages 11-15. This was the same as California for 2012 through 2013; however, in 2014, California’s highest number of children in care was ages 6-10. This group also comprised highest number of children in care in 2015 for both Sacramento and California. Second highest for Sacramento in 2012 was ages 16-17, but this changed in 2013 through 2014 to ages 6-10, and then in 2015 to ages 11-15. California’s second highest was ages 6-10 during the years 2012 and 2013, and ages 11-15 during the years of 2014 and 2015; therefore, California was the same as Sacramento County in 2013 and 2015. Third highest number of children in care in California was ages 3-5, which was the same as Sacramento only in 2014 and 2015. Prior to those years, Sacramento had third highest numbers found with ages 6-10 in 2012 and ages 16- 17 in 2013. Lowest numbers for Sacramento were with children under one and 1-2 years. California also59

saw low numbers with children under one but also with children 16-17. Below is a chart of children incare by age in Sacramento County between the years of 2012 through 2015. Children in Care by Age Age Group 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14 1-Jul-15 Under 1 196 191 '1-2 144 154 329 356 '3-5 379 392 '6-10 248 244 577 570 '11-15 585 538 16-17 305 345 343 327 Total 2,409 2,374 466 491Data Source36 636 573 468 400 2,267 2,207Children in Care by Ethnicity:In Sacramento County, there are more Black children in care than White children, which correlates withdata seen in subsequent entries by ethnicity, but not with children with allegations by ethnicity, childrenwith substantiated allegations by ethnicity, or first entries by ethnicity numbers, which had its highestnumbers with White children. In 2012, there were 189 more Black than White children in care, and in2012 there were 184 more Black than White children in care. In 2014, this number decreased to 144more Black children than White in 2014, and then in 2015, it dropped significantly to 29 more Blackchildren in care versus White children. The second highest numbers of children in care are with Whitechildren followed by Latinos and then Asian/Pacific Islanders. In California, as seen with all the previousmeasures, the highest number of children in care are with Latino children. In contrast with Sacramento,California’s next highest ethnic group is with White children followed then by Black children. Californiaresembles Sacramento County, in that the state also sees low numbers with Asian/Pacific Islanderchildren in care. The table below shows children in care by ethnicity in Sacramento County between theyears of 2012 and 2015. Children in Care by Ethnicity Ethnic Group 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14 1-Jul-15 Black 922 817 White 899 847 778 788 Latino 547 596 710 663 100 107 Asian/P.I. 52 54 Nat Amer 521 542 0 0 California - Child and Family Services Review Multi-Race 10 12 Missing 87 100 2,409 2,374 Total 49 47Data Source36 00 18 2,267 2,207Children in Care with Open Case by Service Component:Open Case by Service Component data may not be accurate due to inconsistencies with staff input ofservice component changes within CWS/CMS; however, with that being noted, during the years of 2012through 2015, Sacramento County has been mostly aligned with California in that most of its children incare with an open case are in Permanent Placement. The next highest group is in Family Reunificationfollowed by No Placement Family Maintenance and Post-Placement Family Maintenance. Additionally,since 2013, lowest numbers of children in care for both Sacramento County and California are in 60

California - Child and Family Services ReviewEmergency Response with second lowest in Supportive Transition. In 2012, this was reversed in California with lowest numbers being in Supportive Transition and then Emergency Response. Children in care within the Emergency Response program increased from 482 in 2012 to 837 in 2014 but then decreased to 602 in 2015. No Placement Family Maintenance numbers dropped slightly from 1,684 in 2012 to 1651 in 2013, but then increased to 1,933 in 2014 and 2,213 in 2015. Post-Placement Family Maintenance numbers saw an increase from 1,350 in 2012 to 1,649 in 2014, and then a drop to 1,530 in 2015. Family Reunification numbers consistently increased from 2,732 in 2012; 3,117 in 2013; 4,196 in 2014; and 4,371 in 2015. In contrast, Permanent Placement numbers decreased from 6,811 in 2012; 5,772 in 2013; and 1,909 in 2014, and then increased by 201 to 5,650 in 2015. Notable in Sacramento County, is that there were 617 children in Supportive Transition in 2012 and by 2014 that number increased by 1,292 to a total of 1,909. In 2015, that number decreased only slightly to 1890. It is clear that with the January 2012 implementation of Assembly Bill 12 more foster children turning 18 have opted to remain in extended foster care up to age 21. This has allowed these youth to take advantage of additional supportive services designed to aide and prepare them to be self-sufficient and successful in adulthood. The bar graph below shows Sacramento County’s open cases by service component between the years of 2012 through 2015. Sacramento County Open Cases by Service Component 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Data Source: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ 2012 2013 2014 2015 ICWA Eligible Children in Care: In Sacramento County, placement of ICWA eligible children with relatives has risen from approximately 23% in January 2012 to 39% in January 2016 when compared to total number of ICWA eligible children in care by year. In California, the average of ICWA eligible children with relatives from January 2012 through January 2016 did not vary significantly; the average was 40.5 with January 2015 being at 42.5% and January 2016 at 42%. Sacramento County and California were similar in that few children were61

placed in non-relative Native American homes, which also accounted for second highest placementsoccurring in Non-Native American foster homes. Group home placements for ICWA eligible children inSacramento County declined from 22% in January 2012 to 8% in January 2016, while in California theaverage was 7% during that time period, being down by one percent in January 2016 at 6%. InSacramento County, ICWA youth with an Independent Living Plan remained at 12% to 15% from January2013 through January 2016. This was more than double California’s numbers, which at its highest, was5% in January 2016. The table below shows Sacramento County ICWA eligible children in care from 2012through 2015 by number of children in placement type. Sacramento County ICWA Eligible Children in Care Placement Type Jan 2012 Jan 2013 Jan 2014 Jan 2015 Jan 2016 Relatives 22 26 20 33 30 2 7 4 6 2Non Relatives, Native American 40 23 37 32 20Non Relatives, Ethnicity Missing 6 Group Homes 21 16 17 12 11 SILP 9 11 15 12 77 Total 94 87 98 102Data Source36Probation Placement Population Probation Youth With First Entries Into Foster Care By AgeAge Group OCT2011- OCT2012- OCT2013- OCT2014- OCT2015- SEP2012 SEP2013 SEP2014 SEP2015 SEP2016<1 mo 12 291-11 mo 41'1-2 yr'3-5 yr'6-10 yr'11-15 yr 30 33 27 2616-17 yr 51 53 53 4918-20 yrTotal 81 86 80 75Data Source37The above chart depicts the number of probation youth with first entries stratified by year, age and California - Child and Family Services Reviewethnicity.38 There were a total of 41 probation youth that entered care from Oct 2015 to Sept 2016.The chart indicates the number of probation youth first entering into probation foster care has declinedfrom Oct 2015 to Sept 2016. This in part can be attributed to a correlation in the decreased number ofreferrals to the Court by both Probation and law enforcement. From 2012 to 2016 the annual numberof bookings into the Youth Detention Facility has decreased from 2,643 to 1,445 or from a monthlyaverage of 220.25 to 160.56 respectively.37 CWS/CMS 2016 Quarter 3 Extract. Program version: 2013.12.09 Database version: 6AF3129A38 Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Wiegmann, W., Rezvani, G.,Eyre, M., Sandoval, A., Yee, H., Xiong, B., Benton, C., Tobler, A., White, J., & Kai, C. (2017). CCWIP reports. Retrieved 2/14/2017, from Universityof California at Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project website. URL: <http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare> 62

Probation Youth With First Entries Into Foster Care By Age 70 Number of Probation Youth 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jul2012-Jun2013 Jul2013-Jun2014 Jul2014-Jun2015 Jul2015-Jun2016 31 34 26 13 11-15 yr 58 54 52 29 16-17 yr Probation Youth With First Entries Into Foster Care By Ethnicity Ethnic Group OCT2011- OCT2012- OCT2013- OCT2014- OCT2015- SEP2012 SEP2013 SEP2014 SEP2015 SEP2016 Black 33 48 41 36 14 8 White 22 16 16 17 14 4 Latino 19 16 20 21 1 Asian/P.I. 4 6 3 1 41 Nat Amer 2 Missing 1 Total 81 86 80 75 Data SourceError! Bookmark not defined.California - Child and Family Services Review The above chart indicates similar declines among ethnic groups of first time entries into probation foster care.38 In an effort to improve the disproportionality of first time entries into foster care officers participated in Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) training during the fourth quarter of 2014. Efforts will continue to be made to reduce the racial disparity of first time entries into foster care amongst all ethnic groups.63

Probation Youth With Subsequent Entries Into Foster Care By AgeAge Group OCT2011- OCT2012- OCT2013- OCT2014- OCT2015- SEP2012 SEP2013 SEP2014 SEP2015 SEP2016<1 mo 9 171-11 mo 12 38'1-2 yr'3-5 yr'6-10 yr'11-15 yr 19 23 21 2416-17 yr 36 22 40 2018-20 yr 1 6 20 17Total 56 51 81 61Data SourceError! Bookmark not defined.The above chart depicts the number of probation youth with first entries stratified by year and age.38There were a total of 38 youth that entered care from Oct 2015 to Sept 2016. The chart indicates thenumber of probation youth with subsequent entries into probation foster care has declined from Oct2015 to Sept 2016. This in part can be attributed to a correlation in the decreased number of referralsto the Court by both Probation and law enforcement. Additionally, early intervention Probationprograms including WRAP, Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), Juvenile Justice Diversion and TreatmentProgram (JJDTP) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) have contributed to reducing behaviors leading tofurther criminality. Probation Youth With Subsequent Entries Into Foster Care By EthnicityEthnic OCT2011- OCT2012- OCT2013- OCT2014- OCT2015-Group SEP2012 SEP2013 SEP2014 SEP2015 SEP2016Black 31 23 47 35 19White 12 15 17 14 10Latino 11 11 15 9 7Asian/P.I. 1 1 1 1 1Nat Amer 1 1 1 2 1MissingTotal 56 51 81 61 38 California - Child and Family Services ReviewData SourceError! Bookmark not defined.The above chart indicates similar declines from 2010 to 2016 of subsequent entries into probation fostercare.38 64

Placement Youth In Foster Care By Age Age Group OCT2011- OCT2012- OCT2013- OCT2014- OCT2015- SEP2012 SEP2013 SEP2014 SEP2015 SEP2016 <1 mo 21 46 1-11 mo 12 79 '1-2 yr '3-5 yr '6-10 yr '11-15 yr 49 56 48 50 16-17 yr 87 75 93 69 18-20 yr 1 6 20 17 Total 137 137 161 136 Data SourceError! Bookmark not defined. The above chart reflects the number of probation youth in foster care at a specific point in time by age. There were a total of 79 probation youth placed in care from Oct 2015 to Sept 2016.38 The chart indicates the number of probation youth in probation foster care has declined from Oct 2013 to Sept 2016. This in part can be attributed to a correlation in the decreased number of referrals to the Court by both Probation and law enforcement. Additionally, early intervention Probation programs including WRAP, Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), Juvenile Justice Diversion and Treatment Program (JJDTP) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT) have contributed to reducing behaviors leading to further criminality. Placement Youth in Foster Care by Race Ethnic Group OCT2011- OCT2012- OCT2013- OCT2014- OCT2015- SEP2012 SEP2013 SEP2014 SEP2015 SEP2016 Black 64 71 88 71 33 18 White 34 31 33 31 21 5 Latino 30 27 35 30 2 Asian/P.I. 5 7 4 2 79 Nat Amer 3 1 1 2 Missing 1 Total 137 137 161 136 Data SourceError! Bookmark not defined.California - Child and Family Services Review The above chart reflects the number of probation youth in foster care at a specific point in time by ethnicity. There were a total of 79 probation youth placed in care from Oct 2015 to Sept 2016.38 The chart indicates the number of probation youth in probation foster care of all ethnic groups has declined from Oct 2013 to Sept 2016. This can be attributed to a direct correlation in the decreased number of referrals to the Court by both Probation and law enforcement.65

