California’s Child Welfare
Continuum of Care Reform

January 2015

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
Diana Dooley, Secretary
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Will Lightbourne, Director

 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
SENATE BILL (SB) 1013, COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL
REVIEW (CHAPTER 35, STATUTES OF 2012)
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11461.2:
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure quality care for children who are
placed in the continuum of Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care
(AFDC-FC) eligible placement settings.
(b) The State Department of Social Services shall establish, in consultation with
county welfare departments and other stakeholders, as appropriate, a working group to
develop recommended revisions to the current rate-setting system, services, and
programs serving children and families in the continuum of AFDC-FC eligible placement
settings including, at a minimum, all programs provided by foster family agencies and
group homes including those providing residentially-based services, as defined in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 18987.71.
(c) In developing the recommended revisions identified in subdivision (b), the
working group shall consider all of the following:
(1) How rate-setting systems for foster care providers, including at least, foster
family agencies and group homes, can better support a continuum of programs and
services that promote positive outcomes for children and families. This may include a
process for matching the child's strengths and needs to the appropriate placement
setting.
(2) How the provision of an integrated, comprehensive set of services including
mental health and other critical services for children and youth support the achievement
of well-being, permanency, and safety outcomes.
(3) How to ensure the provision of services in family-like settings including after care
services, when appropriate.
(4) How to provide outcome-based evaluations of foster care providers or other
methods of measuring quality improvement including measures of youth and families'
satisfaction with services provided and program effectiveness.
(5) How changes in the licensing, rate-setting, and auditing processes can improve
the quality of foster care providers, the quality of services and programs provided, and
enhance the oversight of care provided to children, including, but not limited to,
accreditation, administrator qualifications, and the reassignment of these responsibilities
within the department.
(d) In addition to the considerations in subdivision (c), the workgroup
recommendations shall be based on the review and evaluation of the current ratesetting systems, actual cost data, and information from the provider community as well
as research on other applicable rate-setting methodologies, evidenced-based practices,
information developed as a result of pilots approved by the director, and any other
relevant information.
(e) The workgroup shall develop the content, format, and data sources for reports to
be posted by the department on a public Internet Website describing the outcomes
achieved by providers with foster care rates set by the department.
2

 (f)(1) Recommendations developed pursuant to this section shall include the plan
required under subdivision (d) of Section 18987.7. Updates regarding the workgroup's
establishment and its progress toward meeting the requirements of this section shall be
provided to the Legislature during 2012-13 and 2013-14 budget hearings. The revisions
recommended pursuant to the requirements of subdivision (b) shall be submitted in
a report to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature by
October 1, 2014.
(2) The requirement for submitting a report pursuant to this subdivision is inoperative
on October 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code.
(g) The department shall retain the authority to extend the workgroup after
October 1, 2014, to ensure that the objectives of this section are met and to reconvene
this workgroup as necessary to address any future recommended changes to the
continuum of AFDC-FC eligible placement settings pursuant to this section.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11467:
(a) The State Department of Social Services, with the advice and assistance of the
County Welfare Directors Association, the Chief Probation Officer's Association, the
California Mental Health Directors Association, research entities, foster youth and
advocates for foster youth, foster care provider business entities organized and
operated on a nonprofit basis, tribes, and other stakeholders, shall establish a working
group to develop performance standards and outcome measures for providers of
out-of-home care placements made under the AFDC-FC program, including, but not
limited to, foster family agency, group home, and Transitional Housing Program-Plus
(THP-P) providers, and for the effective and efficient administration of the AFDC-FC
program.
(b) The performance standards and outcome measures shall employ the applicable
performance standards and outcome measures as set forth in Sections 11469 and
11469.1, designed to identify the degree to which foster care providers, including
business entities organized and operated on a nonprofit basis, are providing
out-of-home placement services that meet the needs of foster children, and the degree
to which these services are supporting improved outcomes, including those identified by
the California Child and Family Service Review System.
(c) In addition to the process described in subdivision (a), the working group may
also develop the following:
(1) A means of identifying the child's needs and determining which is the most
appropriate out-of-home placement for a child.
(2) A procedure for identifying children who have been in congregate care for one
year or longer, determining the reasons each child remains in congregate care, and
developing a plan for each child to transition to a less restrictive, more family-like
setting.
(d) The department shall provide updates regarding its progress toward meeting
the requirements of this section during the 2013 and 2014 budget hearings.
(e) Notwithstanding the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
(Chapter 3.5 [commencing with Section 13340] of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Government Code), until the enactment of applicable state law, or October 1, 2015,
whichever is earlier, the department may implement the changes made pursuant to this
section through All County Letters, or similar instructions from the director.
3

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report outlines a comprehensive approach to improving the experience and
outcomes of children and youth in foster care. This report, based on over three years of
collaboration with county partners and other stakeholders, consists of a series of interdependent recommendations to improve assessments of children and families to make
more informed and appropriate initial placement decisions, emphasize home-based
family care placements of children, appropriately support those placements with
available services, change the goals for congregate (group home) care placements, and
increase transparency and accountability for child outcomes.
Some of California’s previous efforts to improve services have focused on providing
prevention and early intervention to children and families at risk of removal and to
strengthen service networks to support reunification or placement with families. This
has contributed to a substantial decline in the number of out-of-home foster care
placements over the past decade, and that focus should continue. However, this report
addresses the placement and service needs of the significant number of children who
continue to be cared for outside of their own homes despite prevention and early
intervention efforts.
The availability of appropriate placements which meet the needs of these children also
is a priority for the State. To this end, the Legislature requested recommendations to
reduce the use of out-of-home care through Senate Bill (SB) 1013 (Chapter 35, Statutes
of 2012). The continuum of placement settings and the array of available services and
supports for children and youth in foster care is an interconnected system rather than
isolated stand-alone components. Past progress has been made in placing children
with relative caregivers and supporting relative caregivers financially, facilitating and
supporting relatives to obtain guardianship and adopt children in their care, and
eliminating congregate care as a placement option for young children. Strides have
been made to provide valid and reliable assessment tools to county child welfare
workers, to include child and family preferences in case plan goals, and to create
training and clearinghouse resources to improve practice at the county level. Yet there
remains much to do: recruit, train and support an adequate supply of home-based
family care; provide needed services and supports in those care settings; limit
congregate care to only situations in which adequate services cannot safely be provided
while a child/youth lives in a family, and then for only the minimum time required for
stabilization.
Children should live in their communities in home-based family care settings. Through
this report’s proposed restructuring of placements and services, children and youth will
be able to receive their necessary services without being rotated between programs and
placements. Under the new model of care, children who cannot initially safely be
placed in home-based family care can still go into congregate care, but with specific
5

 time-limited care plans. Once stabilized however, these children will transition into
home-based family care with their services following them.
Several of the recommendations in this report will need short-term upfront investments
as changes to the placement system are phased in. In the longer term, these
recommendations are expected to become cost-neutral by creating placement cost
savings and will permit strategic leveraging of federal Title IV-E and Title XIX funding to
further improve child outcomes. It is worth noting that California is one of twelve states
in which the state is responsible for policy, regulation and outcome monitoring, with
counties responsible for operation of the program itself. California also is unique in its
current financial relationship:
The 2011 realignment of child welfare services
transferred all of the non-federal placement costs and corresponding revenue to the
counties. This realignment also provides that new administrative requirements,
regulations, or enacted legislation after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect
of increasing the costs already borne by county child welfare or juvenile probation
programs, applies to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual
funding for the cost increase.
This reform effort is focused on improving outcomes and requires significant changes to
current out-of-home care placements and supports. This reform effort will improve the
assessment process and alter the roles of various placement settings and their service
arrays, and occurs in the context of other system changes that serve to increase access
to existing federally-entitled services. While this reform effort will change how and
where services are provided, it does so without creating new services.
This report describes the substantial and needed steps that the Administration will
pursue in collaboration with its partners, stakeholders, the courts and the Legislature, to
achieve these improvements in child experiences and outcomes.
The
recommendations contained within this report are divided into the following areas:
General; Home-Based Family Care; Residential Treatment; Fiscal; and Performance
Measures and Outcomes.
Successful implementation of these inter-dependent
recommendations will take time and occur over multiple years. This will allow for
development of critical elements including increasing the supply of home based family
care, provider program statements, accreditation and training. The Department of
Social Services, with its numerous partners and stakeholders, is committed to ongoing
evaluation and improving outcomes using a continuous quality improvement approach.

6

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ................................................................................................... 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 5
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT .............................................................................................. 8
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 9
CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD UPON ................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 17
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 23
HOME-BASED FAMILY CARE RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 26
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 30
FISCAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 39
PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND OUTCOMES RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 41
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY .................................................................................... 46
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 48
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. 50
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................... 52

7

 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
It is well-documented that residing long-term in group homes with shift-based care is not
in the best interest of children and youth. Not only is it developmentally inappropriate, it
frequently creates lifelong institutionalized behaviors and contributes to higher levels of
involvement with the juvenile justice system and to poor educational outcomes. The
Background section of this report provides further details about the poor outcomes for
children and youth placed in group homes, versus other placement settings. This
report’s proposed out-of-home care model is premised upon eliminating the practice of
long-term group home placements, in favor of utilizing congregate care only for
placements that are time-limited in duration and focused on specific treatment goals.
Increasing the capacity of home-based family care is a necessary first step to enable a
reduction in group care.
As of July 1, 2014, there are roughly 60,000 children in out-of-home care, served by
child welfare agencies and juvenile probation. Most children served by a child welfare
agency are placed with families (relatives or foster homes). However, despite the
known relatively poorer outcomes associated with group home placements, child
welfare departments still have approximately 3,000 children and youth in group homes
for more than one year, and approximately 1,000 of these children and youth have been
in a group home for more than five years. Group homes also remain the placement
setting most used by probation departments in lieu of locked settings. When we know
that poor outcomes are most frequently associated with these group care settings, we
need to better protect and serve children, youth and their families. This report
recommends doing so, by transparently measuring and reporting performance,
providing necessary services and supports in the appropriate care settings for individual
children, and focusing on home-based family care settings where associated child
outcomes are better.
This report proposes changes to the continuum of care resulting from three years of the
Department’s discussion with partners and stakeholders. These recommendations
focus the child welfare and probation system of care on placing children in home-based
family care settings with adequate and necessary services and supports, rather than in
group care settings. Every child and youth needs and deserves to feel love, a sense of
attachment and belonging, and to have the continuity of family and community to
support and guide them in their lives. Preserving or reunifying the family is the first
priority, when possible, for all children and youth. When reunification is not possible,
securing a permanent family through adoption or guardianship is the next-preferred
priority. The overarching goal, reflected in this report, is to reduce reliance on group
homes as a long-term placement setting by narrowly defining the purpose of group care,
and by increasing the capacity of home-based family care to better address the
individual needs of all children, youth and caregivers.

