CCASSC AGENDA
April 23-24, 2015
Location: Ridgemark Golf and Country Club
3800 Airline Hwy Hollister, CA 95023
http://www.ridgemark.com/
831.637.8151
Thursday, April 23, 2015
10:00 - Noon
Director’s Roundtable

Update on state budget & current fiscal issues.
 Hal Hunter, Deputy Director, Kings County
Michelle Roe, Deputy Director, Merced County
o Realignment County Growth Report
o CWDA Conference Planning
o “Pay for Success” Performance Model
o Other Items
Noon – 1:00 PM
Lunch
1:00 – 1:15 PM
Welcome & Introductions


1:15 – 2:45 PM
Review January 2015 Action Minutes
Additional Agenda Items?
Special Guests:
Hub Walsh, Merced County, Board of Supervisors, California
State Association of Counties (CSAC), Health and Human
Services Committee
Michelle Gibbons, Legislative Analyst, California State
Association of Counties (CSAC)


Exploration of a Poverty Reduction Partnership with
CSAC
Collaboration with SJVPHP
2:45 – 3:00 PM
Break
3:00 - 3:30 PM
Updates


CWDA Children’s Committee Activities
Announcements
3:30 – 3:45 PM
CCASSC Student Stipend Update
4:00 PM
ADJOURN
CCASSC Quarterly Meeting
January 29-30, 2015
Action Minutes
1) Discussion regarding the need to revisit allocation formulas when new funds are available for
service programs. It is important to utilize data that highlights Central region demographics to
advocate for adequacy and equity in funding. Recommend need-based funding methodologies
that account for local costs for service delivery.
ACTION: David will draft a CCASSC “Position Paper” to present to CWDA. Request CWDA
support legislation and/or find sponsor that would call for using need-based indicators
(poverty?) as the basis for allocating funds for public assistance and child safety programs.
ACTION: David will use the Isaac Menashe, Goldwin School of Public Policy Study as a
foundational document for the Position Paper.
ACTION: A draft of the Position Paper will be reviewed by Jim Rydingsword and Hal Hunter prior
to presenting to CCASSC for review.
2) The final version of the Central Region “Master Agreement Regarding Cross County Emergency
Response” was reviewed. All signatures are on the document.
ACTION: The final document was confirmed and adopted.
3) SB 855 (the (ARC) funding option) was discussed. Counties were surveyed as to whether the
funding option would be utilized and the associated pros/cons shared.
4) CalSWEC agency director representation was discussed. It was agreed that the lack of a Central
Region Director on the Board placed this region at a disadvantage.
ACTION: D. Foster and V. Rondero Hernandez will advocate for the addition of a Central Director
Representative at the next Board meeting. Delfino Neira (Fresno County) is willing to serve.
5) Central Valley Public Health Directors and CCASSC will again meet jointly to discuss
issues/strategies of mutual interest. D. Foster and K. Harwell will begin planning the event with
CVPH staff.
ACTION: D. Foster will report on progress at the 4/15 CCASSC meeting.
6) “Continuum of Care Reform” (CCR) was identified for discussion as a “hot topic” at a future
CCASSC meeting. The 1/15 CDSS report to the legislature was provided to all.
1
7) CYC Central Region office support was discussed and a plan finalized.
ACTION: Hector/CYC leadership will return for a discussion with CCASSC Directors at the July
CCASSC meeting in Calaveras.
8) CCASSC budget finalized for 2015.
ACTION: Line item adjustments unanimously approved by membership.
a. Annual meeting/facilitation funds increased to 23,000.
b. A $4,000 line item for CCASSC sponsorship of conference/workshops hosted by
University Partners was established.
2
COUNTYWELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION GENTRAL REGION COUNTIES
MASTER AGREEMENT
REGARD]NG CROSS COUNTY EMERGENCY RESPONSE
This agreement is designed in recognition that children reported as abused or neglected
require a timely, appropriate and coordinated CPS assessment whether at home, or
visiting in another jurisdiction. The Central Counties therefore have forged a partnership to
define and implement a process for responding to cross-jurisdictional referrals. By working
together, in this collaborative fashion, we will enhance services to all children and their
families, including children in oufof home care.
The counties of the CWDA Central Region; Calaveras, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera,
Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus & Tulare
have elected to enter into an MOU to ensure the timely response to reports of children,
who are alleged to be abused and neglected, and to coordinate the efforts to ensure the
safety and well being of these children, who are located/found outside their county of legal
residence.
The quidinq princigles of the MOU shall be:
1
.
The safety of the child is first and foremost.
2. The Social Service/CPS Agency where the child is located/found (Responding County)
is responsible for Emergency Response in-person investigations on all referrals they
assess as requiring an "immediate response."