ICWA & Multi-Ethnic Placement Status Placement Status 1-Jul-11 1-Jul-12 1-Jul-13 1-Jul-14 1-Jul-15 1-Jul-16 Relatives 1 1 2 Non Relatives, 2251 2 Indian SCPs 3251 1 2Non Relatives, Non 4 Indian SCPsNon Relatives, SCP Ethnic Missing Group Homes SILP Other Missing TotalThe chart above indicates the number of minors placed under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) andthe number of minor’s with multi-ethnic backgrounds.38 This ethnic group has historically been a minortotal of Sacramento County Probation’s total placement population. Public Agency Characteristics California - Child and Family Services ReviewPolitical JurisdictionsBoard of SupervisorsThe Board of Supervisors is the main governing body for Sacramento County. There are five supervisorson the board, and each supervisor is elected independently by District to represent interests of theirown geographic area as well as the County as a whole. The County Executive is responsible to the Boardof Supervisors for planning, organizing, directing, controlling, and coordinating county activities. TheCounty Executive is assisted by an executive team, comprised of the Assistant County Executive and theChief Deputy County Executives for Countywide Services, Internal Services and Municipal Services.Countywide Services’ programs and departments protect Sacramento County residents fromenvironmental and public health and safety risks, physical and financial abuse/neglect, poverty, hunger,and homelessness. Countywide Services also administer a wide range of state-mandated programs andprovide leadership in the community for connecting people to social services. The Department of Healthand Human Services is under the direction of the Countywide Services Agency.Federally Recognized TribesThe Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians and the Wilton Rancheria, a Miwok tribe, are the twofederally recognized tribes within the boundaries of Sacramento County. To the northeast ofSacramento County is the Auburn Rancheria (Maidu and Miwok) whose tribal members reside in nearbyPlacer and Nevada Counties. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians is a federally recognized tribelocated in El Dorado County. Sacramento County hosts a monthly Sacramento County Native AmericanRoundtable for Sacramento County CPS staff members, tribal representatives and community partnersto meet and discuss issues involving the child welfare system in Sacramento County and how it relatesto tribal children and families and the Indian Child Welfare Act. 66

Sacramento County has a unit of three paralegals dedicated to investigating parents’ claims of Native American ancestry for the purpose of providing ICWA noticing to the federally recognized tribes in the United States to comply with ICWA guidelines. Sacramento Native American Health Center (SNAHC), is a non-profit 501(c)(3) Federally Qualified Health Center, located in Midtown Sacramento. The health center is committed to enhancing quality of life by providing culturally competent, holistic and patient- centered continuum of care. There are no tribal or ethnic requirements to receive care. SNAHC provides medical, dental, behavioral health and wellness program services. The medical department provides comprehensive health care for adults and children. The Dental Department provides patient education, prevention and general dentistry for adults and children. The Behavioral Health program combines mental health and substance abuse counseling with traditional healing practices. The Wellness Program provides health education, disease prevention and chronic care case management services. School Districts/Local Education Agencies There are fourteen school districts including SCOE and County Wide Charter in Sacramento County with at total of 396 (K-12) schools. For the fiscal year of 2015-2016, there were 242,725 enrolled students. The four largest enrollment populations by ethnicity were White, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans totaling. Other identified ethnicities were two or more races, Filipino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, and Pacific Islander. Sacramento County Enrollment by Ethnicity for 2015-16California - Child and Family Services Review Data Source39 Since 1999, Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) has facilitated the Countywide Foster Youth Service Partnership which includes school district liaisons, CPS representatives, and others involved in foster care. The Partnership worked collaboratively with SCOE to develop the Foster Focus database, a secure web-accessible system. All districts use Foster Focus, entering data from their sites and receiving data from SCOE and other districts. The Foster Focus system automatically notifies the districts involved when a child is moved. Currently SCOE has three staff co-located at Child Protective Services. SCOE staff collects and maintains educational records for all children in out of home care and collaborate with social workers, schools and other authorized personnel to ensure each child’s records are updated and transferred timely to expedite enrollment. The services provided by SCOE assist in 39 California Department of Education Demographics Unit http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/67

improving outcomes for children in ensuring educational continuity for foster children and easy access California - Child and Family Services Reviewto educational support and services through the school districts.CPS and Sacramento State University have a strong partnership that supports an internship programbased on Department of Social Work Title IV-E Field model. CPS accommodates internships based onstaffing needs and number of program participants. The goal of the program is to provide qualityeducational experience for BSW and MSW students to prepare them for a career in Child Welfare field.The internship also allows for students to gain professional experience in various programs of CPS.Law Enforcement AgenciesThere are 21 law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County; however the agencies with which CPSgenerally works are the following:  Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office  California Highway Patrol  Sacramento Police Department  Elk Grove Police Department  Folsom Police Department  Rancho Cordova Police Department  Citrus Heights Police Department  Galt Police Department  Isleton Police Department  Twin Rivers Police DepartmentChild Protective Services and local law enforcement agencies have worked collaboratively and haveestablished Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to define operational relationships, roles andresponsibilities when responding to cases of child abuse and neglect. Currently, MOUs exist betweenCPS and all local law enforcement agencies except for the California Highway Patrol and Isleton PoliceDepartment. Law Enforcement Liaisons assist social workers to obtaining law enforcement reports,investigation narratives; and other pertinent documents.In addition to having the Child Protective Services social worker liaisons co-located at the majority of thelaw enforcement agencies, MOUs are in place with the Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom,Rancho Cordova, Galt, and UC Davis Police Departments as well as the Sacramento County Sheriff’sDepartments to assist in the funding of the SAFE Center and to provide a representative to the SteeringCommittee or the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings and detectives from their respective childabuse units to conduct case investigations. The agencies also arrange the interviews with the SAFECenter and exchange information and collaborate with the Deputy District Attorney, Social Worker,Forensic Interview Specialist, Victim/Witness Advocate or other professionals regarding the status of theinvestigation or case plan.Public HealthChild Protective Services, the Division of Public Health and Department of Probation have an MOUwhere in Foster Care PHNs(FCPHNs) are co-located with CPS agency staff and probation officers withremote accessibility to all team members who serve foster children/youth. The MOU establishes rolesand responsibilities of DHHS’s Child Health and Disability Prevention Program (CHDP), CPS and Probationin the Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC). Among the many roles of FCPHNs,they interpret health care reports for social workers, probation officers, foster placement and others asneeded. FCPHNs identify health care needs for each child in foster care. In addition, FCPHNs work withsubstitute care providers to ensure the child’s Health and Education Passport (HEP) or its equivalent is 68

California - Child and Family Services Reviewupdated. FCPHNs assist care providers in obtaining timely, comprehensive health assessments and expedite timely referrals for medical, dental, developmental and mental health services. County Child Welfare Infrastructure Child Protective Services is under the umbrella of Sacramento County’s Health and Human Services (DHHS). The Director of Health and Human Services is responsible for oversight and management of Sacramento County Health and Human Services Administration, Public Health, Primary Health Services, Senior and Adult Protective Services (APS), Child Protective Services (CPS), and Behavioral Health Services (BHS). The Director sets Departmental guidelines for fiscal, contracts, and budget units, communication and media, and quality assurance. The Director oversees the Deputy Director of Child Protective Services. The Deputy Director had direct oversight of four Division Managers, two program planners, and two Administrative Services Officer 3 in Division Administration and Budget Division. Of the Division Managers, one has oversight in Program Administration, one provides oversight to Emergency Response Program, and two Division Managers provide oversight for the Permanency Programs. The Division Manager for Program Administration has oversight of staff that includes CWS/CMS Application & Training, CWS/CMS Support Team, Child Family Services Reviews, Data Entry, Hearings & Quality Assurance, Continuous Quality Improvement, Workforce Development (Hiring & Training) and Policy and Procedure Writers. The Emergency Response Division Manager oversees programs and/or staff that include Intake Hotline, Investigations, Special Assault and Forensic Evaluation (SAFE) Center, Birth & Beyond (B&B), and Informal Supervision Programs. The Permanency Program Division Manager for the South/Central region has oversight of programs and/or staff that includes Court Services, Permanency, Division Support, Kinship, Child Development Specialists and Paralegals. The East/North Division Manager has oversight of programs and/or staff that includes Permanency, Adoptions, Guardianship, Extended Foster Care, Independent Living Skills, Foster Home Licensing, Team Decision Making, Centralized Placement Support, Social Security Income, Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), and Family Services Workers. Please refer to Appendix C: Department of Health and Human Services, Child Protective Services Organizational Chart. In 2010, Permanency and Emergency Response Programs were regionalized to allow CPS social workers to work with families in the area where the family resides. However, prior to this formalized regionalization, the Emergency Response Bureau had been servicing families and regionalized into three regions, North, South and East based on zip codes. ER’s zip codes were divided into three regions to allow for equitable distribution of referrals to all regions while simultaneously ensuring travel time for social workers was equitable for all regions since some zip codes generated greater numbers of referrals than others. Permanency has four regions and each regional office is responsible for serving families within specific zip codes in Sacramento County. The North and East regional offices are located in their respective geographical areas, while the South/Central regional office is in one centralized location. In 2010, Sacramento County also introduced early case assignments through the Vertical Case Management (VCM) process for cases where petitions are filed with the Sacramento County Juvenile Court. The process was implemented as a way to provide case management services from a Permanency social worker while simultaneously a Court Services social worker works with the family to address the investigation following the Detention/Initial hearings. A VCM Matrix was developed to identify roles for the Permanency and Court Services.69