8

 BACKGROUND
Children and youth come into foster care because they cannot live safely with their
parents. State and federal law requires that the county provide services to the family
and child so the child can return safely to the parents. The preferred route to
permanency is through safe reunification, but when that is not possible, services also
must be provided for the child or youth to achieve an alternative permanent, stable
family. Thus reunification, guardianship and adoptions are all forms of what is referred
to as “Permanency.”
When children and youth are removed from their parents and placed in foster care, the
Juvenile Court takes jurisdiction of the child, either as a “dependent”, due to abuse or
neglect, or as a “delinquent” due to criminal behavior on the part of the youth.
Dependents are under the responsibility of a county child welfare agency; delinquents,
the county probation agency. The vast majority of children in foster care (about
95 percent) are under the supervision of a child welfare agency. The role of the juvenile
court is both to ensure due process for the parties involved and to provide oversight on
an individual case by case basis. All federal, and some state, requirements apply to
children under the responsibility of either the child welfare or probation agency.
Over the years, research has associated poor outcomes with children and youth in
group homes.
• A 2008 study indicated that group home placement significantly increased the risk of
arrest. (Hernandez, 2008).
• Children who leave group care to reunification have higher re-entry rates into foster
care than children who are reunified from family-based care, are less likely to like the
people with whom they are living, more likely to report never seeing a biological
parent and to more frequently have visits with family cancelled. 1
• A recently published report on the impact of foster care placement on educational
achievement indicated:
o

A child’s type of placement was correlated with student dropout and
graduation rates. Among students in grades 9–12 living in group homes,
14 percent dropped out, compared to four percent of students placed in
guardian placements.

o Students in kinship and guardianship placements were the most likely of
foster care grade 12 students to graduate from high school (64 percent and
71 percent, respectively).
o Students in group homes (35 percent) were among the least likely to
graduate.

1

Institutions vs. Foster Homes: The Empirical Base for the Second Century of Debate. Barth, R.P. (2002)

9

 o Achievement gaps in English and mathematics were particularly evident for
students placed in group homes relative to other students in foster care:
61 percent tested below or far below basic in English and
66 percent tested at the lowest two levels in mathematics. Roughly
two out of every three students in group homes failed to attain proficiency in
either English or mathematics.2
Youth, themselves, articulate the same issues. Many former foster youth who resided
in group homes have articulated the need for permanency, normal childhood and
teenage experiences, and caregivers who understand their needs and are able to help
with conflict resolution, educational support, and problem solving3.
For over a decade, California has been implementing program and funding changes to
reduce the likelihood of children growing up in foster care (see Figure 1 below). Initially,
increased investments in programs for children to have permanent homes (kinship
guardianship and increased adoptions) fueled the decline in the foster care population.
Later, prevention and early intervention (e.g., Wraparound4, Differential Response5,
etc.) efforts began reducing the number of children entering foster care. As the foster
care population declined, the Title IV-E Waiver project allowed funding that otherwise
would have been spent on foster care to be invested in services to prevent children from
entering foster care, in participating counties. The focus on outcomes brought about
through the federal - and later, the California- Child and Family Services Review
enabled California to identify desired child welfare outcomes and to develop tools to
monitor and understand performance.
While these initiatives have helped improve the practice and services for children who
are victims or at-risk of abuse and neglect, the need for further policy development in
the area of congregate care is evidenced by the fact that over two-thirds of the children
placed in group homes by child welfare departments remained there longer than two
years.

2

Wiegmann, W., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Barrat, V. X., Magruder, J. & Needell, B. (2014). The Invisible
Achievement Gap Part 2: How the Foster Care Experiences of California Public School Students Are
Associated with Their Education Outcomes. Electronic.]
3
California Youth Connection Policy Briefing, 2013
4
The Wraparound model uses a team-based approach with families to provide intensive services to
allow children and youth with complex needs to remain with families.
5
Differential Response is a way of triaging children and families for various levels of services when abuse
or neglect is alleged.

10

 FIGURE 1

IV-E Waiver
Improving Adoption
Differential Response & TDMs
KinGAP
Hold Harmless
Wraparound 1997
Adoption Initiative 1996

Extended FC
CWS Realignment
Group Home Moratorium

CFSR (2002) & AB 636 (2004)
Enhanced
MHSA

Agency Child Welfare. Age 0-20 years. Days in care: No restrictions. Episode counts: All children
entering/children exiting.

California Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP), CWS/CMS 2013
Quarter 4 Extract.

11

 CURRENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD UPON
This plan for reform builds from the principles, goals and program elements contained
within the Katie A. Settlement Agreement, Quality Parenting Initiative (QPI),
Residentially-Based Services Demonstration Project, Quality Improvement Project
(QIP), California Partners for Permanency (CAPP) Project, and Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI) Project. These and other programs foundational to the success of
the reform efforts are described in further detail below.

Katie A. Settlement Agreement and the Core Practice Model
The 2011 Katie A. et al. v. Bonta et al. Settlement Agreement (Katie A.) is aimed at
ensuring children in foster care or at risk of being in foster care receive the medically
necessary mental health services to which they are entitled under Medicaid law in their
own home, a family setting, or the most homelike setting appropriate to their needs, in
order to facilitate reunification, and to meet their needs for safety, permanence, and
well-being.
The Katie A. Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan are
comprised of activities that directly support several aspects of the CCR reform efforts.
These activities include utilization of a Child and Family Team (CFT) that provides
individualized care coordination, development and access to Therapeutic Foster Care
(TFC), and access to Intensive Care Coordination (ICC) Intensive Home Based
Services (IHBS). The ability to provide these services are dependent upon locally
developed agreements and partnership between county child welfare agencies and
local mental health plans. These activities are transforming the way California’s
children and youth who are in foster care or who are at imminent risk of foster care
placements receive access to mental health services that include assessment and
individualized treatments. The Katie A. Core Practice Model also includes a set of
concepts, values, principles and standards of practice that provides an integrated
approach to working with families involved with the child welfare system. It provides a
behaviorally based framework for child welfare, mental health, service providers and
community partners and their work with children and families. For more information on
Katie A., see http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/PG3346.htm.
Concurrent with Katie A. activities the Department, counties and the California Social
Work Education Center have been working on the California Child Welfare Core
Practice Model (CPM), which is the guiding framework for California’s child welfare
community. Building upon and integrating key elements of current initiatives and proven
practices including the Katie A. Core Practice Model, California Partners for
Permanency (CAPP) Practice Model and other key practices employed in counties
across California, the CPM will provide a framework to:
• Outline how services should be developed and delivered via a foundation of
family and community engagement;
• Support consistent implementation of child welfare practice statewide with a focus
on evidence informed practices;
12

 • Allow child welfare and probation professionals to be more effective in their roles
through teaming strategies, valid and reliable assessment tools and state of the
art training; and
• Improve accountability and outcomes for children and families through coaching,
appreciative inquiry and the use of continuous quality improvement techniques.
The CCR recommendations align with the goal of the CPM in building upon and
integrating successful practices into a framework that supports the achievement of
safety, permanency and well-being for children and their families served in the Child
Welfare Services system. The CCR seeks to leverage the Katie A. Settlement
Agreement by linking the mental health services delivery system to the foster care
continuum, as foster children are entitled to Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and
Treatment (EPSDT) services.

Resource Family Approval
SB 1013 (Chapter 35, Statutes of 2012) sought to accelerate achieving permanency
and address some redundancies in foster home approval processes. The Department,
county child welfare agencies and probation departments have begun implementation of
a unified, family-friendly, and child-centered approval process for families wishing to
provide foster care and/or adopt children, known as resource families. This new
approval process replaces the existing multiple home approval processes and increases
approval standards by incorporating a comprehensive psychosocial evaluation of all
families that want to foster, adopt or provide legal guardianship to a child. Consistent
with the goals of CCR, the resource family approval process seeks to improve the
experience children and youth have in home-based family care placements by further
emphasizing the capacity of the caregivers and the quality of parenting they provide to
the children and youth in their care. Five counties are currently serving as early
implementers, and the resource family approval process will replace the existing
approval processes for relative and non-related families approved to foster, adopt, or
take guardianship of children in foster care, with statewide implementation, including the
expansion of this requirement to Foster Family Agency (FFA)-certified homes by 2017.

Quality Parenting Initiative
The Quality Parenting Initiative is a collaborative effort of CDSS, the County Welfare
Directors Association (CWDA) and the Youth Law Center. The purpose of the initiative
is to develop a statewide approach to recruiting and retaining high-quality caregivers to
provide excellent care to children in California's Child Welfare System. Attracting and
retaining quality caregivers is critical to achieving positive outcomes for children and
families and to ensuring the success of child welfare improvement efforts.
Implementing the QPI helps emphasize that a foster or relative family caring for a child
provides the loving, committed, and skilled care that the child needs, while working
effectively with the child welfare system to reach the child’s goals. The QPI also clearly
defines and articulates the expectations of caregivers, and aligns the expectations of
the child welfare system to support quality foster care. These principles serve as a
foundational component for CCR. Currently, 17 counties are implementing QPI, and its
principles are being embedded in county-based recruitment, training, and retention
13

 efforts. Findings show that quality foster families often are the best recruiters (word of
mouth is a powerful tool); quality foster families are valued partners in the provision of
service for the children/youth in their care; quality foster families are strong advocates
for the children/youth in their care; and quality foster families expect assistance
periodically from county staff when crises arise. The model QPI partnership agreement
(to be executed by both the caregivers and case managers involved in children’s lives)
is provided as Appendix A.

Child Welfare Accountability
The Department utilizes the California Child and Family Services Review (C-CFSR) to
monitor county child welfare and probation agencies’ program performance. Mirrored
after the federally-required Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), this evaluative
process promotes the use of data and stakeholder input to examine the effectiveness of
child welfare service delivery systems, focusing on safety, permanency and well-being
of children and families. Since 2003, California’s child welfare and probation agencies
have been increasing their use of administrative data to manage and improve program
quality and performance. Both of these programs have resulted in improved safety,
permanency and well-being outcomes for children involved with the child welfare
system. Unfortunately, these oversight mechanisms are limited to children and do not
have elements that measure the effectiveness of foster care providers.
Recent directives from the federal Administration for Children and Families require
states to enhance their oversight systems to include CQI. The CQI process combines
the analysis of multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data, and is dependent
upon the active inclusion and participation of staff at all levels of the state and local
agency, plus children, youth, families and stakeholders throughout the process.

Serving Young Adults in Foster Care
In 2010, California led the nation by passing and signing the Fostering Connections Act
into law (AB 12, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010) to extend foster care benefits to young
adults through age 20 with the intent of better preparing youth to be successful in
adulthood. To better serve these youth and their related developmental needs for
greater independence, two additional placement types were created: Supervised
Independent Living Placement and Transitional Housing Program Plus - Foster Care.
For older youth, both of these settings offer alternatives to group home care.

Increased Support for Relatives
Non-federally eligible youth who do not meet federal eligibility rules for receipt of federal
Title IV-E funding based on 1996 income standards for eligibility historically have
received a California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) childonly payment which is roughly one-third to one-half of what children placed with nonrelatives are entitled to. In an effort to provide greater support to relative caregivers, the
Budget Act of 2014 includes an additional $30 million to provide relative caregivers of
non-federally eligible children a rate equal to the basic foster care rate. The Approved
Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program takes effect starting in 2015. Counties that
opt in can increase assistance payments to relatives caring for non-federally eligible
14

 children and youth to better meet the basic needs of, and secure services for, the
children and youth in their care.