.
.
A Respondinq Countv is defined as any county where the refened child is located,
which is not the county of legal residence for child's primary legal caretaker.
Countv of Leqal Residence is defined as a legal residence (also called "domicile")
the place considered as a true, fixed and permanent home. lt is the state to which
you intend to return after a temporary absence. This is also a location that has
been identified to receive supportive services.
3. The Responding County is obliged to give prompt notification to the County of Legal
Residence on the response status assigned to each referral unless the 2-hour rule applies
(page 3).
4, WIC 17 .1 will be the deciding factor on determining the County of Legal Residence.
Please refer to WIC 17.1 explanation on page 7 of this agreement.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION:
. The guiding principle in the resolution of problems will be the safety of the child.
. Generally, the Responding County's ER policies will be followed.
I
. There may be occasions when internal policies within counties regarding immediate
response (lR) differ significantly from their neighbor counties. When strong differences
of opinion arise, the response determination will be resolved through the chain of
command. lf the situation cannot be resolved between supervisors, the matter will be
elevated to management for a decision.
.
If the Responding County's Emergency Response program downgrades a response from
lR to a lesser response, the Responding County is to notify the County of Residence's
Hotline of this action within 2 hours of the call being accepted by the Responding
County's Hotline.
lf there is a conflict that arises and cannot be resolved at the lowest level, the chain of
command in both counties will be followed.
CONFLICT OF INTREST REFERRALS:
lf a County determines a conflict exists on a referral it receives, that County may
contact a neighboring County with which responding County has an MOU to
request that County to accept the referral, make a determination about an
investigative response, and take appropriate action within that County's policies
and procedures.
The County initially accepting the refenal shall enter it into CWS/CMS as an
Evaluate Out to the County accepting the refenal. The County accepting the
conflict of interest referral shall enter it into CWS/CMS and follow its internal
operational policies and procedures. The responding County shall determine
whether it is prudent to deem the referral and/or case as sensitive in CWS/CMS.
ln the event follow up information is required by the County with a conflict of
interest (e.9. employees on administrative leave), the County that accepted the
referral shall provide enough information to the originating County as necessary for
it to make an informed decision relating to the issue being explored.
The Responding County shall make the referral and/or case as a primary
assignment in CWS/CMS and assume all case management and financial
responsibilities unless otherwise agreed upon by the counties.
2
COUNTY
NON-DEPENDENT CHILDREN
When a child abuse report is made to the Responding County Hotline, the following
procedures will be utilized.
'l. The Respondino Countv will determine if the reoort meets the definition of child abuse
per Penal Code Section 1'1 165 et. Seq. and if there is a need to conduct an immediate
in-person investigation. lf the report does not meet the child abuse definition of PC
11165 et. Seq., it will be evaluated out, and when appropriate, the reporter will be
referred to community based services to meet the needs of the family/child.
2. lf the Resoonding Countv supervisor determines the report meets the abuse definition
of PC 11165 et. Seq., and that an immediate in-person investigation is needed, the
Hotline worker will create a new referral in CWS/CMS and follow the procedures
outlined below.
lf the County of Legal Residency is:
.
.
2 hours or less from the referral, the County of Residence will respond. The 2 hour
radius response is established by the Responding County and may include a
central office location, responding workers home or a county boundary.
2_hggEl-g,U!!.glg from the refenal, the County in which the child(en) is/are found is
responsible for the referral.
The County of Legat Residency may be limited by the following and unable to respond on
immediate refenals within 2 hours due to the following factors:
.
.
.
r
Lack of available on duty staff, especially at night and on weekends.
Lack of available county vehicles.
County travel restrictions.
Other County specific restrictions.
Note: lt may be quicker for the Responding County to respond if any of the above factors
are triggered.
3. lf the Responding County determines that the report meets the abuse definition of PC
11165 et. Seq., and that a child requires hospitalization and a hospital hold/protective
warrant is determined to be necessary, the Responding County will place a hospital
hold or respond on an immediate basis pursuant to their policies and procedures and
contact the County of Legal Residence for a response if within two hours away from the
3
child's location. lf, for some reason, the Responding County follows through with the
investigation and detention, the matter will remain with the responding County through
the jurisdictional hearing. After the child is adjudicated, the case will be transferred to
the Coung of Legal Residence for disposition using the lnter-county Transfer Protocol.
4.
lf the Responding County determines that the report meets the abuse definition of PC
1 1 65 et. Seq., but an immediate in-person investigation is not needed, and a 1 0-day
response is appropriate, the Responding County will contact and cross report the
referral to the County of Legal Residence. The County initially accepting the referral
shall enter it into CWS/CMS as an Evaluate Out to the County accepting the referral.