Although Sacramento County has allocated 369.1 social worker positions, some of the positions are California - Child and Family Services Reviewidentified as supportive services and are not assigned to carry cases. A summary of the case carryingsocial worker positions is outlined below.Emergency Response Program (ER) Intake UnitThe ER Intake Unit operates the 24-hour Child Abuse Hotline (916-875-KIDS). Through this hotline, staffmembers receive confidential reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. The intake unit does notcarry cases as referrals requiring investigations are then assigned to the Investigation units.Emergency Investigations UnitsEmergency investigation units investigate complaints of child abuse and/or neglect, determine thefamily's need for services, make referrals to other CPS programs and/or community programs includingpreventative services. Initiate Juvenile Court proceedings for the protection of a child when necessary,determine if the child can be safely returned home with an appropriate safety plan in place, and preparereports for the Juvenile Court.Informal Supervision ProgramInformal Supervision is also part of the ER program. Informal Supervision social workers provideintensive services to children and their families in lieu of filing a petition in Juvenile Court per Welfareand Institutions Code 301(a). The goal is to protect children from being subjected to further neglect orabuse, but also preventing traumatic consequences for children and families of separation and out-of-home placement. Informal Supervision is the gateway to Early Intensive Family Drug Court (EIFDC) andprovides aftercare services to clients leaving the program. Length of services may vary between six totwelve months, oftentimes based upon clients’ graduation date from EIFDC. The focus children for thisprogram are 0-5 years of age. Services offered may include, but are not limited to, case management,counseling, emergency shelter, respite care, teaching and demonstrating parenting skills, AOD testing,AOD services, mental health, parent coaching, PHN support / assessments, and transportation.Informal Supervision (IS) social workers are typically assigned cases based on the region from where theemergency response referral originated. However, the three Informal Supervision regions often overlapwith swing zip codes to ensure all families can be given resources closet to their family home. ISsupervisors assign cases to workers based on workers availability. The other identifying factor inassigning cases for IS is special skills/disability accommodations per client requests. The department isbreaking ground for a fourth Informal Supervision unit for 2017.Permanency ProgramThe Permanency Program encompasses the largest section of CPS and it has two service components: 1)Court Services, and 2) Permanency Services, which includes Reunification/Dependent Supervision,Guardianship, and Adoptions.Court ServicesThe Court Services Program is located in the Permanency South/Central region, but Court Servicesserves families in all four regions. The Court Services social workers investigate the allegations where apetition has been filed with the Juvenile Court to determine if they are true and prepare jurisdictionalreports with the facts of the investigation and a social study of the family. Parents, children, medicalpersonnel, school personnel, and law enforcement are interviewed regarding the allegation. The CourtServices social workers also make a dispositional recommendation to the Court, as to whether the childshould be declared a dependent, placed in foster or relative care, or released to a parent. A case plan isdeveloped with the family and the assigned Permanency Social Worker in order to address the issues 70

California - Child and Family Services Reviewthat led to Juvenile Court involvement. Court Services staff works to locate absent parents, locate potential relatives for placement of the child, and make recommendations as to family visitation. In addition, Court Services has non-case carrying support staff that includes court officers, who attend court hearings in lieu of the assigned social workers and stand in for the assigned social workers in Juvenile Dependency Court matters. Other non-case carrying social workers include one Psychotropic Medication Coordinators and two Search Assistants. Permanency Services Permanency Services is the frame under which the rest of CPS services fall under. Its purpose is to ensure youth in open cases have legal or relational permanency, which includes reunification, adoption, guardianship, or connection with a significant adult. Services under this umbrella include:  Family Reunification is the process of reconnecting children in out-of-home care with their families by providing intensive services to address the issues that brought the children into CPS. Family reunification services are provided after children have been removed from parental custody and are pending dependency status or are dependents of the Juvenile Court due to abuse and/or neglect, and placed out of the home of the parent(s).  Dependent Supervision/Family Maintenance services are provided to families in which the children have been declared dependents of the Juvenile Court and are placed in the home of the parent(s) under a court-ordered plan of services and supervision developed to ensure the safety of the child.  Guardianship Program staff provides services to children and families seeking to pursue guardianship when a child is a dependent of the Juvenile Court.  Adoptions Program staff are responsible for assessing if adoption is the best plan for the child and assess potential adoptive parents in efforts to best match a dependent child with a prospective adoptive parent.  Extended Foster Care Program staff provide services to youth who are 18-21 years of age, extended foster care is available to assist foster youth in maintaining a safety net of support while experiencing independence in a secure and supervised living environment and in transitioning to successful adulthood. Services include transition services and referral to the Independent Living Program.  ICPC/Courtesy Supervision social workers coordinate out of state home evaluations/home studies and coordinate out of county/state case supervision.71

CWS Social Worker Service Array (Case Carrying)ER Investigations DutiesInformal Supervision Investigate referrals received by hotline, assess family’s needs for services and make referrals to other CPS programs, communityCourt Services resources and preventative services, draft warrants, petitions and file Detention Reports with the Dependency Juvenile Court.Permanency Services: Service Children and families to address CPS involvement to preventFamily Reunification Court Intervention.Dependent Supervision Investigates referrals promoted to cases; providesAdoptions Jurisdiction/Disposition recommendation to Juvenile Dependency Court.Guardianship Service children and families to address issues that led to CPS and courtICPC involvement. Assist youth in establishing stability in permanent homes and in obtaining life skills to transition them into successful adulthood.AB 12(EFC)/ILP Service children pending termination of parental rights and adoption. Assess prospective guardians and provide recommendation to court. Coordinate out of state home evaluations/home studies and coordinate out of county/state case supervision. Provide Non-Minor Dependents (NMDs) with support in independent living to transition into successful adulthood. Social Worker Service Array (Non-Case Carrying) CWS DutiesER Hotline Evaluate calls to hotline and determine response needs.SAFE Conduct forensic sexual and physical abuse interviews of children.Court Officer/Liaison Represents CWS in non-contested Juvenile Dependency Court proceedings and is a liaison between CWS and court.Psychotropic Medication Coordinate submission of requests to court for psychotropic medicationsCoordinator for dependent children.Search Assistants Assist CWS in searches of missing parents.Kinship Evaluate relatives and non-relative extended family members for placement of children.Adoptions (Home Study) Complete adoptive home studies and address adoption-specific needs.Adoptions (AAP) Provide assessments and links adoptive parents to funds to assist them in meeting the basic and special needs of their adopted children. All California - Child and Family Services Review families who adopt Sacramento County dependent children are eligible for AAP funds, regardless of income.Foster Home Licensing Evaluate homes of prospective and current caregivers for new or existing license.TDM Facilitate Team Decision Making Meetings.Centralized Support Secure placement for children and evaluate relatives and non-relative extended family member homes for placement in emergency situations.SSI Liaison/SSI/SSA Screen, file and assess continued eligibility for SSI Title XVI and SSA TitleProject Coordinator II benefits claims for eligible youth.*This table is not all-inclusive, but represents a majority of the social workers and assigned positions in CPS. 72

California - Child and Family Services ReviewNon-Case Carrying Support Staff Sacramento County has many staff that provide support for social workers in various phases of the work with families and children. Staff includes Family Service Workers, Child Development Specialists, Office Assistants, Legal Transcribers and Data Entry. Family Service Workers provide a wide range of services to children and families as requested by and in consultation with the referring social worker or supervisor. Services include, but are not limited to coordinating and monitoring visitations, transportation, education of parents/caregivers on available community resources/services, money management, parenting coaching and demonstration, education on child development and nutrition. Family Service Workers provide feedback to the referring social worker or supervisor regarding the parent/caregiver’s progress, strengths and any observed concerns and enter information into CWS/CMS regarding their contact. Office assistants provide a wide range of clerical/operational support involving customer service, document preparation, filing and record keeping, and other regularly performed duties which support the function of an office operation. Legal Transcribers provide support to social workers by transcribing a variety of legal documents, correspondence and reports from dictating machines, copy or instructions. They also perform related clerical tasks such as using copying equipment and answering telephone inquiries. The Transcription Unit also has Office Assistant II’s, called “Runners.” The Runners ensure that all Court documents are copied and filed timely with the Juvenile Dependency Court. Additionally, the Runners deliver Prisoner Transport information to the Court, and enter data into a data base used to track compliance with the Welfare and Institutions Code’s statutes pertaining to the timelines required for the filing of Court reports prior to the scheduled Court hearings. Methods of Assigning Cases in Child Welfare Emergency Response Assignments: The Emergency Response Program is divided into three regions, East, North and South by zip code. The regions have synchronized shifts for full county coverage with two evening shifts and 4 weekend shifts. The goal is to assign each investigating social worker an equitable number of referrals according to the available full time employees (FTE). Efforts are made to keep social workers’ quarterly referrals per FTE within 2 of the program average referral per FTE. A zip code sheet is primarily used for 10 day referral assignments. Immediate Response Referrals (IRs) are assigned based on regions and IR percentages. Emergency Response uses two systems to manage referral assignments. The ER Asset Management System (AMS) is a spreadsheet used by Emergency Response staff to keep track of the number of social workers available to respond to IRs and 10 day referrals on a particular day or timeframe. Additionally, the AMS helps to record social worker’s daily tasks that impact his/her availability to respond to IRs and 10 days. Access and “modify” ability to AMS is limited to the bureau Point of Contact (POC), IR Coordinator (Intake supervisor) and the 10 day Coordinator (Intake Supervisor). All ER supervisors and managers have read-only access. IRIS (Immediate Response Information System) is the system that Emergency Response (ER) Intake Supervisors use to notify the IR Coordinator that there is an IR referral that needs to be assigned to a social worker (runner). Only Emergency Response lead clerical staff, supervisors and managers can input data or update data in IRIS. All other CPS social workers have read-only access to information on IRIS73

IR referrals are assigned by the IR Coordinator for investigation to social workers (runners) as soon as California - Child and Family Services Reviewpossible following receipt of the referral. IR percentages are used to create the daily IR Assignment listin a fair and equitable manner, by assigning IR referrals to the social worker with the lowest percentagefirst. IR percentage is calculated by dividing the number of IRs assigned by the number of days the socialworker is available to receive IRs. IR percentages are calculated daily. The running total is restartedquarterly.Ten day referrals are assigned for investigation to social workers by the 10 day Coordinator. The 10 DayCoordinator uses AMS to identify available social workers and assigns 10 day referrals. Individualreferral per FTE is calculated by dividing the number of FTE social workers by the number of referrals thesocial worker has received. The average referral per FTE is calculated by dividing the total number ofreferrals for the ER program by the total number of FTE. Social Workers returning from an absence over5 working days will have their referral per FTE adjusted to the average referral per FTE on their first dayback.The parameters for assigning IRs and 10 days do not apply to subsequent referrals that are received onan ER social worker’s caseload. IR or 10 day referrals received that are open on an ER social worker areassigned to the assigned social worker whenever possible. If the assigned social worker is not available,the referral is assigned to another ER social worker. The IR Coordinator and/or 10 Day Coordinator mustmake live contact with the assigned social worker or supervisor prior to the referral assignment. The 10Day Coordinator must enter a statement in the screener narrative section of the referral indicating thatlive contact was made with the assigned social worker or supervisor.ER has Medical Neglect social workers and medical neglect IRs and 10 days are assigned to a medicalneglect social worker when one is available. If there are no medical neglect social workers available, themedical neglect IR is assigned to the next available East Bureau Social Worker. Medical neglect socialWorkers are assigned one medical neglect IR per day. Medical neglect social workers can be assignedregular 10 day referrals if needed to keep their average referral per FTE within 2 of the average referralper FTE range. The medical neglect social workers receive referrals at a rate of 0.5 FTE.Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) ER social workers can be assigned up to two CSEC IRsper day. If there are no CSEC social workers available the CSEC IRs will be assigned to the next availableSouth Bureau Social Worker.Out-stationed social workers and are assigned to specific jurisdictions in accordance with their location.Out-stationed social workers are assigned referrals in their designated zip codes. They are included inthe regular rotation for IR and 10 day referral assignments. Out-stationed social workers receivereferrals at a rate of 0.8 FTE.Court Services social workers investigate IR and 10 day referral when the victim minor’s case is open toCourt Services. Informal Supervision social workers investigate IR and 10 day referrals when the minor,parents, or companion referral is open to Informal Supervision. IR and 10 day referrals when the victimminor’s case is open to Permanency the referral is investigated by an ER social worker as assigned by thereferral coordinators. 74