2011 Child Welfare Services Realignment
The Budget Act of 2011 included a major realignment of public safety programs from
the state to local governments.
The realignment moves programs and fiscal
responsibility to the level of government that can best provide the services, while
eliminating duplication of effort, generating savings, and increasing flexibility. AB 118
(Chapter 40, Statutes of 2011) and ABX1 16 (Chapter 13, Statutes of 2011) realigned
the California Department of Social Services' (CDSS) funding for Adoption Services,
Foster Care, Child Welfare Services and Adult Protective Services, and programs from
the state to local governments and redirects specified tax revenues to fund this effort.
In November 2012, California voters passed Proposition 30 to provide funding for public
safety realignment and education. Proposition 30 also provides constitutional protection
of funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.
Additionally, California Government Code sections 30027.9 and 30029.07 (SB 1020,
Chapter 40, Statutes of 2012), prioritizes Child Welfare Services for a cumulative
$200 million in growth funding over several years, and counties retained approximately
$100 million annually when AB 3632 requirements for mental health services for certain
populations were returned to school districts.

California’s Title IV-E Waiver Project
California’s federal Title IV-E Waiver (the California Well-Being Project) provides
participating counties flexibility with federal funds that previously were only allowed to
be used for out-of-home placement and the administration of the Foster Care Program.
A total of nine counties representing 50 percent of the child welfare caseload in the
state are participating in the California Well-Being Project. These county child welfare
organizations will be implementing Safety Organized Practice which promotes
strategies for creating constructive working partnerships between frontline child welfare
practitioners, the families they work with and community resources. These county
juvenile probation departments will provide home-based services to avoid out of home
placements. Beyond these waiver-wide activities, participating counties also may
implement other activities specific to that county. Over the five-year duration of the
Project, the interventions implemented by these counties are expected to increase wellbeing and permanency outcomes. Savings must be re-invested in their child welfare
and probation programs and services.

Residentially-Based Services Demonstration Project
The Residentially Based Services (RBS) Demonstration Project was implemented in
2010 with four participating counties (Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Francisco and
Los Angeles) and ten group home providers. The RBS project currently operates in
three counties (Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles) and is extended through
July 1, 2016. San Bernardino County is no longer part of the pilot but has opted to fully
implement its RBS model outside of the pilot. Participating counties are operating
unique programs and fiscal models aimed at providing intensive treatment and
15

 stabilization services while the child is in group care coupled with services and supports
that follows and maintains the child in a family-based setting. RBS program and fiscal
models are consistent with the goals of CCR.

Quality Improvement Project
Inappropriate use of psychotropic medications amongst children in foster care has been
a growing concern in California and nationally. A 2008 sixteen-state study6, including
California, indicated that children in foster care in California were five times more likely
to receive psychotropic drugs compared to non-foster care children, and of those
children, more than half were prescribed two or more psychotropic medications at the
same time. Children in foster care, particularly those placed in group homes, are
prescribed psychotropic medications at disproportionate rates when compared with their
non-foster care cohorts7. In 2012, in response to this growing awareness and also
consistent with new federal requirements, the California Departments of Health Care
Services and Social Services began working on “The Quality Improvement Project:
Improving Psychotropic Medication Use in Children and Youth in Foster Care.” The
project aims to address concerns regarding the disproportionate prescribing of
psychotropic medications to children in foster care, particularly those placed in group
home care. The primary goals of the project include: enhancing psychotropic
medication safety by establishing mechanisms to provide appropriate assessment,
evaluation, and follow-up for children being considered for psychotropic medication
treatment; increasing the use of psychosocial treatment in lieu of medications; providing
educational materials to children and families involved in the foster care system; and,
using data collection to track quality improvement and to conduct data analysis
regarding psychotropic medication use.

Post-permanency Services
Counties have been using federal, state and local funding to provide necessary and
appropriate supportive services to reduce the incidents of children re-entering the child
welfare system after a permanent plan of adoption or guardianship. This funding
contributes to a coordinated and integrated service system that emphasizes
collaborative approaches, the early identification of issues, and the delivery of support
services that promote continued permanency for children with kinship or adoptive
families.

6

Antipsychotic Medication Use in Medicaid Children and Adolescents: Report and Resource Guide from
a 16-State Study: MMDLN/Rutgers CERTs Publication #1. Accessed on February 29, 2012, at:
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~cseap/MMDLNAPKIDS.html
7

Raghavan, R; Zima, BT; Anderson, RM; Leibowitz, AA; Schuster, MA; & Landsverk, J. (2005).
Psychotropic medication use in a national probability sample of children in the child welfare system.
Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology. 15(1):97.

16

 RECOMMENDATIONS
The foundation of the following recommendations is that all children, including those in
out-of-home care, deserve to grow up in families and develop a sense of community.
Their families, including foster families, also at times need assistance and support to
address stressors to avert crises. For those children and youth in crisis or whom
otherwise initially cannot safely get the appropriate breadth and/or intensity of services
they require in a family based setting, they can access high quality, short term,
treatment oriented congregate care (which includes planning for a move to home-based
family care as soon as reasonably possible).
The illustration on the next page depicts the vision, key strategies and the expected
outcomes of the CCR, and served as a guide in the development of these
recommendations.

17

  

 

 

  
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
   
   
   
   
    

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 



1. Create a framework for:  Expected Short-Term
Th 0  I Services Supports that  System-Level Outcomes
Engage family youth 8: respect voice and 
choice 3 I Reassessmem of children who have been in
han ge Coordinate care and services  group homes 12 months or longer
0 Address trauma I Children and families will receivea core set of
Are culturally-sensitive  culturaliy- based and trauma-informed services
0 Support aftercare I Standards for provider performance are
I Assessment& Placement Matching that is: identified
Vision 0 Based on the child's needs and and I increased transparency of provider performance
ibthUO meet those needs 2 I Funding supports the level and array of needed
All children livewith a 0 Reviewed and discussed by members of the  services
committed. permanent. and child and familyteam 5
nurturing family. 0 Revisited periodically Expected short-Term
3 Child-Level Outcomes
Services and supports are 2. Create a funding structure that: 
?noer to meet the needs of I Funds needed services and supports I Increased family engagement
the  nd v dua ch ld and famuy I Maximizes federal funding across funding I improved family relationships
being served with the ultimate I Improved family/caregiver supports
goal of the I is ?exible to meet individual needs I Improved care coordination
or when this isn't possible. lucmuves deg? Outcomes I I Increased cultural connections
transitioning the child or youth mm Md medically necessary 5 '"C?e?sed mm'm"! behavior
to a permanent ?may .nd/or mental hm I Fewerchildren in group home care
re arm the oath for a 5
sugessfg' 15mm Into 3. Exam provider performance measures that  Expected mqem 

adU'thOOd- I Performance-based

I ?scallyaccountabie
I Pubilcally available

Fewerchlidren in foster care

Reduced of stay

Decreased non-permanem exits

Decreased re-entry rates

increased placement with relative orTribe
Increased reunification

Decreased disparity in achieving all outcome

When needed, group home
care is a short-term. 
and intensive treatment
intervention that is just one
part of a continuum of care
available for children, youth
and young adults.

g, 

4. Develop system capacity and alignment that
includes:

I Adequate Capacity for lower levels of care
I Training for provider and county staff

I Data Collection

I Licensing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond the issues described in the Background section of this report, in the current
system’s structure, it is the placement setting of the child or youth that drives the
available services and supports rather than the individual needs of the child and family.
Children and youth in foster care currently must “fail” in the foster home or kin
placement in order to move into a group home to access the additional supports and
services they need. To compound the problem, each change in placement and longer
period without necessary services is detrimental to the child and family, and is costly.
This additional emotional trauma, disrupted relationships, school changes, and other
significant impacts also can lead to a perception that it is the child or youth himself or
herself who is not capable of thriving in a home-based family-like setting, rather than
inability of the placement system to address their individualized needs.
When it is determined that a child cannot safely remain in the home of their parent or
guardian, the offerings of the first placement should match an accurate assessment of
the child or youth’s needs. Children should not have to experience multiple placements
to get the services they need. Preserving or reunifying the family is the first priority,
when possible, for all children and youth. When reunifying a family is not possible, the
obligation to secure a permanent family through adoption or guardianship remains.
Consistent with this priority is the principle that children who cannot be safely placed in
home-based family care can go into residentially-based care with specific care plans
and intensive therapeutic interventions. Such placements should be short-term in
nature and have the goal of returning the child or youth to a home-based family care
setting or other permanency option as quickly and safely as possible. These short-term
placements will become the role of what currently are Rate Classification Level 12-14
group homes, hereafter known as Short-Term Residential Treatment Centers
(STRTCs). As noted earlier, increasing the capacity of home-based family care is a
necessary first step in this process.
Concepts and principles of the CCR are:
•

Working with the child, youth and family as part of a team is fundamental. This
child and family team, including extended family, community and/or tribe, is the
primary vehicle for collaboration on assessment, case planning and placement
decisions. This paradigm shift is modeled after Wraparound and breaks from
traditional practice in which the caseworker makes decisions in isolation without
the input and expertise of other practitioners.

•

Recognition that children and youth in foster care have been affected by trauma,
both by the fact that they have been abruptly separated from their family, as well
as by the circumstances that led to their removal. Recognizing this trauma and
minimizing additional trauma needs to be structured into how practice is
implemented for children and youth in foster care.

•

Culturally relevant services and supports need to be available to children, youth
and their caregivers regardless of the placement setting and be individually tailored
to their needs.
19

 •

The practice of public agencies, private agencies and service providers needs to
be aligned through a common core practice model with county child welfare
agencies retaining their case management responsibilities.

•

Shifting the nomenclature surrounding foster care to emphasize “resource families”
as “home-based family care.” These families are inclusive of related or unrelated
families that are approved to foster, adopt or take guardianship of children in foster
care, regardless of whether they are approved by a public or private agency.

•

Decisions about placements with providers need to be informed by the provider’s
performance on common indicators which is publicly available. Decisions about
placement with a specific family need to be based on a determination that the
family has the capacity and ability to meet the needs of the specific child.

•

Assumes providers can continuously improve the quality of care by using data to
manage performance.

•

Medically necessary health and mental health services need to be available to
children and youth in foster care regardless of the placement setting.

•

Efforts to achieve legal permanency and emotional permanency are necessary for
every child and youth. This includes maintaining and, if necessary, establishing
important connections to siblings, extended family, culture, and if applicable, tribes.

The illustration that follows represents the framework for the new model and the
intersection of the CFT to the assessment of the child and families’ strengths and
needs. The family and child’s needs drive service delivery and placement, which in turn
supplies information about provider performance. Provider performance measurement
is part of the larger CQI cycle which allows for program and system modifications to
improve outcomes if necessary.