The County of Legal Residence accepting the referral shall enter it into CWS/CMS and
follow its internal operational policies and procedures. The responding County shall
determine whether it is prudent to deem the referral and/or case as sensitive in
'1
cws/cMs.
Counties shall always consider the safety, welfare, and bests interests of children and
families we serve when making response decisions.
5.
the Responding County keeps a referral for a County of Legal Residence, the lnterCounty Protocol (lCT) policies and procedures shall apply and be followed.
If
6. "The lnmate Mothers" Protocol requires legal residence counties to pick up newborns
of inmates in Responding Counties.
7.
The County with primary assignment shall assume all case management and financial
responsibilities unless otherwise agreed upon by the counties.
DEPENDENT CHILDREN PLACED IN OTHER COUNTIES
When a child abuse report is received on a child whose legal jurisdiction is different than
the Responding County, the Responding County will observe the following procedures:
1
.
The Respondino Countv will determine if the reoort meets the definition of child abuse
Per Penal Code Section 11165 et. Seq. and if there is a need to conduct an immediate
in-person investigation. lf the report does not meet the child abuse definition of PC
11 165 et. Seq., it will be evaluated out, and the assigned social worker/supervisor of
the dependent child will be notified.
2. lf the Resoondino Countv /suoervisor determines the report meets the abuse definition
of PC 1 1 165 et. Seo.. and that an immediate in-person investigation is needed, the
Hotline worker will create a new referral in CWS/CMS. The Hotline worker will then
telephone the case-carrying social worker or supervisor in the county where the child's
legal jurisdiction resides and offer them the opportunity to respond if the County of
Legal Jurisdiction is within 2 hours of the child's location. lf the County of Legal
Jurisdiction responds, the Responding Coun$ will EO the referral to the County of
Legal Jurisdiction and the County of Legal Jurisdiction will open its own referral in
4
accordance with its policies and procedures.
3. lf the County of Legal Jurisdiction is unable to respond and an immediate in-person
investigation is needed as determined by the Responding County, the Responding
County will assign an ER worker to conduct an immediate response; make the
assessment; remove the child if necessary and contact the county of legal jurisdiction
for a placement discussion and/or coordination of response and pick up of the child by
that County.
4. lf the County of Legal Jurisdiction is more than one county apart, the county of legal
jurisdiction will work with the Responding County to determine a suitable midpoint
location to transfer the child(en).
5. lf a child is not removed, an investigative narrative will be sent to the county of legal
jurisdiction (Non-Responding County) within 48 hours regarding the investigation
findings and outcomes.
6. lf the child is not in immediate danger, the report will be EO'd by the Responding
County and cross reported to the County of Legal Residence who will create its own
referral and follow up in accordance with its operational policies and procedures.
7. The County of Legal Residence will be responsible for all payments unless other
arrangements are agreed upon.
SUSPECTED ABUSE OF NON.MINOR DEPENDENTS (NMD)
Weffare & lnstitutions Code 16504 (c) authorizes CPS to evaluate for an emergency
response allegation that a NMD is endangered by abuse, neglect, or exploitation by a
licensed or approved caregiver in order to determine if the placement is safe and
appropriate. When an allegation regarding a NMD is reported to the Child Protection
Hotline (CPH) during business hours the case-carrying SW will be notified to complete a
safety assessment of the NMDs placement. lf the allegation is received after hours or on
the weekend and it has been determined that an immediate response is required, the
information will be sent to the Emergency Response supervisor to assign. Under no
circumstances is a referral to be created when the NMD is the sole victim of child abuse or
neglect, CWS/CMS does not allow the creation of a referral on a youth older than 18 years
old. A referral must be created when other children in the home are victims.
When it is suspected that a NMD who is living in a Supervised Independent Living Plan
(SILP) is being abused by a roommate or involved in human trafficking; it must be
reported to local law enforcement. The case-carrying SW must encourage and assist the
NMD to report the abuse to law enforcement. This type of abuse is not reportable to adult
protective services as they do not serve this population of adults.
WORKING AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PAGE:
/7*^.,
fr*/<
@
Calaveras County Health and Human
Ana Pagan, Director
Merced County Human Services
Agency
Services Agency
Michael Miller,
San Joaquin County
lfinE Neir/5, Director
Fresno County Department of Social
Leland @ollins, Director
San LUG Obispo County Social
Services Department
Kern
Santa B6rbara County Social Services
Department
Kel [y Woodard, Director
Madera County Department of Social
Services
County
Services Agency
Duerksen, Director T
Health and Human Services
Mariposa County Human Services
Department
'12"1'.
/g
6
-"7
a
WORKING AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PAGE:
Mary Sawicki, Direclor
Calaveras County Health and Human
Services Agency
Merced County Human Services
Agency
Date: J-L -/4.