California - Child and Family Services ReviewCourt Services/Permanency Case Assignments Since October 2010 with the CPS implementation of vertical case management (VCM), assignments for Court Services and Permanency have been made by the assignment desk staff in Court Services. Assignments for cases where Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) 300 petition has been filed with the Dependency Juvenile Court or a case is Transferred-In from another county, a Court Services and a Permanency social worker are simultaneously assigned prior to the Detention/Initial hearing. For WIC 387 cases, only a Court Services worker is assigned as a Permanency social worker already has primary case assignment. The assignment desk maintains assignment rotation logs for Court Services and all four Permanency regions. The logs include all investigating Court Services social workers and all case carrying Permanency social workers who provide family reunification, family maintenance or continued foster care services to families and children. Assignment rotation logs are maintained for court services and permanency based on workers’ availability and for permanency, the vacancy capacity is also considered when assigning cases. Assignment logs are maintained by the assignment desk and Permanency supervisors. Permanency supervisors update the logs whenever there is a change in staffing, rotation status and assignments for each of their respective units. Similarly to ER, efforts are made to maintain equitable case assignments. This goal is achieved by ensuring the same worker does not get assigned all large families or all single child cases, but rather a balance of both. In addition, if a Permanency worker is assigned a case, efforts are made not to assign another case to the same worker on the same day. In addition, there are many variables that impact when a worker is assigned a case. Generally, for permanency, cases are assigned based on the region from where the emergency response referral originated. However, a case requiring a special skills worker or when a new sibling of an existing child on a case requires assignment, both of these situations supersedes the assignment by region criteria. For Permanency special skills workers, whenever possible efforts are made not to assign too many non- special skills cases to ensure availability for specialized cases. If for any reason a worker gets a special assignment in advance of his/her rotation (special skills, companion, CSEC, medically fragile, etc.), the worker is skipped on his/her next rotation assignment. If a worker had a case that needed to be reassigned to another worker for any reason, the worker from whom the case was reassigned is then given first priority on the rotation to receive the next case. If a worker has returned from a leave of more than 10 days, the worker receives a case immediately on the day of his/her return. If the worker was on any type of leave for 5 or more days, he/she is assigned a case when they are next up on rotation. Furthermore, for court services, supervisors have discretion to have a worker skipped on rotation if consensus is reached by all supervisors and if no consensus can be reached, program manager approval is needed. Besides all previously referenced variables in case assignments, in court services, new social workers are given the opportunity to receive cases as directed by his/her assigned supervisor, depending on the social worker’s skill level; however, generally in Court Services, a new social worker is assigned his/her first case after approximately two months from the date of hire. Once the worker finishes his/her first report, a second case is assigned. Prior to the completion of the second report the new worker is assigned a third case to help monitor the worker’s skill progress and ability to work multiple cases. By the third month of employment, the worker is placed on full rotation. New Permanency social workers are given a capacity for 10 cases within the first month of hire, 20 the following month after that, capacity is determined by the supervisor and is based on skill progress of the new worker and the average caseload of all senior staff. For all new staff efforts are made to also select cases less complex than those assigned to more senior staff. When making assignments, consideration is also given to permanency supervisors by making efforts not to assign more than two cases at a time to the unit.75

In Adoptions and ICPC a control clerks receives electronic assignment and determines which workers ineach unit have availability. Once the cases are given to the unit supervisors, the supervisors determinebest fit for the case assignment and electronic assignment is given to the corresponding worker.Guardianship and Extended Foster Care assignments are done by the supervisors based on socialworker’s caseload and availability.Caseload Averages by Service ComponentEmergency Response caseloads (referrals assigned) vary depending on the number of referrals received,referrals carried over from previous month that remained under investigation, social worker availability,number of new hires, number of social workers on leave of absence, or due to other reasons. The tablebelow shows the average number of new referrals assigned to ER social workers per month from August2015 to August 2016. In addition to the referrals received each month, ER workers also continue toinvestigate referrals that remain open on their caseload from previous month’s assignments. Average Number of Referrals Assigned per Month per Social Worker 2015 2016Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. 20 20 19 14 18 19 16 18 21 20 18 16 18Data Source: Asset Management System (AMS)Informal Supervision case assignments outlined below are based on data from SafeMeasures for the lastday of each month from August 2015 to August 2016. The table shows the average caseload for workersbased on the number of cases open to all of the Informal Supervision units divided by the number ofworkers who had at least one case assignment. It should be noted there is sometimes significantvariation in the actual caseload size, as some workers may have just a few cases assigned on the datenoted, and others may have much more. Informal Supervision Monthly Caseload Average Month/Year Caseload Average August 2015 21 September 2015 23 October 2015 23 November 2015 24 December 2015 23 California - Child and Family Services Review January 2016 23 February 2016 22 March 2016 23 April 2016 23 May 2016 25 June 2016 28 July 2016 23 August 2016 23Data Source40Court Services Caseload averages in the table below are obtained from the last weekly Court ServicesFriday Report in each month. Primary caseload assignment information is obtained from SafeMeasuresand counts children. Caseload averages divide the total number of primary assignments (numerator) by40 SafeMeasures 76

the number of staff available (i.e. available FTE) to receive cases (denominator). Vacancies and social workers off rotation for a variety of reasons (e.g.: vacation, leave of absence, new social worker) are not included in the denominator. Court Services social workers additionally maintain secondary assignments (children) where the case has not been disposed by the Court and is pending a Court hearing. The table below shows average caseloads ranging from a low of 4.33 in June 2016 to a high of 11.8 in April 2016. The average caseload significantly increased in September 2015 due to an increase in vacancies and social workers off rotation for a variety of reasons. In January 2016 the number of new social workers increased as vacancies were filled. High caseload averages continued for several months as these new social workers were off rotation for caseload assignment. In June 2016 caseload averages dipped as the new social workers were placed on rotation for caseload assignment. Court Services Monthly Caseload Average Month/Year Available FTE/Caseload August 2015 21.8/4.17 September 2015 16.8/8.51 October 2015 20.8/9.71 November 2015 18.8/11.6 December 2015 17/9.94 January 2016 15.8/9.37 February 2016 15.8/8.92 March 2016 18/8.56 April 2016 12/11.8 May 2016 17/11 June 2016 27/4.33 July 2016 24/5.42 August 2016 23/5.09 Data Source41California - Child and Family Services Review Permanency caseload averages were obtained using SafeMeasures data in the Friday Reports which includes all Permanency Regions and workers who provide family reunification, family maintenance and permanent placement (continued foster care) services, caseloads in the Permanency Program varied from month to month, based on number of cases available for assignment, social worker availability, number of new hires, number of social workers on leave of absence, or other reasons. The numbers in each caseload for Permanency is reflective of the number of children each worker is assigned, not the number of families. As the numbers show in the tables below, generally caseloads have steadily remained in the mid thirties and at times, caseloads rose to over 40 for some workers. In August 2015, there were eleven social workers with caseloads above 40; thirty-six workers had caseloads in the 20s-30s range while the remaining eight had caseloads below 20 due to having specialized caseloads or being new to CPS. By September 2015, there were only three social workers with caseloads above 40 and the majority of the workers had caseloads in the 20s-30s range. By the end of December 2015, only one worker had a caseload of more than 30 cases, forty-one had caseloads in the 20s-30s range while the remaining 15 had caseloads under 20 because they were either new or returning from an absence. 41 SafeMeasures, Court Services Friday Reports77

By February 2016, there were no social workers with caseloads above 40; however, in April 2016, therewere nine social workers with caseloads above 35. By the end of May 2016, only 4 workers remainedwith caseloads above 35 cases. As of August 2016, one social worker had a caseload of 37 and two hadcaseloads of 36. Thirty eight workers had cases in the 30’s range, twenty eight had caseloads in the 20’srange and ten had caseloads below 20. Region Aug 2015 Sept 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Avail. FTE/Csld. Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/CsldCentralEast 13.8/30 13.8/29.7 14.8/25.9 16.8/23.6 14.8/28.2North 16.8/35.3 19.8/29.5 20.8/24.7 19.8/29.9 19.8/27.8South 16/31.9 21/26.3 19/30.4 19/30.6 19/30.7 21/28.8 21/31.8 22/29.1 19/31 23/27 Region Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Avail. FTE/Csld. Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/CsldCentralEast 15.8/25.9 16.8/25.6 17.8/24 18.5/27.8 16.8/26.7North 20.8/26.3 18.8/27.3 18.8/26.9 18.8/26.5 17.8/27.4South 19/30.1 20/29.2 22/26.6 21/27.6 21.27.6 20/30 21/26.3 20/28.1 21/30 19/28.9 Region Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Avail. FTE/Csld. Avail. FTE/Csld Avail. FTE/CsldCentralEast 15.8/29.9 15.8/30.3 15.8/31.8North 17.8/27.8 17.8/28 18/27.1South 21/27.4 22/25 23/24.2 22/25.1 25/21.8 20/26.6Data Source42Adoptions caseload averages are based on data from SafeMeasures for the last day of each month fromAugust 2015 to August 2016, below is a table showing the average caseload for workers based on thenumber of cases open to all of the adoptions divided by the number of case carrying workers. It shouldbe noted there is sometimes significant variation in the actual caseload size, as some workers may havejust a few cases assigned on the date noted, and others may have much more depending on experienceand worker availability. California - Child and Family Services Review42 SafeMeasures, Permanency Friday Reports 78

Month/Year Caseload Average August 2015 52 September 2015 52 October 2015 49 November 2015 48 December 2015 47 January 2016 45 February 2016 43 March 2016 43 April 2016 42 42 May 2016 42 June 2016 43 July 2016 43 August 2016 Guardianship caseload averages are based on data from SafeMeasures for the last day of each month from August 2015 to August 2016, below is a table showing the average caseload for workers based on the number of cases open to the guardianship unit divided by the number of workers who had at least one case assignment. It should be noted there is sometimes significant variation in the actual caseload size, as some workers may have just a few cases assigned on the date noted, and others may have much more depending on experience and worker availability.California - Child and Family Services Review Month/Year Caseload Average August 2015 88 September 2015 86 October 2015 84 November 2015 83 December 2015 84 January 2016 86 February 2016 105 March 2016 108 April 2016 110 88 May 2016 87 June 2016 87 July 2016 86 August 2016 ICPC/Courtesy Supervision averages are based on data maintained by the ICPC/Courtesy Supervisor. The data is only representative of ICPC cases as data for courtesy supervision cases was not available.79

Month/Year Caseload Average August 2015 116.66September 2015 113.88 October 2015 115November 2015 115December 2015 113.88 January 2016 110.55 February 2016 108.33 March 2016 107.22 April 2016 111.66 115.55 May 2016 115.55 June 2016 116.11 July 2016 113.33 August 2016EFC caseload averages were obtained from SafeMeasures. Caseloads in the EFC program overall havenot had a significant variance from month to month, factors impacting the variance however are basedon the number of available staff, the number of Non-Minor Dependents (NMDs) opting in or out of EFC,the number of NMDs whose dependency was terminated due to aging out of the system or due to theNMDs no longer meeting eligibility criteria. Month/Year Available FTE/Caseload California - Child and Family Services Review August 2015 11/35.81 September 2015 11/35.72 October 2015 11/35.09 November 2015 11/34.81 December 2015 11/35 January 2016 11/35.27 February 2016 11/34.63 March 2016 11/36.09 April 2016 12/32.75 12/32.58 May 2016 12/31.41 June 2016 11/33.72 July 2016 11/32.81 August 2016Data Source40Staff TurnoverCPS Administration Division records data specific to retirements, resignations, promotions, transfers,deceased, and terminated staff. Over the years, CPS has consistently been impacted by staff turnover.As illustrated below, since 2012 there have been a total of 304.9 workers leaving social worker positions.The majority of the turnover has been as a result of resignations and transfers. The largest turnover wasin 2015 wherein approximately 58% of the turnover was as a result of resignations and transfers. Thevacancy rate has been improving slightly over the years; however is still high above the 2013 rate of4.85%. The vacancy rate in May 2014 was 9.6%, in May 2015 the vacancy rate increased dramatically to16.01% and most recently as of May 2016 the vacancy rate was 13.17%. Over the past 3 years, theaverage vacancy rate was 11%. 80