20

 While stakeholders participating in the CCR process generally agreed on the need for
system change and there was general agreement on the model above, consensus does
not exist on all recommendations. This lack of consensus is not surprising given that
significant change is recommended for both public agencies and private non-profit
providers.
Reducing the number of children and youth placed in group homes, and the duration of
those placements, will require investment in the infrastructure of alternative home-based
family care placements and the services they provide and are made available to them.
It will require improved assessments of children and families, child and family team
21

 input to placement decisions, a revised array of available services and supports in each
placement setting, transformation in how those placements and services are financially
supported, and transparency in outcome measures and performance data. In order to
improve outcomes for, and the well-being of, children, youth and their families, the
Department will be pursuing all of these recommendations through a comprehensive
legislative proposal and associated budget adjustments, in consultation with partners
and stakeholders.
While an upfront financial investment in home-based family care placements and
necessary services and supports will be needed, over the long term, California’s
adherence to these recommendations is expected to become cost-neutral by creating
placement cost savings and utilizing strategic leveraging of federal Title IV-E and
Title XIX funding that can be used to further improve outcomes for children and youth.
Some of the recommendations in this report include activities that were realigned in
2011. Funding for these realigned activities now is included in the Local Revenue Fund
(LRF). Counties leverage the LRF and federal Title IV-E to pay for these previously
funded eligible activities such as placement costs, training, retention and recruitment of
foster parents, family finding and engagement and increased case planning to include
facilitated team meetings.
These recommendations are divided into four areas: Program, Fiscal, Outcomes and
Performance Measures, and Implementation. The Program area has three sections:
General Recommendations, Home-Based Family Care Recommendations and STRTC
Program Recommendations.
These recommendations are interdependent and
successful implementation must take that into consideration.

22

 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1:
All placing agencies will utilize tools with common domains and will utilize Child
and Family Teams in assessing the child and family’s needs and strengths and
use that assessment for case planning and to match a child to the most
appropriate placement setting.
The current regulatory framework requires child welfare case workers to complete an
assessment for each child for whom child welfare services are to be provided8. These
assessments include gathering and evaluating information relevant to the case situation
and appraising case service needs based on child and family strengths. This
recommendation envisions that the foundation for the assessment and subsequent case
planning and service delivery rests with the Child and Family Team (CFT). Once
identified, the needs of a child or youth will be supported with appropriate services that
are to follow the child into their home-based placement setting. The term “matching”
refers to the determination of the placement setting’s ability to meet those specific
needs (this is distinct from a formal, comprehensive mental health assessment
completed by a mental health professional). For consistency and reliability across
counties and placing agencies while also providing county flexibility in determining the
most appropriate evidence-based tool(s) to be used for the assessment and matching
process, the following domains must be included in the assessment of a child and
family’s strengths and needs and matching process. Assessments conducted by
probation may have additional elements including the youth’s protective factors and risk
level for re-offending. These elements would not necessarily be required for child
welfare. (See chart on the next page.)

8

Consistent with Welfare and Institutions Code Section 16501.1

23

 Child/Youth

Parent/
Guardian

Resource
Family

Emotional/Behaviors

X

X

X

Physical Health/Disability

X

X

X

Education

X

X

X

Family Relationships

X

X

Child Development

X

X

Substance Abuse

X

X

X

Cultural Identity/Primary Language

X

X

X

Peer/Adult Social Relationships

X

Delinquent Behavior

X

Trauma

X

X

X

Strengths/Needs

X

X

X

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity &
Expression

X

Transition to Adulthood

X

Domains

X

Household Relationship

X

X

Social Support System

X

X

Parenting Skills

X

X

Mental Health/Coping Skills

X

X

Placement Preference

X

X

Permanency

X

X

Intensive mental health needs should not automatically translate to a more specialized
or restrictive placement prior to the consideration of other alternatives. Additional
therapeutic options such as Intensive Care Coordination (ICC), IHBS, Therapeutic
Behavioral Services (TBS) and TFC are entitled intensive services for children and
youth with significant mental health needs and may be offered in home- and communitybased settings.
The accuracy of the assessment and matching process, already implemented as part of
the Katie A. Settlement, relies on effectively engaging the members of the CFT in order
to gather all necessary information and develop a service plan for which members of the
CFT have active participation and buy-in. If at all possible, the assessment should
24

 occur in a safe and supportive environment with the involvement of all participants.
When possible, the child and family needs and strengths assessment should occur as it
does today upon initial contact with the foster care system (for children and youth
supervised by either child welfare or probation agencies) and, thereafter, at least once
every six months as it is today under court supervision, or as needed and determined by
the CFT. Ongoing assessment is needed to continuously monitor the progress of the
child, assist with planning for transitions to lower level placement settings or back home
and identify further support that may be needed to best serve the child. The matching
process should consider the assessed needs of the child and a review of the
placement’s ability to meet those needs. This is an existing responsibility for those
entrusted with the care and supervision of these children and youth.
This
recommendation seeks an assessment tool covering key domains, and more
participatory assessment and monitoring by emphasizing the CFT.
Implementation of this recommendation will require placing agencies to adapt their
existing assessment tool(s) such that all domains are included. Currently, 54 county
child welfare agencies utilize the Structured Decision Making (SDM) process which has
a Family Strengths and Needs Assessment; the remaining counties utilize a
Comprehensive Assessment Tool (CAT). For assessing the developmental and socioemotional needs of younger children, some counties use the Ages and Stages
Questionnaire. Juvenile probation agencies have a broader range of tools available that
would also need to be modified to incorporate all of the identified domains. Counties
will utilize one assessment tool or process as the CWS New System becomes
operational in 2019.

RECOMMENDATION 2:
All STRTCs and FFAs must be accredited by a national accrediting body, selected
by CDSS, as a condition of receiving a foster care rate.
In an effort to provide high quality services and effective organizational practices, it is
recommended that any STRTC and FFA licensed in California and serving children and
youth under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a foster care resource, be accredited
through a national accrediting organization. Accreditation typically includes a specific
process whereby an organization undergoes an in-depth review and receives a qualified
endorsement that it conforms to recognized service standards. National accreditation
brings benefits to an organization, such as professionalizing staff, establishing
administrative best practices, improving service delivery, and promoting a culture of
continuous quality improvement. Furthermore, through the re-accreditation process that
occurs every three or four years, it is expected that the accrediting agency will validate
the effectiveness of staff training and coaching to ensure staff possess the necessary
knowledge, skills and abilities.
The accrediting bodies will be selected by the Department after consultation with
stakeholders. Based on this consultation, CDSS will establish a date by which all
providers need to be accredited. The cost of accreditation will be amortized and
25

 included in the new funding structure. The CDSS is proposing that maintenance of
accreditation status be a requirement for continued receipt of a rate.

RECOMMENDATION 3:
Temporary transition strategies will be implemented to address the need for
placement options and resources for older youth and young adults who do not
wish to transition from current group care to home based placements.
The Department is making this recommendation after hearing from youth their desire to
have options available to them in lieu of placement into home-based family care. Youth
have noted that not every youth, especially older youth, want to live with another family.
Rather, some older youth want placement options that support their desires to transition
to adulthood. While it is expected that the youth’s social worker will work to resolve
objections to home-based family care and permanency, such options would include the
Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP), which provides supervised living
settings for youth age 16 to 18 with services provided by a contracted/licensed provider,
and the THP+FC, which provides older youth age 18 to 21 an opportunity to live
independently and receive the supportive services from a housing provider. Both
housing options also include the Host Family Model which allows for the youth to live
with a permanent connection or caring adult who has been selected by the youth and
has agreed to assist the youth in their transition and skill development.

HOME-BASED FAMILY CARE RECOMMENDATIONS
Home-based placements would encompass the full range of existing placement types
including FFAs, relatives/non-related extended family members (NREFMs), foster family
homes, etc. The following recommendations are specific to FFAs and resource families,
known as home-based family care settings. As envisioned, the FFA Program will focus
on two service levels: treatment and non-treatment. Consistent with TFC required
under Katie A., the FFA Treatment (FFA/T) foster care homes will serve children and
youth with significant mental health needs and will provide an individualized therapeutic
home-based family care setting. The FFA Non-Treatment (FFA/NT) foster care homes
will provide the full array of non-therapeutic supportive services.

RECOMMENDATION 4:
Allow public agencies to be licensed to operate an FFA.
Currently, licensed FFAs are operated by private, non-profit agencies. Public agencies
should be allowed to be licensed to operate FFA/NT and FFA/T’s to serve the children,
youth and families in their care if appropriate and where FFA/T’s are not available. This
promotes counties’ ability to develop programs focused on specific populations for
which there may be a local need. This also may facilitate better integration with other
26

 county services. Such agencies would be approved and evaluated on the same basis
as private programs.

RECOMMENDATION 5:
Strengthen resource family recruitment, training requirements and retention
strategies.
The supply of resource families has declined over the past several years. The
Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program, SB 855 (Chapter 29, Statutes of
2014), commonly known as the ARC program, has removed barriers for some relative
caregivers to care for children and youth in foster care by creating parity with licensed
homes with respect to financial support. Nonetheless, focused attention is needed to
recruit new families and retain existing quality families as they are foundational to the
reform effort.
This recommendation envisions that resource families will be active partners with public
child welfare workers and service providers. As integral members of the CFT, resource
families are also entrusted with the child’s safety and well-being and thus must make a
loving commitment to the child and a commitment to be involved with the child in the
context of the community. Resource families will be assessed and matched with
specific children and youth and should meet criteria for legal permanency options
should family reunification not be achieved.
All resource families need the knowledge, skills and abilities that are trauma-informed
and attachment-based to best support the children placed with them. Training given to
resource families should include a basic curriculum that supports their role in parenting
vulnerable children and youth. Consistent with existing requirements, the training for
resource families will be both initial and ongoing in order to continually provide
information on current new practices and/or changes within foster care. Training prior to
approval will include:
•

Permanence and well-being needs of children;

•

Cultural needs of children;

•

Child and adolescent development, including sexual orientation, gender identity
and expression;

•

Role of a resource family, including working cooperatively with the agency and
other service providers to develop and implement the case plan;

•
•

The rights of children in care and their responsibility to safeguard those rights; and
Their responsibility with respect to acting as a reasonable and prudent parent, and
maintaining the least restrictive, most family-like environment that serves the
needs of the child.

27

 In addition to the current training topics for resource families, training topics such as
positive parenting, prudent parenting, trauma-informed care and attachment, the CPM,
crisis intervention, behavior management, supporting children and youth in school and
the effects of drug/alcohol abuse on children, should be added to the training
curriculum.
Initial recruitment efforts will focus on building the supply of resource families.
Integrating knowledge supportive of quality parenting will further the development of
resource families skilled in working with probation youth and youth with behavioral
health needs necessary to support the transition of youth from residential settings into
home-based family care. The QPI, as previously discussed, will serve as a model for
agency/caregiver partnership.

RECOMMENDATION 6:
FFA programs must provide core services and supports to FFA/NT and FFA/T
placements. FFAs or other community based organizations using the same
standards can, at county request, provide core services and supports to resource
families, including relatives and NREFMs.
Each FFA/T must demonstrate the capacity to offer the following core services in order
to support the range of needs for children, youth and families in foster care. Service
and support types and intensities will be based on assessments as described in
Recommendation 1. While not all children or youth will require all of these services,
these core services can be characterized as:
1.

Improved access to entitled medically necessary specialty mental health services
that include but are not limited to the following, as appropriate: arranging for
individual or group therapy, intensive care coordination, intensive home-based
services, therapeutic behavioral services, therapeutic foster care, out-patient
treatment, respite, and/or crisis intervention services 24-hours a day, 7-days a
week. Note: Required for FFA/T programs.

2.

Transitional Support Services Upon Discharge: Services that are designed to
provide continued support after the child/youth has exited to permanency or their
current placement setting by providing follow-up services in varying degrees of
intensity and duration to stabilize and maintain the return home and to the
community based upon the individual need of the child, youth and family.
Community Services and Supports: Services designed to assist the youth and
family in maintaining formal and informal connections in their community.