Date:
Joseph Chelli, Director
San Joaquin County
Human Services Agency
Date:
Delfino Neira, Director
Fresno County Department of Social
Services
Date:
Leland Collins, Director
San Luis Obispo County Social
Services Department
Dena Murphy, Director
Kern County Department of Human
Services
Date:
Date:
Daniel Nielson, Director
Santa B6rbara County Social Services
Department
Peggy Montgomery, Director
Kings County Human Services Agency
Date:
Date:
Kathy Hanrell, Director
Stanislaus County Community
Services Agency
Kelly Woodard, Director
Madera County Department of Social
Services
Date:
Date:
Cheryl Duerksen, Director Tulare
County Health and Human Services
Agency
Mariposa County Human Services
Department
Date:
Date:
6
000NTY OF SAN DIEG0
COUNTY OF SAN DIEG0
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
16ul PAC:FiC HiCIrWAY,R∞ M335,SAN DIECO,CAL:FORN鳳
TO:
8円 8 o5
C甲
晰 轟
『
92101‐ 2470
AGENDA IIEM
DATE:
2015円 1113
`醗
21
March 17,2015
Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: EVALUATING
A PAY FOR SUCCESS MODEL
TO SUPPORT SAFE
COMMUNITIES AND HEALTHY FAMILIES (DISTRICTS: ALL)
Overview
The County ofSan Diego has a strong record of working with partners to provide innovative and
efficient programs that improve the health, safety and wellbeing of our residents. The Paypr
.luccess model is one approach that could advance this goal.
Inthe Payfor Success model, governments and serviie providers identifr promising and
innovative programs and enter into performance-based contracts. Private sector and
philanthropic investors providc upfront financing for service providcrs to try these new
approaches while govemment sets the standards of performance and outcomes desired. If the
new program is successful in meeting the munrally desired results, govemment would reimburse
the firnders for their initial investnent with a moderate retum on that investrnent. The goal of
this model is to fund creative approaches that result in positive outcomes for our community and
youth, while minimizing the financial risk to taxpayers.
A number ofcities, counties and states are now exploirlg Poy for Srcce,r.r financing to support
programs that are working to reduce homelessness, lower rates of rccidivism, expand access to
early childhood education and address other social issues.
The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the Nonprofit Finance
Fund will soon be announcing awards for technical assistance on developingthc Payfor Success
model for local govemmentb. To be competitive for this award, we urge our colleagues to join us
in directing the Chief Administative Officer to identifr the appropdate County staff to work
immediately with community partners to assist with development and evaluation of the Pay/or
.Szccess model, and explore other possible innovative contracting options to support safe
communities and improve the lives of children and families.
D40
D
SUBJECT: EVALUATING A PAY FOR
SUCCESS MODEL TO SLJPPORT SAFE
COMMUNITIES AND HEALTHY FAMILIES @ISTRICTS: ALL)
Recommendation(s)
SUPERVISOR GNT,C COX IXO SUPERVISOR RON ROBERTS
Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to work with technical assistance entitics and other
stakeholders to develop and evaluat c the Pay for Success model and to identi$ other possible
contracting options as part of efforts to protect public safety and improve the lives of children
and families.
X'iscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Business Impact Strtement
N/A
Advirory Boerd Statement
N/A
Background
The White House Offrce of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the Nonprofit Financ€
Fund will soon be afirouncing awards for technical assistance on developingthc Payfor,Szccess
model for local governments. To be competitive for this award, we are urging ow colleagues to
join us in directing the Chief Administrative Officer to identify County staffto work
immediately with community paftners to assist with development and evahnlion of the Pay for
,Snccess model and explore other possible innovative contacting options to suppo( safe
communities and improve the lives of children and families.
The County ofSan Diego has a strong record of working with stakeholders to provide innovative
and efficient programs that improve the healtb safety and wellbeing of residents. The Pay/or
,Szccess model is one approach that could advance this goal.
for Success creates perfonnancc-based contacts between the County and commrmity
providers to implement cost-€ffective services. The agpement leverages philanthropic and
private investment dollars by providing up-front financing to sewice providers to att€mpt
irurovative approaches at addressing societal problems. Undet Pay for Szccess, the government
reimburses investors afta pre-determined results are achieved and validated by an independent
partner. Private investors (not taxpayers) bear the risk of nonperformance. Ifaproject meets its
outcome goals, investors may recover their capital with moderate interest or reinvest it back into
the program.