The main impact as a result of turnover has been increased caseloads for workers across all programs in CPS. Increased caseloads inherently contributed to social workers spending less time with the children and families. High caseloads also impacted social worker’s ability to establish and maintain strong relationships with children, parents, and caregivers, which potentially impacted placement stability and permanency. In addition, high caseloads also impacted workers from being able to afford families and children due process as reports were often not filed timely or at all for scheduled hearings. High caseloads also impacted staff morale as it impacted staff’s ability to cope with the stress of high demands with limited time to meet all of the demands. Another factor impacting turnover was the improvement of the economy which allowed workers to opt not to work for CPS and some workers left to work in the private sector or for other counties. In order to ensure service delivery to families and children, ensure compliance with mandates, and minimize the impact on outcomes for children and families, at the end of 2014, a Court Services Stabilization plan was implemented by the management team. The plan consisted of social workers, supervisors and program specialists from various programs being involuntarily transferred to Court Services. In addition, supportive services were implemented for Permanency and Court Services which allowed volunteer CPS social workers to complete face to face contacts, psychosocial evaluations, and other case related tasks as a courtesy to the assigned worker for overtime pay. Because of the vacancies, compliance with data entry suffered as priority was placed on ensuring monthly face to face contacts, dealing with case management issues and service delivery to families and children. An impact as a result of the involuntary transferred, with several workers being transferred from Program administration and Team Decision Making it delayed Program Administration’s ability to fully staff their training department, placing the responsibility of training of new workers to the supervisors in Court Services and Permanency. Another impact of turnover has been the increased number of new social worker staff compounded by the increased number of new supervisors. To address staff turnover and vacancies, between December of 2015 and May of 2016 CPS held three mass hiring events. During the three hiring events a total of 472 candidates were contacted for interviews. Of those contacted, 60% (280) were not interested or did not respond, 21% (99) of those were interviewed and 55% (54) were hired. The mass hiring events re-introduced the hiring of staff in cohort groups. The hiring of workers in cohort groups allowed for specialized, program specific training to the cohorts while promoting team building among the new workers.California - Child and Family Services Review Staff Turnover 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jan – Aug 2016 Total Retired 5.6 8 10.5 19 4 47.1 Resigned 18.6 11 22 35.8 113 9 5 13.8 9.8 25.6 49.4 Promoted 6.8 15 20.4 11.8 72.4 Transferred 0 17.4 0 12.8 Deceased 1 0 1 12 1 Terminated 41 4 4 97 0 22 66.3 1 304.9 Total 45.4 55.2 Data Source43 43 CPS Social Employee Database81

Supervisor to Social Worker RatiosAs of August 2016, supervisor to staff ratios are as outlined in the table below: Program Supervisor to Staff Ratio Emergency Response 1 to 6-7 Informal Supervision 1 to 6 Court Services 1 to 5 Permanency 1 to 6-7 Adoptions 1 to 6-7 Guardianship 1 to 7 ICPC 1 to 1.8 Extended Foster Care 1 to 6 Data Source44Staff Recruitment and Selection:Sacramento County Staff are recruited through a competitive examination either with a start and closingdate for filing or continuous filing. Recruited applicants then are place in a banded rank eligible listwhich includes transfer applicants meeting minimum qualifications. Once ranks are assigned toqualifying applicants, selection of those applicants by the hiring program is made of the applicantsranked in the top three ranks. Interviews are arranged with potential applicants and applicants areselected based on interview and fit with program with needs.Advertising for available jobs includes but not limited to postings on Saccountyjobs.net, countyFaceBook, LinkedIn, SacJobs.com, Sac State University, UC Davis, and other UC universities as well asadvertisement in social welfare organizations such as CWDA, California National Association of SocialWorkers and the Employment Development Department.Based on information obtained from the August 2016 CPS Position Allocation Report, there were 747.7allocated CPS positions which include social workers, supervisors, support staff (child developmentspecialists, family service workers, public health nurses, clerical, transcription, and administrative staff).Of the 747 positions, 369.1 positions were allocated to masters and bachelors level social workers.The majority of the allocated social worker positions are Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree California - Child and Family Services Reviewpositions with a total of 292.4. The second largest allocation of social worker positions is the bachelor’slevel social worker positions identified as Human Services Social Worker Range B with a total of 76.7. Ofthe total social worker positions, sixty of them are special skills master’s level and bachelors levelpositions. Although there are 3691.1 allocated positions, not all positions were filled or were in theprocess of hiring at the time of the writing of this report. Of the positions allocated positions, 334 staffwere in current positions, other staff was in process of getting hired. Of the 334 staff approximately 169masters level social workers had more than 3 years of experience while the remaining 95 had less thantwo years of experience. For staff in bachelor positions, 44 had 3 or more years of experience and 26had less than 2 years of experience.44 CPS Employee Rosters 82

Social Workers 67.7 Human Services Social Worker, Range B 1 Human Services Social Worker, Native American Culture, Range B 3 Human Services Social Worker, African American Culture, Range B 5 Human Services Social Worker, Spanish Language/Culture, Range B Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree 241.4 Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, Native American Culture 1 Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, African American Culture Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, Hmong Language/Culture 21 Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, Spanish Language/Culture 2 Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, Laotian Language/Culture Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, Russian Language/Culture 22 Human Services Social Worker, Master's Degree, Vietnamese Language/Culture 1 Total 1 3 369.1 Social workers eligible for employment as a Human Services Social Worker, Masters Degree, must either have a Master's Degree from an accredited college or university in social work or a Master's Degree from an accredited college or university in a program that meets the education requirements for a Marriage and Family Therapist or Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor license issued by the California Department of Consumer Affairs Board of Behavioral Science Examiners or have current enrollment in the final semester of a Master's program at an accredited college or university leading to a Master's Degree in social work or a related Master's Degree that meets the education requirements for a Marriage and Family Therapist or Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor license issued by the California Department of Consumer Affairs Board of Behavioral Science Examiners.California - Child and Family Services Review Applicants for the Human Services Social Worker, Range B positions must either have two years of full- time, paid experience employed by the County of Sacramento in the class of Human Services Specialist and successful completion of 12 semester or 18 quarter upper division units from an accredited college or university in social work, sociology, psychology, counseling or other field closely related to the intent of the class or have a Bachelor's Degree or higher from an accredited college or university with at least 24 semester or 36 quarter upper division units in social work, sociology, psychology, counseling or other field closely related to the intent of the class. Related fields may include behavioral science, child development, community health education, cultural anthropology, ethnic studies, family studies, gerontology, human development, mental health, and public health. Applicants for the Human Services Supervisor, Masters Degree, must either have one year of full-time, paid experience at the supervisory or professional level performing social services delivery activities such as assessing client needs, determining appropriate actions and establishing case plans, monitoring client progress, maintaining case records, or making referrals to other resources, agencies, or services and a Master's Degree from an accredited college or university in social work or one year of full-time, paid experience at the supervisory or professional level performing social services delivery activities such as assessing client needs, determining appropriate actions and establishing case plans, monitoring client progress, maintaining case records, or making referrals to other resources, agencies, or services and a Master's Degree in a program that meets the requirements necessary to satisfy the minimum education for a Marriage and Family Therapist or Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor license issued by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Behavioral Science Examiners.83

All CPS social workers are supervised by Human Services Supervisors with Masters Degrees. As ofAugust 2016, there were 85.5 allocated supervisor positions, of which 61.3 are master’s levelsupervisors. In addition, 18 master’s level positions are allocated to Human Services ProgramSpecialists. All other supervisory positions are allocated to a child development supervisor, familyservices supervisors, supervising public health nurse and supervising medical case management nurse.Of all the current Human Services Supervisors, Masters Degrees, 24 have been in their current positionsbetween 8 and 18, while 37.3 supervisors have 2 years or less experience.Below is the breakdown of race/ethnicity of all CPS social workers as of August 24, 2016; however, somedata includes on-call social workers who are employed on a part time basis. Race/Ethnicity Number of Social Workers African American 106 Asian 50 Hispanic/Latino 67 Native American 4 Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian 1 Two or More Races 11 White 113 Data Source45Salaries Class Title Monthly Salary Range Health and Human Services Director $15,557.34-$17,151.18 Human Services Deputy Director $11,115.12-$12,253.08 Human Services Division Manager Range A/B $9,646.56-$11,701.50 Human Services Program Manager Human Services Supervisor, Masters Degree $7,958.76-$9,674.40 Human Services Program Specialist $5,785.50-$7,031.34 Human Services Social Worker, Masters Degree $5,665.44-$6,886.92 Human Services Social Worker, Masters Degree (with Special Skills) $5,470.56-$6,648.54 Human Services Social Worker, Range B $5,470.56-$6,648.54 Human Services Social Worker, Range B (with Special Skills) $4,579.68-$5,566.25 $4,579.68-$5,987.34Data source46 California - Child and Family Services ReviewBargaining Unit IssuesCounty staff represented by bargaining units include: social workers, family service workers, clericalstaff, court professionals, social work supervisors, program specialist, and managers. The bargainingunits that represent social workers and supervisors are United Public Employees (UPE, Local 1) andService Employee International Union (SEIU, local 1025), respectively.It is the goal of Sacramento County Management to work collaboratively with social workers and familyservices labor union, United Public Employees (UPE, Local 1) to address labor issues as it pertains tomandates, practice, and workload issues. Quarterly meetings between executive management and UPEare held to address agency and labor updates impacting workload and at times some of the updatesrequire meet and confers to address those changes and the impact on the workforce. UPE and the45 Human Resources COMPASS Database46 https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/sacramento/classspecs 84