To increase the quality of and improve the consistency of services are provided to all
children and youth in FFA and FFA/T programs across the state, all FFA and FFA/T
programs must provide, or provide access to, the following core services:
3.

Permanency-related Services: These are two-fold:
a. Supporting efforts to reunify children and youth and an effort to achieve
alternate permanency should reunification fail. The FFAs and FFA/Ts that are
not licensed as adoption agencies must have formal agreements
28

 (e.g., Memorandums of Understanding) with adoption agencies to support a
seamless transition to adoption when possible.
b. Maintaining and/or Establishing Permanent Relationships: Services that
support connections with siblings and extended family members, and that focus
on building strong and enduring ties for every youth to one or more nurturing
adults. Services may include specialized youth-centered permanency services.
4.

Health Support: Services designed to promote a youth’s physical, mental,
emotional and spiritual health by providing appointment transportation, support and
follow-up care per after visit instructions. As part of Health Care Oversight
responsibilities, improving the administration and management of psychotropic
medication is critical to improving health outcomes.

5.

Educational Support: Services to promote the child/youth’s educational plan by
providing transportation to and from school and school-based activities, advocacy,
as well as tutoring and other educational related supports not otherwise available
directly from the school.

6.

Life Skills to Support Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: Provide youth with age
appropriate activities that support development and growth towards financial
literacy, responsible decision-making, developing self-identity, values, character,
health and nutrition, accessing resources, maintaining a network of support,
healthy relationships and career development.

7.

Biological Parent and Resource Family Supports: Services designed to engage
and assist biological parents in the care of their children and eventual reunification,
as well as services that enable a resource family to work with the biological parent
in this process and provide a normalized childhood experience including
reasonable and prudent parenting.

8.

Services for Non-minor Dependents (NMD): Services based on the individual
needs of the NMD would include transition strategies and options, specific
independent living skills for older teens, access to mental health services, and
referral for academic- and career-based services.

To increase support for resource families and reduce placement changes the
Administration intends that FFA/Ts be authorized to offer the services described above,
at county request, to all resource families not just those certified by their agency. This
would include relatives and NREFMs based on a county referral. FFA/NTs will largely
fill the role of resource parent recruitment.
In the development of this recommendation, county placing agencies reported that
some FFAs currently provide specific types of services that meet the needs of individual
counties. Although such specialization is not required, an FFA/T may choose to
specialize in a particular service category. Such specialized services are best
developed in collaboration with counties based on local needs.

29

 RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Under this framework, group homes will be transitioned into short-term, specialized and
intensive treatment providers used for the minority of children and youth who cannot
safely be served in their own homes or in home-based family care settings. These
settings will operate as STRTC programs. The target population to be served by
STRTC programs is children and youth (up to age 18 and, in specified circumstances,
age 21) who are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, supervised by county child
welfare or probation agencies. Placement into a STRTC shall be based upon the
individualized assessment of needs and strengths and the recommendation of the CFT
that placement is necessary because the child requires intensive services in a 24/7
supervised setting to maintain their or the public’s safety. Placement of probation
supervised youth into a STRTC could include the youth’s need for behavioral or
rehabilitation interventions. The STRTC placements are not intended to be long-term in
nature.
The STRTC programs will provide the highest level of care and supervision, offering
immediate access to an array of services that are tailored to meet the needs of the
individual child, including intensive mental health treatment or intervention services for
victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Building upon the residentially-based
services model, STRTC providers will be required to have the capacity to transition
children and youth to a home-based family care setting. This step-down into a homebased family care setting may be done in a number of ways, including through a
wraparound program or Treatment Foster Care, and it may be provided by the STRTC
provider organization or by partnering with a third-party agency, such as a FFA/T, as
determined at the local-level. In addition, per the Katie A. Medi-Cal Manual, STRTC
providers will provide intensive care coordination for up to 30 days to enable the
transition to home-based family care in the community.
The STRTC providers can partner with county child welfare and/or probation and mental
health agencies as a member of the CFT to develop and implement individual care
plans engaging the youth and family voice and choice.
Finally, it is anticipated that the implementation of these recommendations over time will
result in a significant decrease in the total number of youth currently placed in group
homes as capacity is developed for quality lower-level placements and lower-level
group homes are transitioned to other roles. In addition, length of stay for children in
STRTC placements also is expected to decrease as STRTC programs are required to
offer core services (described below) aimed at stabilization and transition to homebased family care. To enable this new STRTC role in the continuum of placement
options, initial investments are necessary in the capacity of home-based family care
options to enable access to such placement options.

30

 RECOMMENDATION 7:
All STRTC programs will provide core services and support for children and
youth that need short-term, intensive treatment interventions and who initially
cannot be safely maintained in a home-based family care setting. Placements
must be reviewed at intervals not greater than six months, with continued
placement requiring county Deputy Director, Probation Chief or Assistant Chief
approval.
Currently, some residential treatment settings serve more as a permanent residence to
children and youth than a short-term intensive treatment intervention. As intended, the
STRTC programs will provide short-term intensive treatment interventions aimed at
stabilizing children and connecting or re-connecting children to their community in a
home-based family care setting. However, residential care should be a temporary
option that meets the needs of the child and family and builds on their strengths.
“Short-term” as defined is based upon the individual needs of the child and family as
determined by the CFT.
During the development of this recommendation, legislation was enacted that
implemented two key provisions aimed at ensuring residential placements are shortterm, intensive treatment interventions:
1.

AB 74 (Chapter 21, Statutes of 2013) requires specific time limits on the length of
stay in group homes for children under the age of 12; and

2.

AB 74 also requires a re-assessment and determination of the suitability of group
home placements for youth residing in group homes for one year or longer, by an
executive of the child welfare or probation department.

The STRTC primary services are designed to provide all children and youth in
residential care a standard array of services that are provided based on the individual
needs of the child/youth and family. These services are designed to quickly stabilize
youth and move them to a resource family or to return to their own family. While
offering these services, providers will still have the latitude to tailor services to specific
populations, e.g., sexual offenders, dual diagnosis, developmental disabilities, victims of
commercial sexual exploitation and others. To increase the quality of and improve the
consistency of services provided to all children and youth in STRTC programs across
the State, all STRTC programs must provide, or provide access to, the following core
services:
1.

Intensive Treatment: Active, consistent delivery of culturally congruent, evidenceinformed services based on an assessment and diagnosis. Treatment will be
coordinated by a CFT working in their scope of knowledge to improve youth and
family functioning to address a specific or multifaceted challenge with the goal of
connecting or reconnecting with a home-based family care setting, school,
community and tribal resources, as appropriate. The success of this service rests
with the ability to partner at the local-level with county mental health plans and to
31

 access the Medi-Cal funds for these services. This includes providing an array of
Medi-Cal specialty mental health services such as rehabilitation, mental health
services, targeted case management services, therapeutic behavioral services,
EPSDT and/or supplemental specialty mental health services as defined in
Department of Health Care Services’ (DHCS’) Medi-Cal Documentation and
Claiming Manual.
2.

Transitional Support Services Upon Discharge: For a period of time after the child
or youth has exited the STRTC placement setting, provide follow-up services in
varying degrees of intensity and duration to stabilize and maintain the return to the
home-based family care setting, school and community. This also includes postpermanency supports provided to the youth after he/she has exited to permanency
to stabilize and maintain the permanent placement, based on the individual needs
of the child, youth and family.

The following STRTC services can further support transition to home-based family care
settings:
3.

Establishing/Maintaining Permanent Connections: Assist youth in maintaining,
establishing or re-establishing a life-long permanent relationship that is reliable and
consistent and that youth feel connected. The process of establishing or reestablishing this connection is youth-centered and based on the needs of the youth
as identified by the youth. The life-long connection may or may not be with
someone who can provide legal permanency, but must be someone willing to be a
life-long supportive and permanent connection. This includes:
i.

Ongoing Youth Permanency: Provide a full array of services, such as intensive
care coordination, intensive home based services, clinical and therapeutic
services and educational supports to improve permanency outcomes,
(reunification with parents or adoption or guardianship with a new family).
Practice family finding and engagement by using formal and informal resources
to locate and learn about family members and other supportive relationships,
including tribes when appropriate, who are prepared and engaged to be
available for placement and/or social support. While not all children, youth and
their families may need the entire array of services, it is important that a
comprehensive array be available in order to meet the specific needs of the
child, youth and/or family.

ii. Supporting sibling relationships, including but not limited to information,
education and visitation supports. SB 1099 (Chapter 773, Statutes of 2014), in
part, was enacted to facilitate this.
4.

Health Care Support: Promote physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health by
providing appointment transportation, support and follow-up care per instructions.
Health care support includes monitoring the use of medications and following
protocols and requirements for the administration of psychotropic and other
medications.
32

 5.

Educational Support:
Provide transportation, advocacy, tutoring and other
educational related support to fulfill the educational plan.

6.

Community Services and Supports: Support the youth and family in building and
maintaining formal and informal connections in their community, including tribes as
applicable, to sustain the youth and family after discharge. This includes
partnering with natural neighborhood supports, schools, tribal supports, faith-based
and other cultural community supports identified by families to coordinate case
planning, decision-making and delivery of services.

RECOMMENDATION 7A:
County operated children’s shelters will be phased out over a multi-year period.
Several counties have discontinued use of children’s shelters over the past decade, with
a preference for non-residential intake assessment centers and direct placement in
either home-based or treatment settings. These assessment centers provide a safe
location where children are assessed and their individual needs are considered and
matched to an appropriate placement in under 24 hours.
Other counties currently operate “children’s shelters” which provide care and
supervision to children and youth, typically at the point of entry to foster care or during
unexpected transitions between placements. These shelters are licensed under group
home regulations and are non-treatment facilities. Children typically spend between a
few days to a few months in these shelters.
Although these counties have invested significantly in shelters, their continued utilization
as a standard part of the foster care continuum is inconsistent with the principles and
goals of the CCR. In recognition that circumstances and needs that led to their
development vary from location to location, and that the timetable by which alternative
care resources can be made available, it is recommended that the counties operating
shelters be provided a reasonable multi-year window to shift from this model to homebased family care treatment placements, and to develop locally appropriate re-use
plans for their shelter facilities.

RECOMMENDATION 7B:
Group homes that are educationally-based boarding school models will adapt
and align their programs to meet the CCR goals supporting home-based family
care and permanency.
There are group home programs that focus on residentially-based education programs
that have some success in supporting foster youth both in high school completion and
college entry. Typical placements in these types of settings are for multiple years.

33

 One county currently contracts for operation of a residential high school for foster
children, and others have inquired about possible replication. The reported benefits of
these programs include significantly higher graduation, college admission and college
graduation than the general foster care population.
The conflicts such models present to the CCR principles and goals are in their deemphasized commitment to home-based family care and permanency, and in the de
facto choice a youth may have to make between education and home-based family
care. Proponents of the model assert that the youth selected for admission are those
for whom reunification is not considered by the county to be an option and for those
whom may express skepticism or opposition to a foster family home, relative or NREFM
placement. However, it is an underlying principle in the core practice model of CCR that
prior experiences should not validate rejection of home-based care, and that it is the
continuing responsibility of all providers and professionals to work with the youth to
achieve normalcy in their living situation. Long-term foster care placement is not
acceptable as a permanency plan.
In recognition of the possibility that some youth may do well in a “boarding school”
environment, but also that model is understood to be a part-week, part-year setting with
the students rooted in non-institutional home environments, the Department will work
with the existing programs to validate the educational services and curriculum meet
existing state requirements for high school graduation or its equivalent, define targets
and standards for simultaneous placement in home-based family care and school,
including for time spent in each, and options for retention in the education program after
successful reunification, adoption or guardianship.
These programs will need to appropriately braid a number of funding streams, including
but not limited to foster care funding from the Local Revenue Fund and Title IV-E,
mental health funding from the Early and Periodic Screening Detection and Treatment
program, and state school funding from the Average Daily Attendance and Local
Control Funding Formula.