Pay
Over the past several yean, the Pay for Success model has gained momeDtum based on support
from academic, philaotbropic, investment aod governmental entities nationwide. Multiple states
already have a successfirl Eack record implementing this model, including two projeots in the
State and City of New York to reduce youth and adult criminal recidivism and a program in Salt
Lakc County, Utah to cxpand early education. Additionally, there is a project in Massachusetts to
support workforce development and rcduce criminal recidivism amongst young adults and a
second projcct focused on addressing homelessness
SUBJECT: EVALUATING A PAY FOR
SUCCESS MODEL TO SUPPORT SAFE
COMMIJNTTIES AND HEALTI{Y FAMILIES (DISTzuCTS: ALL)
In California, foundations and govemmental entities are supporting feasibility studies and
providing technical assistance to support counties i n exploing Pay for .Success models. As such,
health agencies in Fresno County are participating in a two year pilot to reduce asthma related
health care costs and Santa Clara Couty has recently released two requests for proposals using
the Payfor Success model.
.
.
Recently, the Califomia Legislanre enacted Assembly Bill 1837, creating the Social Innovation
Financing Program to be administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections. The
Califomia Social Innovation Financing program will support counties by awarding grants for
entering into a Pay for Success model or into social innovation financing contacts'
In early 2015, opportunities for technical assistance support became available to coalitions of
public, nonprofit and private foundation partners from the federal govemment. In the San Diego
region, partnerships led by the San Diego Foundation and The Children's Initiativc are seeking
technical assistance to evaluate Pay for Success approaches to improve outcomes for youth in the
criminal justice and child welfare systems.
With Board appoval today, the County of San Diego would be in position to compete for federal
technical assistance and explore this concept furthcr to see how it can be used as an innovative
tool to support safe communities and improve the lives of children and families.
Linkage to the County of San Diego Strategic Plan
Todayis action supports the Healthy Families and Safe Communities initiatives of the County of
San Diego's 2015-2020 SEategic Plan by supporting a commitsnent to cxploring innovative,
effective and cost-effective approaches to improve the lives ofchildren and families and protect
public safety.
Respectfully submitted,
Supervisor, First District
AttACHMENT(S)
N/A
D40
Supervisor, Fourth
Distict
Greg Cox, San Diego County Board of Supervisors - Evaluating a Pay fo...
1 of 2
OUR COMMUNITY
LEGISLATION
NEWS & EVENTS
http://www.gregcox.com/legislation-current/evaluating-a-pay-for-succes...
SPECIAL PROJECTS
OUR STAFF
CONTACT US
LINKS
DATE: March 17, 2015
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: EVALUATING A PAY FOR SUCCESS MODEL TO SUPPORT SAFE COMMUNITIES AND HEALTHY FAMILIES (DISTRICTS:
ALL)
Overview
The County of San Diego has a strong record of working with partners to provide innovative and efficient programs that improve the
health, safety and wellbeing of our residents. The Pay for Success model is one approach that could advance this goal.
In the Pay for Success model, governments and service providers identify promising and innovative programs and enter into
performance-based contracts. Private sector and philanthropic investors provide upfront financing for service providers to try these new
approaches while government sets the standards of performance and outcomes desired. If the new program is successful in meeting the
mutually desired results, government would reimburse the funders for their initial investment with a moderate return on that investment.
The goal of this model is to fund creative approaches that result in positive outcomes for our community and youth, while minimizing the
financial risk to taxpayers.
A number of cities, counties and states are now exploring Pay for Success financing to support programs that are working to reduce
homelessness, lower rates of recidivism, expand access to early childhood education and address other social issues.
The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the Nonprofit Finance Fund will soon be announcing awards for
technical assistance on developing the Pay for Success model for local governments. To be competitive for this award, we urge our
colleagues to join us in directing the Chief Administrative Officer to identify the appropriate County staff to work immediately with
community partners to assist with development and evaluation of the Pay for Success model, and explore other possible innovative
contracting options to support safe communities and improve the lives of children and families.
Recommendation(s)
SUPERVISOR GREG COX AND SUPERVISOR RON ROBERTS
Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to work with technical assistance entities and other stakeholders to develop and evaluate the Pay
for Success model and to identify other possible contracting options as part of efforts to protect public safety and improve the lives of
children and families.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Business Impact Statement
N/A
Advisory Board Statement
N/A
Background
The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the Nonprofit Finance Fund will soon be announcing awards for
technical assistance on developing the Pay for Success model for local governments. To be competitive for this award, we are urging our
colleagues to join us in directing the Chief Administrative Officer to identify County staff to work immediately with community partners to
assist with development and evaluation of the Pay for Success model and explore other possible innovative contracting options to support
safe communities and improve the lives of children and families.
The County of San Diego has a strong record of working with stakeholders to provide innovative and efficient programs that improve the
health, safety and wellbeing of residents. The Pay for Success model is one approach that could advance this goal.