California - Child and Family Services Reviewcounty established a joint labor-management Workload Policy Board for the purpose of improving communication and addressing workload concerns. The Board is comprised of Agency Administrator, Director of Human Assistance, Director of Health and Human Services, Human Resource Managers from those departments, a representative from the Office of Labor Relations and UPE, Local 1 Board of Directors staff. The Workload Policy Board reviews and coordinates the work of the Program Specific and Integrated Workgroups (PSW), focusing on improving communication and developing agency-wide policy regarding workload issues. There are five PSW groups within CPS program areas focused on mitigating workload impact in each area. Sacramento County also works collaboratively with Service Employee International Union (SEIU, local 1025), to address labor issues as it pertains to mandates, practice, and workload issues for supervisors. Monthly meetings between management and SEIU are held to address agency and labor updates impacting workload and at times some of the updates require meet and confers to address the impact on the workforce. Both of the labor groups mentioned above have current negotiated contracts in place. Since the last County Self Assessment in 2012, the agency has experienced many changes in practice and service delivery as a result of a law suit, initiatives, Title IV-E project, or new legislative mandates which will be discussed throughout this report. Sacramento County makes every effort to obtain appropriate feedback and input during implementation of new practices or mandates whenever possible. When necessary, Sacramento County also follows the required Meet and Confer process with each labor group and has been successful in reducing or eliminating negative impacts to new practices and service delivery, which also prevents inherent impact on outcome measures. Probation Infrastructure The Sacramento County Probation Department is responsible for the background investigation of criminal and juvenile offenders and the preparation of social history reports and case plans for the Superior Courts. The Probation Department also operates and maintains the County's juvenile hall: The Youth Detention Facility; and several other facilities and programs, including Adult Day Reporting Centers, and various collaborative courts. The Department teams with various law enforcement agencies, schools, community-based organizations and the citizens of Sacramento County to form productive partnerships with an underlying goal of public safety. Probation is also responsible for the supervision of both adults and juveniles granted probation by the courts, and the suitable placement and supervision of youth removed from the care and custody of their parents by the courts. The Probation Department operations are aligned into two service areas: Adult and Juvenile. Service area managers’ report to their assigned Assistant Chief Probation Officer; who ultimately report to the Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer is appointed by the Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.6. The result is a dual reporting structure to both the Superior Court and the Board of Supervisors through the Countywide Services Agency. As of October 2016, the Probation Department has an allocation of 682 total positions. There are 547 sworn positions and 135 non‐sworn positions.85

Probation Department Leadership California - Child and Family Services Review Chief Probation Officer: Lee Seale Assistant Chief Probation Officer: Mike Shores Division Chief: Chris Johnson Assistant Division Chief: Carl Kagel Supervisors: Jayme McKown  Tracy Lozada  Rod Dorsey Placement Probation Sworn Staff: 18 Clerical Staff: 2The Placement Division consists of one Division Chief, one Assistant Division Chief, three SupervisingProbation Officers, five In-State Probation Officers, four Out-of-State Probation Officers, four ExtendedFoster Care (EFC) Probation Officers, two Intake Probation Officers, one Resource Family Approvalofficer (RFA) and two Group Home Auditor Probation Officers. Each of the officers in these positions hasa minimum of a Bachelor’s degree. They are further required to attend Placement Officer Core perWelfare and Institutions Code Section 16206. Two additional clerical positions offer support withCWS/CMS entry and division needs. Placement positions are filled by an open application and interviewprocess. Annual salary information is as follows: Deputy Probation Officer annual salary: $60,134.40-$73,100.88, Senior Deputy Probation Officer annual salary: $78,112.08 - $94,920.48, SupervisingProbation Officer annual salary: $80,889.12 - $98,323.92, Assistant Probation Division Chief annualsalary: $97,259.04 - $118,243.44, Probation Division Chief annual salary: $128,766.96 - $141,963.12.Within the placement unit eleven officers are Caucasian, four are African American, three Latin and oneFilipino. The average number of years of experience in the Placement unit for Probation Officers is 5.85years. The average number of years of experience of those officers working in Probation is 18.68 years.Supervising Probation Officers supervise five to six officers. In-State Placement Officers supervisecaseloads averaging 13 probation youth committed to structured behavioral modification programs.Out-of-State Placement Officers supervise caseloads averaging 10 probation youth committed tostructured behavioral modification programs. EFC Placement Officers supervise caseloads averaging 16adults receiving EFC services. Placement Division Structure  2 - Group Home Auditors  2 - Intake Officers  5 – In-State Officers  4 – Out-of-State Officers  4 – Extended Foster Care Officers  1 – Resource Family Approval Officer  1 – CWS/CMS Data entry  1 - ClericalIn 2012 Probation developed a Placement Intake Unit. This Unit consists of a Supervising ProbationOffice, a Senior Deputy Probation Officer and a Deputy Probation Officer. Cases referred by the Courtfor suitable placement are reviewed by one of the two Placement Intake Officers. The Officers areresponsible for interviewing each probation youth and their families to identify relatives, other familymembers or Non Related Extended Family Member (NERFM) willing to provide care for the probationyouth. Identified persons are contacted and interviewed by the Intake Unit for potential placement.Additionally, if a probation youth must be placed in a group home setting the case is evaluated to sync 86

California - Child and Family Services Reviewthe probation youth’s needs with services offered by the provider. Attempts to locate local placements are given first consideration. Once placed, Placement Officers supervise cases by geographical regions ranging from California to Florida. Officers make face to face contact with probation youth a minimum of once per month at the location where they reside. During the placement process the probation youth may come into contact with several different officers under the current system. The probation youth will be contacted by a minimum of two officers, intake and placement. Subsequently, if a probation youth is unsuccessful and fails a program or is failed from a program, the minor runs away from the program or the minor commits a new offence they are returned to the Youth Detention Facility and the placement process begins again. The probation youth may or may not return to the original Intake Officer or Placement Officer. Reasons for the changes include current number of cases on the caseload of the Intake Officer or a change in geographical location of the program. Probation youth who have been placed at several programs may have contact with several officers. Additionally, probation youth who transition to EFC services will change from a placement officer to an EFC officer. The impact of staff turnover was noted as a concern by stakeholder parents. It was felt the level of trust developed between a probation youth and an officer and communication was hampered by the probation youth having multiple officers handle a case during their time in placement. Probation youth stakeholders indicated a desire to have more personal contact with their Probation Officer more than once per month. Areas addressed through the bargaining unit over the past couple of years include timely turnaround for reimbursements of officer out of pocket expenses. Additional improvements have included the use of county managed credit cards, a streamlined expense accounting process, the use of county smart phones, GPS and the use of four wheel drive vehicle during winter months. Juvenile Hall Sacramento County Probation is responsible for the operation and management of the County’s juvenile hall, called the Youth Detention Facility (YDF). YDF is the first point of interaction for most youth who enter the county's juvenile justice system. YDF provides a safe and secure environment for these youth as well as provides educational and vocational activities that promote the health and well-being of the youth served; encourages law-abiding behavior; teaches individual accountability for one's choices; and models pro-social behaviors. There is a capacity of 426 beds at YDF with current staffing for 225 beds. Since 2005, YDF annual average daily population has dropped 52%. The Average Daily Population in 2005 was 337 compared to 160 in 2016. The total annual population for placement commitments in 2013 was 193 compared to 133 in 2016, a decline of 31%.87

Average Daily Youth Detention Facility PopulationPopulationTotal 200 180 160 2013 2014 2015 2016 140 195 187 193 160 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Average Daily Youth Detention Facility Population Annual Placement Detention Facility PopulationPopulationTotal 200 180 160 2013 2014 2015 2016 California - Child and Family Services Review 140 193 193 164 133 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Annual Placement Detention Facility PopulationA probation youth’s detention risk is determined using the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI)at the time of intake. Additionally, YDF Intake Officers use the Positive Achievement Change Tool 2.0(PACT) assessment to assess a probation youth’s long term needs and the Massachusetts YouthScreening Instrument (MAYSI) to assess a probation youth’s mental health needs.Probation youth committed by the Court to suitable In-State or Out-of-State placements remain incustody at the Youth Detention Facility until an appropriate placement can be found. The averagenumber of days in custody after an In-State commitment, prior to placement is 23 days between 2014and 2015. The average number of days in custody after an Out-of-State commitment, prior toplacement is 65 days between 2014 and 2015. Obstacles to reducing in custody time include Inter- 88

California - Child and Family Services Reviewagency Management Authorization Committee (IMAC) meetings, placement program referral rejections, and Interstate Compact approval and placement program waiting lists. While in custody probation youth attend El Centro Junior/Senior High, a year-round school program operated by the Sacramento County Office of Education in YDF, providing a full range of educational services to residents. In addition to attending school throughout the week, probation youth can earn high school credits and, if eligible, take the California High School Proficiency Exam (CHSPE) or the High School Equivalency Test (HiSET). Daily, recreational activities and physical education are provided to all YDF probation youth. There is a gymnasium, swimming pool, and courtyards in several units that are utilized for organized sports and physical activities. The Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) provides medical, dental and mental health services to the Youth Detention Facility. Additional services include: Religious services (weekly church and bible studies), Library, Alternatives to Violence, G.A.P. (Gang Awareness and Prevention), Burning Bush Moments (education, support and empowerment for abused, abandoned and neglected at risk youth), Boys and Girls Club, EDD Job Ready Workshop, UC Davis CAARE program (patient care, teaching, research and prevention initiatives on behalf of abused and neglected children and children and youth identified as high risk), WEAVE, and other internal programs (recreation, etc.). The Parent Orientation Program is held every third Thursday from 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm in the Youth Detention Facility's Visitor Center. The program provides an opportunity for parents and guardians to learn about the services and programming their child will receive while in Probation's care. Parents will also have an opportunity to obtain resources for their child’s successful reintegration back into the community. Religious services and spiritual support are available to residents and staff through the Juvenile Justice Chaplaincy Volunteer Program. Probation youth pending placement to their foster care provider are contacted weekly by their assigned officer. Those adults who are eligible and choose to “opt in” and participate in Extended Foster Care (EFC) are referred to residential services by EFC Placement Officers. Obstacles to placing these probation youth include program referral rejections, program waiting lists and objections from the probation youth.89

Total Placement Population Total by Placement Type California - Child and Family Services Review 140 120 100 80 In-State 60 Out of State AB12 40 20 0 MonthFinancial/Material ResourcesSacramento County’s Child Welfare budget is funded by both federal and state allocations, including butnot limited to Title IV-B, Title IV-E, Title XIX, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)funding. In 2011, the State realigned most of the child welfare state allocations, including the ChildAbuse Prevention, Intervention and Treatment (CAPIT) and Child Welfare Services OutcomeImprovement Project (CWSOIP) allocations. This realignment has provided the flexibility to providefunding for prevention programs in the last couple of years.Sacramento County is one of nine counties participating in the 5-year Title IV-E Waiver DemonstrationProject, which began October 1, 2014.Child Welfare Operated ServicesCounty Operated ShelterSacramento County uses the Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento (CRH), a private, non-profitgroup home, as an emergency shelter for children coming into care and for children with placementdisruptions. The shelter is only used after exploring whether children can be placed with relatives, non-relative extended family members, county foster homes and foster family agencies. The average lengthof stay in the shelter is 30-45 days. Although the Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento has a total of89 beds, 20 beds have been used for the Independent Living Program, 10 beds for the Residentially 90