RECOMMENDATION 8:
Require all STRTCs and FFA/Ts to be certified by the DHCS or county mental
health plans to provide medically necessary specialty mental health services.
Without the ability to deliver mental health services, STRTC programs could not meet
the intensive treatment needs of children and families. With the intended role of STRTC
programs to be short-term, intensive treatment interventions used to stabilize the child
and quickly move them to a less restrictive environment or reunification, the ability to
deliver specialty mental health services funded by federal Title XIX funding is critical.
STRTCs and FFA/Ts will be certified by county mental health plans.
As part of the licensing requirement, all STRTCs must be certified by the DHCS or the
county mental health plans in order to serve children and youth in California.
34

 Additionally, revised program statements will be reviewed and approved by CDSS and
counties to ensure the program is consistent with current practices and meets the needs
of the communities in which they serve. The financial support for these services will
account for, and be dependent upon, provider accountability for best practices and
accepted standards for the duration of care and its outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION 9:
Children currently placed in group homes with a Rate Classification Level (RCL)
1-9 will be transitioned into home-based family care. Groups homes rated 10-14
will be either re-rated to the residential treatment rate or to a foster family agency
rate.
Current group homes classified as an RCL 1-9 generally do not serve children with
complex and enduring needs. Therefore, it is assumed that children currently placed in
RCL 1-9 group homes soon could be placed in a home-based family care setting. The
CDSS recommends that prior to any child currently placed in RCL 1-9 facilities being
transitioned into a home-based family care setting, an assessment should be completed
to determine the appropriate placement option. Older youth will have other options,
including the THPP or THP+FC Program.
Providers with an RCL 1-9 eventually will be expected to revise their programs
consistent with the recommendations for operating a STRTC or FFA/T or FFA/NT
program, as described in Recommendations 14 and 16. Providers with an RCL 10-14
will need to choose to provide short-term intensive treatment interventions or to become
home-based family care placements under the new framework, to continue as a
placement option. These revisions will occur over time in each county, as home-based
family care placement capacity is increased and other infrastructure and service arrays
are implemented.

RECOMMENDATION 10:
Increase the minimum age for all newly hired STRTC child care workers.
Child care workers supervise, protect and care for children in STRTC settings. These
workers assist children in group activities and in solving individual problems, provide
behavior limits and corrective actions, track individual youth progress, identify
professional service needs, and relay this information to treatment staff. Youth have
been outspoken about the need to have staff that are older than the residents if they are
to have supervisory responsibility for the youth. As a result, SB 855 Chapter 29,
Statutes of 2014 was enacted to increase the age requirements for all staff and facility
managers hired on or after October 1, 2014, to be at least 21 years old.

35

 RECOMMENDATION 11:
Increase the minimum qualifications for all newly hired STRTC child care
workers.
As noted in the prior recommendation, STRTC child care workers play a critical role in
residential placements. In order to ensure that these STRTC staff is qualified, all newly
hired STRTC child care workers must meet one of the following requirements prior to
hiring:
1.

Have a Bachelor of Arts or Sciences Degree;

2.

Have a valid Child Development Teaching Permit;

3.

Have completed 12 semester units of Early Childhood Education, Adolescent
Development, or Foster and Kinship Care Education and have 100 hours of
experience working with youth;

4.

Have a valid Alcohol Counselor, Drug Counselor or Alcohol and Drug Counselor
Certificate and have 100 hours of experience working with youth;

5.

Have a valid Vocational Training Certificate, Credential or documentation stating
the individual is a trade journeyperson and instructs vocational skills to children
and have 100 hours of experience working with youth; or

6.

Have previously been employed as a “STRTC Child Care Worker” or a “STRTC
Volunteer,” for at least one year in duration.

RECOMMENDATION 12:
Enhance the training for new and existing STRTC staff.
STRTC staff must be able to support the STRTCs’ new model of intervention. Group
home child care workers currently are required to complete eight hours of initial training
before being left alone with a child. A maximum of four of those eight hours can be
satisfied through “job shadowing” which is the process of following and observing an
experienced facility member performing a specific job. Staff must receive adequate
initial training and orientation before working independently with youth.
To improve consistency and improve the quality of training for STRTC child care
workers across the state, a high quality training curriculum should be used, with
materials and a portion of the training to be provided by a qualified youth trainer.
Additional training topics should be added to the annual training requirements for
STRTC staff as best practices evolve. Furthermore, STRTC providers are expected to
train existing SRTRC child care workers in these areas as part of the ongoing training
requirements. The following four items are recommended to immediately improve the
training of STRTC child care workers:

36

 •

Annual training requirements for staff shall be increased to 40 hours
per-year, as indicated by current best practice across the state.

•

The 24 hours of initial training must be completed before being left alone with a
child and this training must be completed within the first 90 days of employment for
full-time employees or 180 days for part-time employees.

•

At least 20 of the 40 hours of on-going training shall be provided by a CDSSapproved vendor and four of the 24 hours of initial training shall be provided by
qualified youth trainers.

•

In order to ensure STRTC child care workers are trained and qualified to work with
the children and youth with complex needs, the following new training topics shall
be required:
o

Interpersonal Communication Skills*

o

Grief and Loss

o

Youth Permanency

o

Crisis Intervention and Behavior Management*

o

Cultural Humility*

o

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression*

o

Trauma-Informed Care and Attachment*

o

Awareness and Identification of Commercial Sexual Exploitation

o

Medication Management and Monitoring of Psychotropic Medications

o

California Statewide Practice Model

o

Child Welfare/Probation 101*
*Indicates training topics to be completed prior to working with youth.

RECOMMENDATION 13:
Establish “STRTC peer partner” and “STRTC volunteer” staff classifications and
allow STRTCs to use these classification as needed to support their program.
The minimum age limitation of 21 for STRTC staff may in some cases limit their ability to
function as a peer for children and youth. Two new staff job classifications should be
established:
•

STRTC Peer Partner: The STRTC peer partners must be a minimum of 18 years
of age, and be able to provide “peer support” to either youth/young adults or
parents.

37

 •

STRTC Volunteer: The STRTC volunteers must be a minimum of 18 years of age
and have life experience that provides value to foster youth in areas such as
tutoring, “life coaching,” creative arts, crafts, music, sewing or games.

Neither STRTC Peer Partners nor STRTC Volunteers should be primarily responsible
for the direct supervision of children and youth in a STRTC. Staff hired into either
classification must clear a criminal background check before beginning work. In
addition, both classifications must receive training on the following topics:
•

Confidentiality*

•

Active Listening Communication Techniques*

•

Overview of the Foster Care System

•

Achieving Permanency

•

Working with Youth in Foster Care

•

Foster Youth Rights*

•

Trauma Informed Care and Attachment

•

Awareness and Identification of Commercial Sexual Exploitation

•

Cultural Humility*

•

Crisis Intervention

•

Child and Youth Development including, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and
Expression*
*Indicates training topics to be completed prior to working in a STRTC.

38

 FISCAL RECOMMENDATIONS
It is essential that an appropriate fiscal structure supports the CCR Program design.
Some of the recommendations that follow will require ongoing work or an upfront
investment as changes to the system are developed and implemented. The Department
will communicate with the field on an ongoing basis for review and comment. The
recommendations below align Title IV-E, Title XIX and the LRF to focus on culturallyand developmentally-appropriate, trauma-informed, family- and community-based care
as well as short-term intensive residential care as needed. Funding decisions should
follow the care decisions that address the needs and strengths of the child and family
and must be based upon the cost of effective services, the benefits such services are
expected to bring and the likely consequences of deferring or failing to make necessary
investments in children, youth and families. Local governments should collaborate with
the private sector, communities and with providers to allocate funds and other resources
wisely. This collaboration is critical to maximizing the effectiveness of care and
treatment and optimizing child, youth and family outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION 14:
Replace the group home RCL system with a statewide residential rate for all
STRTCs.
Currently, California uses a tiered system known as “Rate Classification Levels” for
compensating group home care providers. Funding is based on the experience,
education and tenure of staff. A group home with more qualified, educated, and tenured
staff receives a higher RCL and, thereby, a higher rate. This funding is not tied to the
individual needs of the child or youth. The funding model being recommended by the
Department would have three different components: (1) funding for board and care,
(2) funding for individualized treatments and therapies, and (3) funding for services and
supports.
The board and care component cost assumes that AFDC-FC would reimburse
50 percent of Title IV-E allowable costs for federally eligible children and that some
STRTC child care staff will be involved in treatment-related activities that are Title XIX
eligible. Because Title XIX matching rates are significantly higher than Title IV-E, the
Department and county child welfare and probation agencies could maximize
reimbursement by working with providers to modify their programs in order to access
Title XIX funding for eligible staff, activities and costs.
It is likely that the STRTC rate will be higher than the existing group home rates as a
result of increasing training, staff qualifications, additional intensive program
requirements, the short-term nature of these placements, and specific administrative
activities like accreditation that will improve the quality and operation of the programs.
These savings will ultimately be available to offset the costs of recommendations in this
report.
39

 In addition to the recommended board and care rate, STRTC providers can receive
additional funding for the delivery of individualized medically necessary mental health
services via Title XIX, which can help maximize funding for the provider. Under the
recommended STRTC model, specified child care staff can become active participants
in the CFT and may assist in certain activities related to a child’s individualized service
plan. Such activities would not be eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement, but may be
eligible for Title XIX reimbursement, and would be billed as such through the provider or
appropriate county agency. Therefore, success of building this rate will require
agreements with the local mental health plans to maximize federal benefitting programs
including Title IV-E and Title XIX.

RECOMMENDATION 15:
Implement a new STRTC program audit in accordance with the proposed program
plan and treatment competencies. Program, fiscal and health and safety reviews
coordinated with joint activity by the Department’s Children and Family Services
Division, Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD), and the Department of
Health Care Services (DHCS) Mental Health Division.
Audits of group home providers currently conducted by the Department follow the
existing RCL regulations. Auditors use these regulations as the basis for auditing
facility staff’s paid-awake hours, licensing requirements, education and experience,
training, social work activities and mental health treatment services. This audit process
determines whether a group home is receiving the appropriate funding rate for the
services they provide but does not measure a program’s effectiveness in improving
outcomes for children, youth, and families.
Future audits will include these fundamental administrative activities, but also will
involve a multi- departmental review team that will focus on the programs’ administrative
and service practices, outcome performance and claiming to ensure that the providers
are operating programs that are reflective of best practices and local needs.