Pay for Success creates performance-based contracts between the County and community providers to implement cost-effective services.
The agreement leverages philanthropic and private investment dollars by providing up-front financing to service providers to attempt
innovative approaches at addressing societal problems. Under Pay for Success, the government reimburses investors after
pre-determined results are achieved and validated by an independent partner. Private investors (not taxpayers) bear the risk of
nonperformance. If a project meets its outcome goals, investors may recover their capital with moderate interest or reinvest it back into the
program.
Over the past several years, the Pay for Success model has gained momentum based on support from academic, philanthropic,
investment and governmental entities nationwide. Multiple states already have a successful track record implementing this model,
including two projects in the State and City of New York to reduce youth and adult criminal recidivism and a program in Salt Lake County,
Utah to expand early education. Additionally, there is a project in Massachusetts to support workforce development and reduce criminal
recidivism amongst young adults and a second project focused on addressing homelessness.
In California, foundations and governmental entities are supporting feasibility studies and providing technical assistance to support
counties in exploring Pay for Success models. As such, health agencies in Fresno County are participating in a two year pilot to reduce
asthma related health care costs and Santa Clara County has recently released two requests for proposals using the Pay for Success
model.
4/11/2015 4:59 PM
Greg Cox, San Diego County Board of Supervisors - Evaluating a Pay fo...
2 of 2
http://www.gregcox.com/legislation-current/evaluating-a-pay-for-succes...
Recently, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1837, creating the Social Innovation Financing Program to be administered by
the Board of State and Community Corrections. The California Social Innovation Financing program will support counties by awarding
grants for entering into a Pay for Success model or into social innovation financing contracts.
In early 2015, opportunities for technical assistance support became available to coalitions of public, nonprofit and private foundation
partners from the federal government. In the San Diego region, partnerships led by the San Diego Foundation and The Children’s Initiative
are seeking technical assistance to evaluate Pay for Success approaches to improve outcomes for youth in the criminal justice and child
welfare systems.
With Board approval today, the County of San Diego would be in position to compete for federal technical assistance and explore this
concept further to see how it can be used as an innovative tool to support safe communities and improve the lives of children and families.
Linkage to the County of San Diego Strategic Plan
Today’s action supports the Healthy Families and Safe Communities initiatives of the County of San Diego’s 2015-2020 Strategic Plan by
supporting a commitment to exploring innovative, effective and cost-effective approaches to improve the lives of children and families and
protect public safety.
Respectfully submitted,
GREG COX
Supervisor, First District
RON ROBERTS
Supervisor, Fourth District
ATTACHMENT(S)
N/A
AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SHEET
REQUIRES FOUR VOTES: [ ] Yes [X] No
WRITTEN DISCLOSURE PER COUNTY CHARTER SECTION 1000.1 REQUIRED [ ] Yes [X] No
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS: N/A
BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: N/A
BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS: N/A
MANDATORY COMPLIANCE: N/A
ORACLE AWARD NUMBER(S) AND CONTRACT AND/OR REQUISITION NUMBER(S): N/A
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Supervisor Greg Cox and Supervisor Ron Roberts
OTHER CONCURRENCES(S): N/A
CONTACT PERSON(S):
Danny Melgoza, 619-531-5511, danny.melgoza@sdcounty.ca.gov
Stephanie Gioia, 619-531-5544, stephanie.gioia@sdcounty.ca.gov
4/11/2015 4:59 PM
Pay-for-Success in Child Welfare: A Case Study
By Patrick Lester 1
February 12, 2015
On December 3, 2014, Cuyahoga County
announced the nation’s first pay-for-success
initiative that will address the interrelated issues of
homelessness and foster care.2 The initiative will
provide $4 million in privately-funded housing and
other supportive services to 135 homeless parents
with children in the county’s foster care system.
Repayments to the project’s philanthropic and other
investors will be made by the county only if the
initiative reduces out-of-home placements for foster
children compared to the county’s current publiclyprovided services.
The county spent the rest of that year seeking
citizen feedback on the proposal. In July, Third
Sector hosted a three-day listening session that
featured presentations and discussions between
county representatives and over one hundred
service providers, community members, and
advocates.5 A few months later, in October, the
county released a formal Request for Responses
(RFR) that sought formal proposals from
organizations interested in partnering with the
county on the project.6
In its RFR, the county asked for proposals that
addressed a well-defined problem and target
population, utilized evidence-based preventative
services with measurable outcomes, and would
generate cashable savings for the county while
allowing a return on investment for outside
investors. The county expressed a particular
interest in child welfare and youth/adolescent
mental and behavioral health, but indicated that it
would also consider other services.
This brief provides an overview of the initiative
and its history, service array, evaluation, and
financing.