California - Child and Family Services ReviewBased Services program, 10 beds for the Assessment Center, and 49 for the shelter. The assessment Center is no longer available. The Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento has a long history of providing emergency shelter for Sacramento County. Their services include 24-hour care and support, food, clothing, mental health services, an on‐grounds school through San Juan Unified School District, on call clinical support, independent living skills, a family visitation center and recreational activities to enhance the experience of the children. Foster Home Licensing The Sacramento County Foster Home Licensing program supports, trains and offers guidance to foster parents also known as “resource families.” The Foster Home Licensing Program recruits foster families, provides information and PRIDE training to prospective families, evaluates potential foster homes to ensure each meets space and safety requirements, interviews and assesses qualifications of prospective foster families, issues and updates foster home licenses, and conducts annual inspections and complaint investigations when required. Sacramento County holds an orientation for interested applicants and uses the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) PowerPoint. CPS has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDSS to have legal consults and representation with CDSS when there is a complaint that moves to revocation. CPS does not have an MOU with CDSS to license foster family homes. County Adoptions Sacramento County is a state licensed adoption agency. As a public adoption agency, children available are dependents of Sacramento County Juvenile Court. These children have been removed from their biological parents. The Adoptions program staff is responsible for assessing if adoption is the best plan for the child. They strive to ensure that a child and adoptive family are well-matched, and that the family will help the child develop to his or her fullest potential. Services provided through the Adoptions Program include: assessment of the child’s needs and capabilities, compiling the child’s social and medical history, determining and recommending to the Juvenile Court that parental rights should be terminated, establishing if the child is legally free for adoption, conducting home study evaluations of adoptive parents, and coordinating placement of a child in a family that will meet the child's needs. Relinquishment Services are not provided through the County of Sacramento Adoption Program. Relinquishments and Independent Adoption services are provided by the California State Department of Social Services. Child Welfare/Probation Other County Programs CPS has extensive partnerships with community agencies to collaborate in providing services and supports to families and children. CalWORKs: The CalWORKs program is under the umbrella of Human Assistance and provides case assistance grants and welfare-to work services to families whose income is not adequate to meet the family’s basic needs. Sacramento County currently does not have a CalWORKs co-located employee. Public Health: As previously mentioned, CPS, the Division of Public Health and Department of Probation have an MOU where in Foster Care PHNs (FCPHNs) are co-located with CPS agency staff and probation officers with remote accessibility to all team members who serve foster children/youth. The MOU establishes roles and responsibilities of DHHS’s Child Health and Disability Prevention Program (CHDP), CPS and Probation in the Health Care Program for Children in Foster Care (HCPCFC). Among the many roles of FCPHNs, they interpret health care reports for social workers, probation officers, foster91

placement and others as needed. FCPHNs identify health care needs for each child in foster care. Inaddition, FCPHNs work with substitute care providers to ensure the child’s Health and EducationPassport (HEP) or its equivalent is updated. FCPHNs assist care providers in obtaining timely,comprehensive health assessments and expedite timely referrals for medical, dental, developmentaland mental health services.Alcohol and Drug Services –At this time, CPS does not have a staff person co-located from the Alcoholand Drug Services (ADS); however, the Department has extensive partnerships with several communityagencies that provide Alcohol and Drug Services on a contract basis that includes, drug and alcoholtesting, prevention and after care treatment programs that include in-patient and out-patients serviceswhich will be expanded upon in the Services Array and Collaboration Section of this report. CPS works inpartnership with ADS to support Dependency Drug Court, EIFDC, and provide treatment services to CPSfamilies.Mental Health – CPS collaborates with Behavioral Health for assessments and mental health services forchildren through child and adult ACCESS referral process. In partnership with Behavioral Health, CPSprovides WRAP, TBS, and FIT services to youth with substantial mental health needs. In addition, theyhelp coordinate psychotropic medication evaluations and support. CPS also contracts with multiplecommunity partners for counseling services to provide preventive and supportive services to youth andfamilies. Additionally, there are two co-located Behavioral Health Mental Health Clinicians who provideMental Health Assessments and make treatment recommendations for parents involved with CPS.Although the impact these relationships will have on the Continuum of Care is unknown, it is expectedthe impact will likely be a positive one as the services and assessments available and provided tochildren and families are being provided in the initial phase and concurrently with the aid of our agencyand community partners to ensure improved out comes for children in care. Ensuring children andparents are assessed for services and linked to those services early in the case will aid in the planningand provision of appropriate services throughout the life of the case.State and Federally Mandated Child Welfare/Probation InitiativesChild Welfare California - Child and Family Services ReviewTitle IV-E Child Well-Being ProjectOn March 31, 2006, the State received approval for the California Title IV-E Child Welfare WaiverDemonstration Project from the federal government. Alameda and Los Angeles County were the firsttwo counties that began the Project. Then on September 30, 2014 the State received a five yearextension of the State Demonstration Project. Sacramento County was one of seven counties selectedto participate in this Demonstration Project. The implementation of the flexible funding strategy allowsSacramento to invest existing resources more effectively in proven and innovative approaches thatbetter ensure the safety of children and the success of families in our County. o The goals of the Project are:  Improve the array of services and supports available to children and families involved in the child welfare and juvenile probation systems  Engage families through a more individualized casework approach that emphasized family involvement  Increase the child safety without an over-reliance on out-of-home care 92

California - Child and Family Services Review Improve permanency outcomes and timelines  Improve child and family well-being  Decrease recidivism and delinquency for youth on probation Sacramento County Child Welfare has three interventions to achieve the desired goals:  Implementation of Safety Organized Practice (SOP)/ Core Practice Model (CPM)  Expansion of Prevention Services (this will be discussed further under Service Array (page 126)  Family Finding and Kinship Support (this will be discussed further under Service Array (pages 130 – 131) In 2014 Sacramento County began planning and implementation of the project. A steering committee was formed that comprised of representatives from Child Welfare and Probation including but not limited to deputy directors, division managers/chiefs, as well as fiscal program and continuous quality improvement managers. Workgroups (fiscal, program, data evaluation, etc) were also formed to report to the steering committee. On October 28, 2014 a Community Forum was held with community partners and county staff to gather input on Child Welfare services and support. We have convened additional workgroups/steering committee to target specific programmatic areas:  Safety Organized Practice Steering Committee  Family Finding and Kinship Support workgroup discussed scope of services, referral process, data collection, etc. The committee membership included Division Managers, Planners, Program Managers, Supervisors and Providers.  Permanency Steering Committee  Sacramento Waiver Evaluation Committee reviews data relevant to key outcomes under the waiver. The committee membership includes the DHHS Director, CPS, Probation and Department of Human Assistance. Safety Organized Practice (SOP) SOP is a collaborative strengths-based approach that incorporates Signs of Safety (SOS), a solution- focused strength based approach and practice, with Structured Decision Making (SDM), the research based decision-support tools that “identify crucial decision points, increase consistency and accuracy, and target resources to families with greatest need”. SOP also incorporates cultural humility “recognizing that cultures vary from one family to the next, or even within the same family”, and trauma informed practice, understanding how trauma affects an individual’s “sense of personal safety, and their ability to trust others and navigate life changes”. Three key questions are explored: What is working well, what are we worried about, and what needs to happen next. The focus is on creating good working relationships with solution-focused motivational interviewing, appreciative inquiry, scaling questions, and strategies for interviewing children. SOP improves outcomes for children and families by strengthening critical thinking, enhancing safety, building safety networks, promoting collaborative planning and teaming, and creating well-formed goals and specific detailed behavior based case and safety plans. The SOP Steering Committee was established in December 2015 and has been meeting approximately once a month.  In October 2015, supervising staff received an informational session on the differences between SOP and SOS and all social workers received Safety Planning training.  Sacramento County contracted with the Northern California Training Academy to coach and train staff in implementation and practicing SOP with fidelity. In November 2015, The Academy surveyed supervisors regarding their social worker’s integration of SOP practice into practice with families. In addition, Sacramento County partnered with the Academy to complete case93

reviews and interviews with social workers to determine their level of SOP practice “Emergent California - Child and Family Services Review Practice, Accomplished Practice or Distinguished Practice”.  Beginning in March 2016, a two day SOP Foundational training was provided through September 2016 to social workers, supervisors, and managers. In June 2016, out of 241.8 staff initially identified, 60% completed the Foundational training. In July 2016 and August 2016, additional 113 staff completed the training; however, that number included new staff and interns who were not identified in the original 241.8 number. The overall percentage tally is in the process of being calculated.  In January 2016, Sacramento County acquired three SOP coaches who are retirees of Sacramento County CPS, who each have 25 hours available per month for coaching. In January 2016, the coaches began meeting with managers and their supervisory teams to introduce themselves, discuss the coaching process and the coaching expectations in Sacramento County.  In February 2016, the SOP coaches began meeting with supervisors individually to support the development of goals within their units and to assist supervisors with structured strategies, tools, and techniques for coaching their social worker teams toward successful implementation and deepening of SOP practices.  In January 2016, telephone conference meetings began being held on a monthly basis with the Northern California Training Academy and coaching team to discuss progress and next steps.  In May 2016, draft recommendations for integrating SOP in documentation and court reports were completed by the Steering Committee.  In June 2016, County Counsel was consulted regarding Steering Committee’s recommendations for integrating SOP in documentation and court reports.  In July 2016 and early August 2016, feedback sessions were held in each Sacramento County region regarding ideas and recommendations for integrating SOP in documentation and court reports.  In June, SOP field packets were created for social workers to help facilitate their use of SOP in the field. Field packets were distributed to all the regions in July 2016.  In July 2016, a successful SOP Corner contest was held to motivate staff and to make a place for SOP forms/tools and resources to be readily available, as well as a Kudos area for social worker SOP champions to be acknowledged.  In August 2016 and September 2016, the Steering Committee met and conferred with the social worker’s and supervisor’s unions regarding recommendations for integrating SOP in documentation and court reports.  Additionally, Sacramento County participates in the quarterly SOP collaborative forums. These forums are coordinated and facilitated by CDSS and The Northern California Training Academy and include the other 8 Title IVE county participants, community partners, and the Title IVE evaluation team. These forums provide counties with opportunities to exchange implementation strategies, thereby creating a learning environment regarding SOP implementation and practicing SOP with fidelity.As of August 2016, Sacramento County is at 30% for implementation of SOP. Next steps will include:  Formation of an implementation team to execute SOP in documentation and court reports.  Advanced SOP training for staff.  Creation of a sustainable coaching plan.  Evaluation, quality assurance, and Fidelity monitoring.Pathways to Well-Being (formerly known as Katie A. Vs Bonta)In 2013 CPS, Behavioral Health Services, along with Parent and Youth partners formed a SteeringCommittee to strategize new systems and best practices for improving access to mental health 94

California - Child and Family Services Reviewtreatment for children who are in out of home care. The Steering Committee conducted a one-day planning retreat in October 2013 to map out the implementation of the Core Practice Model. Topics discussed include: screening tool, referrals to the Mental Health Access team, and the Child and Family Team. Four subcommittees (data, training, information-sharing and program development) were formed and met regularly through 2014. Topics that were addressed included screening tool; information-sharing; Intensive Care Coordination Child and Family Team Meeting (ICC CFT); and testing and implementation of billing codes in Behavioral Health Services. A Mental Health Screening Tool was developed. The process included bringing the partners together to develop a tool, test the tool, share data to determine and remediate system impacts, train staff and implement the assessment tool. During the implementation process, CPS engaged labor in negotiations to ensure concerns were address and the assessment tool was successfully implemented in July of 2014. CPS internally engaged the support of CPS Program Administration Quality Assurance to track progress on an ongoing basis and to share data with program for monitoring and evaluation. In 2013 and 2014 CPS held a mental health resource fairs where social workers could gain a better understanding of services available in our community, encourage networking and communication between Mental Health and CPS. In the summer of 2014, CPS and Behavioral Health Services facilitated joint trainings for mental health providers and CPS social workers on Katie A., the Core Practice Model, referral process, child and family teams, mental health screening and information sharing. CPS continues to provide this scope of training to new CPS social workers. Since October 2014, all CPS social workers are responsible for assessing the mental health needs of children and families and making appropriate referrals. The CPS Mental Health Screening Tool is completed on all new open cases within 30 days, whenever a mental health need is identified and annually on children and youth not receiving mental health services. At this time CPS continues to make efforts to increase compliance with entering mental health screenings in CWS/CMS. All children and youth meeting the criteria for mental health services are required to have on-going Child and Family Team (CFT) meetings every 90 days. Subclass members are facilitated by the mental health provider, while class members are facilitated by the CPS social worker. Data on screening compliance Since April 2016, CPS started tracking CFT meetings of all children designated as receiving class services. The current data collected for Pathways to Well-Being by CPS and Behavioral Health Services, provides information on the number of children receiving services and level of services. The data does not tell how the program efforts have contributed to meeting the needs of the children served. With the implementation of the qualitative case review process through the Child and Family Services Review, CPS will gain some information regarding how the efforts are meeting the child’s mental health needs. Education Equals Initiative Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) partnered with Child Protective Services (CPS) on a 5 year grant that was awarded by the Stuart Foundation. The grant (Education Equals Initiative) aims to achieve dramatic improvement in educational outcomes for foster youth through engagement, school stability, and academic achievement across the educational continuum—from preschool to college. The overarching goal for this initiative is to help foster youth in California succeed at levels equal to, or greater than the general population through mutual accountability and deliberate coordination between child welfare, juvenile court, and the education system. There are three core program elements:95