RECOMMENDATION 16:
Revise the FFA rate structure to account for two types of FFAs: 1) FFA/Ts that
provide core services, intensive treatment foster care and therapeutic foster care,
and 2) FFA/NTs which function as specialty or home-finding agencies. Also,
increase the FFA Social Worker Rate to account for expanded core services and
supports to be provided to resource families.
With the implementation of CCR, FFA/NT and FFA/T social workers will provide
services to foster homes certified by the FFA and other resource families, including
kinship families, at county request. The FFAs will be responsible for performing
psychosocial assessment of each resource family so that the needs and strengths of
children and youth in foster care can be provided services by the most appropriate
family. FFA staff will participate in the CFTs. In addition, a treatment FFA will recruit,
40

 train and support Therapeutic Foster Care and Intensive Treatment Foster families who
will become an eligible Medicaid provider as defined by the DHCS and federal law.
To maximize federal financial participation FFA/T’s will need to make administrative
changes to access all cost benefitting programs. The existing FFA rate will be revised
to fund two types of FFAs, a treatment agency and specialized agency. The FFA/NT
rate is comprised of an amount varied by the age of the child and youth for the resource
families to provide care and supervision, plus an amount for social work activities
including participation in child and family teams and county requested support services,
plus an amount for administrative activities that includes payment for the training and
recruitment of foster parents.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND OUTCOMES
RECOMMENDATIONS
The reform of the state’s continuum of placement resources is aimed at changing how
the State, counties, and private providers conduct business in order to improve
outcomes for children and families. A part of this overall effort is the need for a datadriven system that will promote change by encouraging accountability through
transparent dissemination of STRTC and FFA performance and outcome measurement,
which in turn will encourage improvements to services to meet the needs of the children
and families being served. The measures will be concise, but comprehensive. The
number of measures and the degree of complexity also will be limited initially in order to
make sure that the measures are understood and reflect a meaningful assessment of
performance.
In the short term, provider performance will contain baselines derived from key process
measures, satisfaction surveys, qualitative case reviews and administrative information
including audit findings, licensing actions and accreditation. The performance
measurement and outcome system will build from a number of existing and developing
activities at the state and local levels including Katie A., the QIP and DHCS’
Performance Outcome System. From these efforts and in consultation with national
experts, the Department will establish baselines or norms for performance.

RECOMMENDATION 17:
Evaluate STRTC and FFA provider performance based on a series of performance
domains and measures.
A relatively small number of performance and outcome measures will be used in six
domains with existing data sources that will improve as access to additional sources of
administrative data become available through cooperative agreements with partner
agencies and implementation of improved tools, such as the CWS New System. The
domains and initially recommended measures are as follows:
41

 OUTCOME

PERFORMANCE
MEASURE

INDICATOR

INDICATORS FOR
NEAR TERM
DEVELOPMENT

PROPOSED
DATA
SOURCE

Domain 1: Safety
Children are
cared for in a
safe and secure
environment.

No reported or
substantiated cases of
abuse or neglect
involving the residential
contractor during the
service period.

(1) Count/rate of
reports of alleged
maltreatment; and

CWS/Case
Management
System
(CWS/CMS)

Children are
cared for in a
safe and secure
environment.

Public agency is
providing regular
facility inspections
according to timelines
established in
regulation.

(1) Date of last
facility inspection.
(2) Number and type
of physical plant
citations

CCLD reports

Children are
cared for in a
safe and secure
environment.

No complaints of
abuse involving other
youth in the placement
home or facility.

Number of facility
citations broken out
by date and type:

CCLD reports

(2) count/rate of
substantiated reports
of maltreatment.

(1) high-level
health/safety issue;
and
(2) lower-level
concern.

Domain 2: Stable & Permanent Connections
Children are
served and
supported to
develop stable
and permanent
connections
during care.

Stability of the
treatment environment

(1) Median number of
days youth are in
care

(2) % of youth that
CWS/CMS
AWOL
(3) Median days away
from the facility
due to AWOL
(4) % of youth who
completed the
program

Children are
served and
supported to
maintain
stability
following
discharge.

The effectiveness of
provider efforts to
deliver services and
promote connections
that allows children to
make stable transitions
to lower levels of
care/return to family.

(1) % of children who
were discharged
from the program
within 3, 6, 12, 18
months of entry.
(2) % of children who
did not re-enter
STRTC placement
(look at time
between discharge
and re-entry).
(3) % of children who
remained in home-

CWS/CMS

42

 based family care
after discharge
from STRTC

Domain 3: Health
Children's
physical and
mental health
needs are met.

Children receive
appropriate and timely
medical and dental
care.

(1) Number and
percent of clients with
timely medical exams
(per the EPSDT
schedule)
(2) Number and
percent of children
with timely dental
exams.

(3) % of youth
receiving timely
substance use
disorder treatment
when indicated by an
assessment
(4) Facility compliant
with existing
psychotropic
medication monitoring
protocols

CWS/CMS/
audits/CCLD
Licensing

Domain 4: Education
Children
Receive Active
Educational
Support.

If/when child changes
schools, provider
requests and followsup on transcripts as
documented in the
case.

Children
Receive Active
Educational
Support.

Caregiver tracks school
attendance, and
ensures child attends
90 percent of
scheduled school
sessions.

(1) % of children
whose transcripts
are received by
provider within 30
days
(2) % of children
enrolled in school
within 30, 60 or 90
days of placement

CWS/CMS

(1) % of children who
have attended
school over 90%
of their time in
current placement
(FFA)
(2) Number and
percent of clients
who meet this
attendance
threshold.

CWS/CMS,
CALPADS

The CDSS, in partnership with the Office of Systems Integration and county child
welfare and probation and court agencies, has begun procurement activities aimed at
replacing the current CWS/CMS. When deployed statewide, the CWS New System will
greatly enhance the availability and quality of aggregate and case-level data in many
ways, such as remote data entry through a variety of devices, as well as data
exchanges with automated systems for other programs serving the same children,
youth and families. Statewide implementation of the New System is expected to occur
in spring 2019, and until then, data sharing agreements for other information will
complement the information contained within the CWS/CMS. This information will be
shared with county probation and child welfare as well as STRTC and FFA providers.
43

 RECOMMENDATION 18:
Utilize a client satisfaction survey that captures the perception of children and
their families regarding services they have received from STRTC and FFA/T
providers.
In addition to the development of the performance measures described above, a
trauma-informed client satisfaction survey will be utilized to understand youth and family
perception of services and provide feedback essential to continuous quality
improvements. Self-reported consumer satisfaction with services is an important
outcome measure and quality assurance indicator, and to meet the need for this
information, the survey developed over the past two years during the CCR process will
be utilized.
The Youth Services Survey (YSS) for Youth and the YSS for Families (YSS-F) are
national consumer survey tools developed for the Mental Health Statistics Improvement
Program and are widely used by California behavioral health agencies and the RBS
Reform Project. Portions of the YSS and YSS-F will be combined for the purpose of
CCR in assessing satisfaction with services, the child and family “voice and choice,”
involvement with mental treatment plans including prescription of psychotropic
medication, well-being, and educational progress. The Department is also
recommending inclusion of the following questions which seek to better understand the
experience of youth in foster care:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Have existing connections with your family, school, tribe and other informal
supports been maintained?
Were you involved in the assessment of your needs and development of your
case plan?
Were your opinions and preferences considered in the assessment/case
planning process?
Did you receive an explanation of the treatment plan developed for you? Did
this include therapeutic options to psychotropic medications?
Did you receive individual assistance with school work/tutoring?

Suggested thresholds for the survey measures should include:
1.
2.

Percent of children/youth who report a satisfaction score of 80 percent or above
based on the youth satisfaction survey.
Percent of children/youth that report feeling empowered in their treatment
planning based on the client satisfaction survey (threshold to be established).

Youth participating in the CCR process further provided input as to how to make this
combined satisfaction survey more youth-friendly by establishing a five-star scale where
‘5’ indicates the greatest satisfaction. The implemented survey will be a web-based
instrument to support data collection and reporting needs and to obtain a high rate of
participation.
44

 As with other recommendations, use and contents of the survey and the data derived
from it periodically will be evaluated to establish and retain ongoing validity.

RECOMMENDATION 19:
Create a method for ensuring public transparency of provider performance.
In order to ensure transparency, the Department will make STRTC and FFA provider
performance indicators available via a public website, similar to child welfare and
probation data presently published on a website developed and maintained by the
University of California, Berkeley under a contract with the Department. The website
also will include licensing information:
•

Dates of CCLD visits

•

Other types of visits

•

Citations

•

Number of inspections and inspection dates

•

Substantiated and inconclusive complaints

•

Provider contact information, facility number, capacity and address

This licensing information already is available online at the following URL:
https://secure.dss.ca.gov/CareFacilitySearch.
Additional
performance
measures
described in this report’s recommendations also will be included on the public
transparency website.

45

 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Full rollout of the new framework is expected to take several years, assuming
associated statutory and budget and county/provider changes are achieved. The main
components of implementation include:


Communication – Information about the changes, timeframes, process and the
resources available to support the transition.



Policy Framework – The statute, regulations and all-county letters that establish
the requirements for the new framework.



Supporting Agency Transition or Closure – Support to providers through technical
assistance, training and toolkits in understanding and meeting the new
requirements for STRTCs and FFAs.



Oversight Structure – State level oversight related to fidelity to the framework,
program performance, licensing requirements, fiscal accountability and
transparency.



Performance Measure Testing and Implementation – An ongoing process for
testing the provider performance measures with a few providers, making
refinements, implementing the measures, building county and provider capacity to
use data in placement decisions and ongoing evaluation and refinement.



Ongoing Training – A training infrastructure for providers.



Integration/Alignment with Related Initiatives: Katie A., California Child Welfare
Core Practice Model, RFA, QPI, etc.

46

 CONCLUSION
Over the past two years, the Department has begun the programmatic and
administrative efforts to develop a continuum of foster care placement options and
services consistent with principles established by CDSS and its partners through the
CCR and other efforts. This report collectively addresses many of the systemic barriers
to the goals of improving services, aligning funding mechanisms with desired outcomes,
and improving performance and accountability to achieve increased permanency and
well-being for children and youth in foster care.
Implementing these inter-dependent recommendations will require a sustained and
coordinated effort over several years to complete. Recent statutory and budget
changes already are paving the way for these system changes: time limits on group
home placements, new funding for Approved Relative Caregivers of non-federally
eligible children, and increased age requirements for group home staff, all are steps
toward implementing the CCR framework.
The Department is committed to pursuing the recommendations in this report, and to
ongoing evaluation and improving outcomes using a continuous quality improvement
approach for children, youth and families involved with the child welfare and juvenile
probation system.