Project History
Cuyahoga County began exploring pay-forsuccess in 2011, shortly after its new county
executive, Ed Fitzgerald, took office.3 With a grant
from The George Gund Foundation, the county
brought in Third Sector Capital Partners, Inc., a
Boston-based nonprofit with substantial experience
developing pay-for-success initiatives, to provide
early-stage advising to the government. A year
later, in February 2012, Fitzgerald announced a 12point plan for the county that included pay-forsuccess as one of its key components.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A little more than a year later, in December
2013, the county announced its choice: a project to
reduce out-of-home foster care placements for
children of homeless mothers in the county through
a mix of housing assistance and behavioral health
services.7 The announcement specified five initial
partners, including FrontLine Services as the lead
service provider, the county’s Division of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) and Cuyahoga
For more information, contact Patrick Lester, Director, Social Innovation Research Center, at (443) 822-4791 or
patrick@socialinnovationcenter.org.
An overview of social impact bonds, a subset of pay-for-success financing, can be found in “Social Impact Bonds: Overview and
Considerations,” Elizabeth Lower-Basch, Center for Law and Social Policy, March 7, 2014. Available at: http://www.clasp.org/resourcesand-publications/publication-1/CLASP-Social-Impact-Bonds-SIBs-March-2014.pdf
Cuyahoga County Office of the Executive, “Fitzgerald Announces ‘Pay for Success’ to Transform Human Services Delivery,” December
27, 2013. Available at: http://executive.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/122713-Pay-for-Success.aspx
Western Reserve Plan, Plan Principles, retrieved December 14, 2014. Available at: http://www.westernreserveplan.org/en-US/PlanPrinciples.aspx
Third Sector Capital Partners, "Third Sector Capital Partners Advances Pay for Success in Cuyahoga County, OH," July 17, 2012.
Available at: http://www.thirdsectorcap.org/blog/2012/07/17/third-sector-briefs-cuyahoga-county-pay-for-success/
Cuyahoga County Request for Responses, “Cuyahoga County Pay for Success,” October 29, 2012. Available at:
http://www.payforsuccess.org/sites/default/files/cuyahoga_county_pay_for_success_request_for_responses58.pdf
Cuyahoga County Office of the Executive, “Fitzgerald Announces ‘Pay for Success’ to Transform Human Services Delivery,” December
27, 2013. Available at: http://executive.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/122713-Pay-for-Success.aspx
1
Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA) as public
sector partners, the Center on Urban Poverty &
Community Development at Case Western Reserve
University as the evaluator, and Third Sector as an
advisor on project feasibility, deal construction, and
financing.
foster children in Cuyahoga County cannot be
reunited with their families unless they are provided
with a safe and stable home environment.
Reunification efforts for these children are
challenging, not only because the mothers often
struggle with domestic violence, substance abuse,
and mental illness, but also because of housing
instability that makes addressing these issues more
difficult.
The proposal was further fleshed out and
authorized over the following year. Legislation was
introduced8 in June to create a new Social Impact
Financing Fund to cover program costs and to
authorize the county executive to negotiate the
associated multi-year contract.9 The county council
approved the legislation in July. The county council
authorized the first annual $1 million appropriation
for the newly created Fund in September. The final
contract was signed in October10 and the project’s
details (and full set of partners) were announced
publicly on December 3, 2014.11
Cuyahoga County chose to focus on these
families with its pay-for-success project. Under the
program, the lead service provider, FrontLine
Services, will provide 135 eligible homeless parents
with children in foster care a combination of housing
assistance and evidence-based behavioral health
services, called Critical Time Intervention (CTI).14
The program services will be provided over 12 to 15
months and will address their housing and other
needs simultaneously. In practice, this integration
of services will be accomplished by adding the
FrontLine intervention to the parent’s DCFS case
plan.
The project passed an important leadership
transition milestone in January when the county’s
next county executive, Armond Budish, assumed
office.12
In general, the combined program, called
Partnering for Family Success, will begin by
stabilizing housing for the homeless parent. In the
first 30 days, a caseworker will help place her in a
housing unit or help obtain subsidies and/or
vouchers from one of the project’s housing partners,
including the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing
Authority or another local housing provider.15 After
the parent has moved into housing, the case worker
will then maintain contact and provide continued
support during ongoing home visits. This support
will include making connections to employers,
schools, academic certification and job training
programs, medical professionals, substance abuse
treatment providers, extended family, and others as
needed. Case workers have a maximum caseload
of ten families.
The Intervention: Partnering for Family
Success
As in other parts of the country, the number of
children in foster care in Cuyahoga County has
dropped significantly in recent years. 13 While the
county’s progress toward its goals of increased
family reunification and permanency for foster
children has been substantial, however, the
remaining children in the system generally have
greater needs and face higher barriers to
permanency.