education-informed home placements, systematic information gathering and sharing, and customized California - Child and Family Services Reviewcase management and collaboration.This grant will end November 30th 2016. However, CPS will sustain the following program services:Preschool Program – Instructional Case Manager (ICM II) offers enrollment assistance, kindergartentransition, and special education assistance as needed for preschool foster youth, ages 3-5, who arecourt supervised, in an out-of-home placement, and residing in Sacramento County.Court Liaison K-12 Program – Instructional Case Manager (ICM I) reviews education records at the timeof the detention hearing and provides notification to districts identifying students as foster youth. TheCourt Liaison also coordinates and communicates with schools and districts to verify enrollment,transfer school records as needed, and ensure students are placed in an appropriate educational setting.The Court Liaison enters into the SCOE Foster Focus database all notifications of placement changes andany educational information collected. On a daily basis, Court Liaison also enters educationalinformation into the CWS/CMS database.In addition, SCOE has Instructional Case Managers (ICMs) co-located in the East, North andSouth/Central CPS offices. Due to AB 854 approved on October, 11, 2015 SCOE no longer provide directcase management services and will shift focus to a coordinating and training capacity. SCOE willcontinue to provide Caregiver Visits. Foster parents are provided educational resources and informationduring a home visit to better support students’ academic goals. In collaboration with local schooldistricts and Child Protective Services, information is gathered and shared to address youth specificeducation issues.SCOE currently sends an Education Progress Summary (EPS) to the social worker and their supervisorone month prior to the court hearing for 7-12th graders enrolled in Sacramento County. Social workersmay also login on to Foster Focus to generate an EPS for their students anytime.Outcomes for this 5 year grant are currently being evaluated. For FY 2015-2016, 995 unduplicated CPSyouth received 3,183 services under the Education Equals Initiative. Total services include courtservices, preschool services and all other ICM related services.OtherSacramento County has implemented other initiatives that will be discussed in other sections of thisreport. Those include AB12/Extended Foster Care (page 119 under Agency Collaboration), CommerciallySexually Exploited Children (CSEC) (pages 120-121 under agency collaboration), Residentially BasedServices (page 134 under Service Array), Child and Family Services Review, Foster Parent Recruitment,Retention and Support (page 113 under Reform Efforts) and Resource Family Approval (RFA) (page 113under Reform Efforts).Probation Placement InitiativesFamily & Children Community Treatment Program (FCCTP)The Family & Children Community Treatment Program (FCCTP) was developed to directly address themultiple factors contributing to the delinquency of placement minors as identified through assessment.Providing post-assessment services where the problems occur (in homes, schools, and neighborhoods)reduces the barriers to treatment of the minor’s identified needs. The population served by thisprogram includes post assessment center (IMPACT) youth categorized in one of the following groups: 1)children recommended returning home or to an appropriate relative with on-going case 96

California - Child and Family Services Reviewmanagement/treatment; 2) Children whose return home might be expedited with special case management/treatment services; and 3) Children who without such services would be placed out-of- county. Based on the Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) model, FCCTP integrates the following components: child and family counseling; child and family mental health treatment; recreational activities; community referral and liaison; and vocational referral and support. Through participation in FCCTP, children in placement were able to remain local which promoted easier reunification services. Probation Officers typically had smaller caseloads of youth participating in FCCTP and were therefore able to case manage more diligently. The onsite school also assisted our population with expedited credit recovery. Resource Family Approval (RFA) As part of California Assembly Bill 403 “Foster Youth: Continuum of Care Reform”, Sacramento County Probation has created a position for one Senior Deputy Probation Officer to seek out and establish new foster care families and create a streamlined process for an individual/family to provide care for a related or nonrelated court dependent or ward on a short term or long term basis. This position will be tasked with referring the potential Resource Family to Children’s Protective Services and assist the potential family with completing the application, obtaining First Aid and CPR certification and a health screening. Additionally, the officer will assist in conducting a background check, complete a home environment assessment, a permanency assessment, and face to face interviews with the family. It is anticipated this initiative will assist in meeting the needs of the population we serve; however, no concrete data has been established as the law went into effect January 1, 2017. Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) Probation has joined CPS in the development of the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM). Developed at the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University, the model was designed to help address the issues these youth are presenting in our communities and develop strategies to meet their needs. By implementing this model, Sacramento County Probation hopes to improve outcomes for crossover youth with: a reduction in the number of youth placed in out-of-home care, a reduction in the disproportionate representation of children of color, a reduction in the number of youth crossing over into, and staying within, the justice system, an increase in positive social and academic outcomes, including post-secondary education and career readiness; and a positive future shaped by grit and determination from transformational life experiences. All sworn officers are being trained in this model. It is too early to determine how this initiative will meet our population’s needs. Federal Case Reviews (FCR) Federal Case Reviews are conducted for the purpose of examining practices and ensuring conformity with Title IV-E and Title IV-B requirements. Cases are reviewed on a continuous quarterly basis by a Supervising Probation Officer. This allows direct feedback to the Probation Placement unit from the parent, youth, and substitute care provider. The information gleaned from this review process is extremely valuable in how we meet the need of our youth. Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) Deputy Probation Officers provide a comprehensive and collaborative response to ensuring that commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC) are identified and receive the services they need to overcome trauma and live healthy, productive lives. The Sacramento County Juvenile Superior Court has established a weekly session called Friday Court (CSEC) to address this population’s needs. A CSEC Interagency Steering Committee has been formed that consists of a multidisciplinary team to conduct needs assessment for each youth and makes recommendations to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Juvenile Court. These collaborations between departments and other agencies strengthen cross-system practices and help to show the various services available from each entity to97

serve all the needs of these children and their families. The implementation of this initiative allowed ourCalifornia - Child and Family Services Reviewpopulation to be served in a way that hadn’t been done previously. Prostitution was decriminalized andwe began to look at the youth as victims. Appropriate referrals were/are made to ensure the victimsreceive trauma informed services and treatment specific to their needs.Warren E. Thornton Youth Center (WETYC)A development team has been established to create a diversion type program with respite beds. Thefacility will contain three units: A Unit – Located within the main WETYC building, this 30-bed unit wouldfunction as a Short Term Residential Therapeutic Program within the meaning of Assembly Bill 403. Itwould serve youth, ages 13-18, who would previously have gone into group homes or the YouthDetention Facility; B Unit – Also located within the main WETYC building, this 15-bed unit would serveyouth, ages 13-18, with a higher degree of intervention required to address issues of alcohol and drugabuse and addiction; C Unit – Also located within the main WETYC building, this 15-bed unit would bedesignated to serve young women, ages 13-18, who have been exposed to trauma, abuse and neglect,most often as victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking. It is too early to determine how thisinitiative will meet our population’s needs.Child and Family Team (CFT)Child and Family Team (CFT) are comprised of the probation youth, the probation youth’s family, andother people important to the family or youth. The CFT shall include representatives who provideformal supports to the probation youth and family when appropriate, including the caregiver, placingagency caseworker, representative from the Foster Family Agency (FFA) or Short-Term ResidentialTherapeutic Program (STRTP) where the probation youth is placed, as well as a mental health clinicianand legal counsel. Other professionals providing formal supports may include Alcohol and Other Drugs(AOD) professionals and educational professionals. Member of the CFT will work together to identifythe strengths and needs of a probation youth to develop a youth and family centered plan. It is too earlyto determine how this initiative will meet our population’s needs.Title IV- E and Title IV WaiverThe Sacramento County Probation Department implemented the Children and Families TogetherInitiative, renamed from the Title IV-E California Well-Being Project, on July 1, 2015. Within theDepartment, there are three treatment interventions which are utilized: Multisystemic Therapy (MST),Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Wraparound. Services involve a family-centered, strengths-based,needs-driven planning process for creating individualized services and supports for the youth and theirfamily. Treatment focuses on improving family functioning while reducing a youth’s negative behaviorsthrough the use of specific goals, objectives, and family interventions.The Sacramento County Probation Department accesses each referral from Juvenile Court to determinethe risk factors for a minor being removed from home and placed into foster care. Once the at-riskminor has been identified they are referred to one of the three treatment interventions. Participation isvoluntary and may be rejected. This has met the needs of our population by reducing the entries intofoster care. 98

CURRENT POPULATION GRADUATES PROGRAM AT A GLANCE  163 YOUTH & FAMILIES  13 FFT CLIENTS  28 FFT  12 MST CLIENTS  22 MST HAVE PARTICIPATED IN  16 CLIENTS IN  35 WRAP PREVENTION SERVICES. STANFORD WRAPAROUND  77 FAMILIES PARTICIPATED IN  15 CLIENTS IN PREVENTION WRAPAROUND. RIVER OAK WRAPAROUND  39 YOUTH & FAMILIES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN MST.  47 YOUTH & FAMILIES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN FFT. Agency Collaboration The Probation Department does not have a formal process to ensure the concerns of stakeholders are taken into account. However, informally we involve our stakeholders often in our day to day business. We meet often with the District Attorney and Public Defender to update them on new mandates and practices regarding probation youth in the foster care system. Our placement providers undergo a yearly audit with one of two Senior Deputy Probation Officers. During this process, there is ample open dialog to ensure the needs of our youth are met and that the needs of the substitute care providers are met. Our Intake Probation Officers have continuous communications with our placement providers as well. In 2015 we hosted a Placement Fair, where California licensed placement programs could showcase the populations they serve and get to know Probation Officers throughout the state of California. Additionally, we view our child welfare partner as a stakeholder and our communication with them has increased significantly due to shared initiatives. Board of Supervisors (BOS) Designated Commission, Board of BodiesCalifornia - Child and Family Services Review The BOS-Designated Public Agency Sacramento County Board of Supervisors designated Child Protective Services to administer, distribute, and monitor Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment (CAPIT) and Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) funds. Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC) Sacramento County utilizes the Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC) of Sacramento. The Board of Supervisors recognized this Council in 1986. CAPC is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. For 30 years, the CAPC has been dedicated to protecting children and building healthy nurturing parents by coordinating Sacramento County’s prevention and early intervention efforts. CAPC coordinates with agencies serving children and families, offers child abuse prevention training, and mandated reporter training. Furthermore, CAPC implements evidence-based programs, facilitates multi-disciplinary teams, and provides training and technical assistance. CAPC coordinates with more than 300 agencies, 20+ collaboratives, trains in 15+ curricula, and annually trains over 400 AmeriCorps members and staff.99