47

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barth, R.P. (2002). Institutions vs. Foster Homes: The Empirical Base for the Second
Century of Debate. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC, School of Social Work, Jordan Institute
for Families. Retrieved from http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/documents/cFS/cfs19refDocs-rPBarth-vs-FosterHome.pdf
California Youth Connection Policy Briefing, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.calyouthconn.org/assets/files/policy/CYC_PolicyBrief_Nov2013a.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011). Family reunification: What the Evidence
Shows. Retrieved from
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification/family_reunifi
cation.pdf
Cheng, T. C. (2010). Factors associated with reunification: A longitudinal analysis of
long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1311−1316.
Kemp, S. P., Marcenko, M. O., Hoagwood, K., & Vesneski, W. (2009). Engaging
parents in child welfare services: Bridging family needs and child welfare
mandates. Child Welfare, 88(1), 101–126.
McBeath and Meezan (2007). “Market Based disparities in foster care service
provisions.” Research in Social Work Practice, Vol 10.1177
McDowell, D., Ortiz, M.J., Stevenson, A.M., Lichtenstein, C., Walter R. McDonald &
Associates, Inc. and Pecora, P.J. California Residentially Based Services (RBS)
Reform Project: Final Evaluation Report. 2014. Print.
Myslewicz, M. (2008). Review of Performance Based Contracting Models in Child
Welfare. Retrieved from
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/CaseyFamilyPBCreview.pdf
National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections. (2009). Family
engagement: A web-based practice toolkit. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved
from www.nrcpfc.org/fewpt
Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M.,
Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Sandoval, A., Yee, H., Mason, F.,
Benton, C., Pixton, E., Lou, C., Peng, C., King, B., & Lawson, J. (2014). CCWIP
reports. Retrieved 8/8/2014, from University of California at Berkeley California
Child Welfare Indicators Project website. Retrieved from
http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare

48

 Romanelli, L. H., Hoagwood, K. E., Kaplan, S. J., Kemp, S. P., Harman, R. L., Trupin,
C., & the Child Welfare-Mental Health Best Practices Group. (2009). Best
practices for mental health in child welfare: Parent support and youth
empowerment guidelines. Child Welfare, 88(1), 189–218.
Ryan, J. P., Marshall, J.M., Herz, D., and Hernandez, P.M. (2008). Juvenile
Delinquency in Child Welfare: Investigating Group Home Effects, Children and
Youth Services Review, Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NTiu_6NsO5cJ:www.c
wla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/grouphomeeffects.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&g
l=us
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, (2012). ACYF-CB-IM-12-03: Promoting the Safe, Appropriate, and
Effective Use of Psychotropic Medication for Children in Foster Care. Retrieved
from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1203.pdf
Van Zyl, M.A., Barbee, A. P., Cunningham, M. R., Antle, B. F., Christensen, D. &
Boamah, D. (2014). Components of the solution based casework child welfare
practice model that predict positive child outcomes. Journal of Public Child
Welfare, electronic.

49

 ACRONYMS

AB

Assembly Bill

AFDC-FC

Aid to Families with Dependent Children – Foster Care

CALPADS

California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System

CalWORKs

California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids

CAPP

California Partners for Permanency

CAT

Comprehensive Assessment Tool

C-CFSR

California Child and Family Services Review

CCLD

Community Care Licensing Division

CCR

Continuum of Care Reform

CDSS

California Department of Social Services

CFT

Child and Family Team

CPM

Core Practice Model

CQI

Continuous Quality Improvement

CWS/CMS

Child Welfare Services/Case Management System

DHCS

Department of Health Care Services

EPSDT

Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment

FFA

Foster Family Agency

FFA/NT

Foster Family Agency/Non-Treatment

FFA/T

Foster Family Agency/Treatment

ICC

Intensive Care Coordination

IHBS

Intensive Home Based Services

LRF

Local Revenue Fund

NMD

Non-Minor Dependent

NREFM

Non-Related Extended Family Members

QIP

Quality Improvement Project

QPI

Quality Parenting Initiative

RBS

Residentially Based Services
50

 RCL

Rate Classification Level

SB

Senate Bill

SDM

Structured Decision Making

SILP

Supervised Independent Living Plan

STRTC

Short-term Residential Treatment Center

TFC

Therapeutic Foster Care

THP + FC

Transitional Housing Placement Plus Foster Care

THPP

Transitional Housing Placement Program

W&IC

Welfare and Institutions Code

YSS

Youth Services Survey

YSS-F

Youth Services Survey – Families

51

 APPENDIX A
California Partnership Plan for Children in Out-of-Home Care
Teamwork, Respect, Nurturing, Strong Families

All of us are responsible for the well-being of children in the custody of child welfare
agencies. The children’s caregivers along with the California Department of Social
Services, county child welfare agencies, private foster family agencies, and contractors
and staffs of these agencies undertake this responsibility in partnership, aware that
none of us can succeed by ourselves.
Children need normal childhoods as well as loving and skillful parenting that honor their
loyalty to their biological family and their need to develop and maintain permanent
lifelong connections. The purpose of this document is to articulate a common
understanding of the values, principles, and relationships necessary to fulfill this
responsibility. The following commitments are embraced by all of us. This document in
no way substitutes for or waives statutes or rules; however, we will attempt to apply
these laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this agreement.

Caregivers and Agency Staff Work Together as Respected Partners
1. Caregivers and child welfare agency staff will work together in a respectful
partnership to ensure that the care we provide to children supports their healthy
development and gives them the best possible opportunity for success.
2. Caregivers, the family and agency staff will conduct themselves in a professional
manner, will share all relevant information promptly, and will respect the privacy and
confidentiality of all information related to the child and his or her family.
3. Caregivers, the family, and agency staff will participate in developing the plan for the
child and family, and all members of the team will work together to implement this
plan. Caregivers will participate in all team meetings and court hearings (including
review and post-permanency hearings) related to the child’s care and future plans.
Agency staff will support and facilitate caregiver participation through timely
notification, an inclusive process, and the provision of alternative methods of
participation for caregivers who cannot be physically present.
4. The Agency will honor and respect the caregiver’s right to take a time-limited break
from accepting the placement of children into their family without fear of adverse
consequence from the agency.
5. Caregivers will work in partnership with agency staff to obtain and maintain records
that are important to the child's well-being including, medical records, school
records, photographs, and records of special events and achievements.

52

 Nurturing Children and Youth
1. Excellent parenting is an expectation of caregivers. Caregivers will provide and
agency staff will support excellent parenting. Excellent parenting includes:


a loving commitment to the child and the child’s safety and well-being;



equal participation of the child in family life;



awareness of the impact of trauma on behavior;



respect for the child’s individuality, including likes and dislikes;



appropriate supervision;



positive, constructive methods of discipline;



involvement of the child in the community;



a commitment to enable the child to lead a normal life;



encouragement of the child’s strengths; and



providing opportunities to develop the child’s interests and skills.

2. Agency staff will provide caregivers with all available information in a timely manner
to assist them in determining whether they are able to appropriately care for the
child. Children will be placed only with caregivers who have the ability and
willingness to accept responsibility for caring for the child in light of the child’s
culture, religion and ethnicity, physical and psychological needs, sexual orientation,
gender identification and expression, family relationships, and any special
circumstances affecting the child's care. Agency staff will assist them in obtaining
the support, training, and skills necessary for the care of the child.
3. Caregivers must be willing and able to learn about, be respectful of and support the
child’s connections to his/her religion, culture, and ethnicity.
4. Agency staff will provide caregivers with information on expectations for excellent
parenting. Caregivers will have access to and be expected to take advantage of all
training they need to improve their skills in parenting children who have experienced
trauma due to neglect, abuse, or separation from home; to meet these children’s
special needs; and to work effectively with child welfare agencies, the courts,
biological families, the schools, and other community and governmental agencies.
5. Agency staff will provide caregivers with the services and support they need to
enable them to provide quality care for the child. Caregivers will be expected to
identify, communicate, and seek out their needs without fear of judgment or
retaliation.
6. Caregivers will fully incorporate the child/youth into their family, including equal
participation in family activities such as vacations, holiday celebrations, and
53

 community activities. Agency staff will support families in overcoming barriers to full
participation in family life and activities.
7. Once the caregiver accepts the responsibility of caring for the child, the child will
remain with the caregiver unless:


the caregiver is clearly unable to care for him/her safely or legally;



the child and his/her family of origin are reunified;



the child is to be placed with a relative or non-relative extended family member;



the child is being placed in a legally permanent home in accordance with the
case plan or court order; or



the removal is demonstrated to be in the child’s best interest as determined
through consultation with agency staff and other resource partners.

8. If the child/youth must leave the caregiver’s home for one of the above reasons and
in the absence of an unforeseeable emergency, the transition will be accomplished
according to a plan developed jointly between the caregiver and agency staff. The
development of the plan should involve cooperation and sharing of information
among all persons involved. This transition will respect the child’s developmental
stage, psychological needs and relationship to the caregiver family, ensure they
have all their belongings, and allow for a gradual transition from the caregiver’s
home, and, if possible, for continued contact with the caregiver after the child leaves.

Supporting Families
1. When the plan for the child includes reunification, caregivers and agency staff will
work together to support that plan and to provide continuity for the child by assisting
the biological parents in improving their ability to care for and protect their child,
including as appropriate, participation in medical/related care, school, and other
important activities. Agency staff will support caregivers in the reunification process,
respect their input, and will not retaliate against them as a result of this advocacy.
2. When the plan for the child includes adoption, relative placement, or a move to a
new foster family, with the support of the agency, the existing and the prospective
caregiver will work together, with the support of the agency, to facilitate a smooth
transition by sharing information about the needs, experiences and preferences of
the child. To provide continuity for the child, prospective families are encouraged to
participate in medical/related care, school, and other important activities. Continued
contact between the child and the initial foster family is encouraged as long as it is in
the child’s best interest. The transition plan from foster care to adoption or relative
home shall focus on meeting the developmental and other needs of the child.
3. Caregivers will respect and support the child’s ties to family (parents, siblings,
extended family members), and other significant relationships, and will assist the
child in maintaining these relationships through facilitating appropriate visitation and
54

 other forms of communication in accordance with the case plan. Agency staff will
provide caregivers with the information, guidance, training, and support necessary
for fulfilling this responsibility.

Strengthening Communities
1. Caregivers will advocate for children with the child welfare system, the court, and
community agencies, including schools, child care, health and mental health
providers, and employers. Agency staff will support them in doing so, respect their
input and will not retaliate against them as a result of this advocacy.
2. Caregivers will participate fully in the child’s medical, psychological, and dental care,
including:


identifying doctors and needed specialists;



scheduling regular and necessary appointments;



accompanying children to appointments;



sharing information with medical, psychological and dental professionals as
needed to provide care to the child and as permitted by law;



supporting and comforting children during and after visits; and



implementing any needed follow-up care in the home.

Agency staff will support and facilitate this participation. Caregivers and agency staff
will share information with each other about the child's health and well-being.
3. Caregivers will support the child’s school success through activities, including:


participating in school activities and meetings, including IEP (Individualized
Education Plan) meetings, back to school nights and other school events;



assisting with school assignments;



accessing and supporting tutoring;



meeting with teachers, including teacher conferences;



coordinating school transportation;



working with the biological parent as educational rights holder or educational
representative or surrogate if one has been appointed;



encouraging and supporting the child’s participation in extra-curricular activities;
and



Agency staff will support and facilitate this participation. Caregivers and agency
staff will share information with each other about child’s progress and needs,
55

 academic performance, behavioral functioning and issues regarding school
placement.
4. Caregivers will provide developmentally appropriate opportunities to allow children
and youth to learn and practice life skills and have hands-on experiences in
preparation for transition to adulthood, including:


participation in family decisions;



routine age appropriate household activities and chores;



conflict resolution;



money management and financial planning;



assistance with job and career exploration/development;



assistance with higher education and financial aid exploration/processes;



obtaining housing;



obtaining legal documents; and



support the youth in accessing and taking advantage of agency and community
resources.

Caregiver Signature:

Name:

Agency Staff Signature:

Name:

Date:

56