One group in this category includes the children
of homeless mothers. As is the case elsewhere,
8
9
10
11
Cleveland.com, “Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald
Introduces Plan to Use New Fundraising Model to Pay for
Social Services,” June 19, 2014. Available at:
http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahogacounty/index.ssf/2014/06/cuyahoga_county_executive_ed_fit
zgerald_introduces_plan_to_use_new_fundraising_model_to
_pay_for_soci.html
County Council of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Ordinance No.
O2014-0018. Available at:
http://council.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_council/enUS/Legislation/Ordinances/2014/O2014-0018.pdf
Many of the project partners received pro-bono counsel to
help them through the deal structuring and negotiation
period.
Cuyahoga County Office of the Executive, “Nation’s First
County-Level Pay for Success Program Aims to Reconnect
Foster Children with Caregivers in Stable, Affordable
Housing," December 3, 2014. Available at:
http://executive.cuyahogacounty.us/enUS/NationsFirstCtyLevel-PaySuccessPrgrm.aspx. Further
details were released in an associated fact sheet available at:
http://www.thirdsectorcap.org/wp-
12
13
14
15
2
content/uploads/2014/12/141204_Cuyahoga_PFS_FactSheet.pdf
Ed Fitzgerald ran for governor of Ohio in 2014.
Third Sector Capital Partners, “Cuyahoga County Announces
Details on Pay for Success Initiative,” December 28, 2013.
Available at:
http://www.thirdsectorcap.org/blog/2013/12/28/cuyahogacounty-announces-details-on-pay-for-success-initiative/
The intervention is rated a top-tier homelessness prevention
program by the Coalition for Evidence Based Policy.
According to the Coalition’s independent analysis, based on
two studies involving well-conducted randomized controlled
trials, CTI produced more than a 60 percent reduction in
homelessness (the Coalition's review did not examine its
impact on family reunification). See
http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/critical-timeintervention-top-tier. The Critical Time Intervention home web
site can be found at: http://sssw.hunter.cuny.edu/cti/.
Other local housing providers involved with the project
include the Famicos Foundation and The Emerald
Development and Economic Network.
Thirty days after the parent has moved into her
new home, a FrontLine trauma therapist will
conduct a diagnostic assessment to determine an
appropriate evidence-based trauma intervention.
The therapist will review the results of the
assessment with the client, children, county DCFS
worker, the FrontLine caseworker, and other staff
where necessary, and prescribe appropriate
evidence-based CTI trauma interventions to be
completed prior to family reunification.
children, either by speeding reunification with their
families or hastening a decision by the county's
Division of Children and Family Services on an
appropriate alternative to reunification.
The evaluation will be based on a randomized
controlled trial that will compare results for the
program’s 135 enrolled families with another 135 in
a control group that will receive the standard
services currently being provided by the county to
these children and their families. Program
participants will be chosen at random by the
evaluators from eligible participants forwarded by
the county.17 All referrals, randomization, consent
processes, and data access and data storage
protocols will be approved by Case Western's
Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Once the parent has completed her DCFS case
plan and the Juvenile Court approves, the parent
will be reunified with her child. Soon afterward, the
therapist will complete another assessment with the
parent, children, and other important family
members to determine the need for additional
evidence-based interventions focused on familybased trauma and, depending on the results of the
assessment, the family may receive additional
services. The maximum caseload for the program’s
trauma therapists is 15 families.
The evaluation will also include an interim twoyear implementation study to determine which
aspects of the program (such as housing stability,
home visitation, or family meetings) are contributing
to fewer out-of-home placement days. The final
evaluation will be conducted at the end of the
project’s fifth year and its results will determine
success payments to the program's funders
(described below).
Altogether, starting in January 2015, this
combination of housing and behavioral health
services will be provided to 135 mothers and their
families divided into three annual cohorts of 45
program participants each. To prepare for the
program’s full rollout, a one-year pilot project
serving 28 clients was launched in July to test the
project’s referral process and associated services
by FrontLine. As part of the pilot, the project’s
partners have begun hiring and training key projectrelated staff.
Financing and Success Payments
The initiative's $4 million in up-front costs are
being funded by private funders and philanthropic
organizations at no initial cost to the county. These
funders include The Reinvestment Fund, The
George Gund Foundation, the Nonprofit Finance
Fund, The Cleveland Foundation, and Sisters of
Charity Foundation of Cleveland. Funding is being
provided through a combination of recoverable
grants and loans, with interest rates ranging from 2
to 5 percent.
The project is being managed and overseen by
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., a national
nonprofit organization with substantial expertise in
financing affordable housing.16 Enterprise will
monitor program implementation to ensure that it is
being operated according to contract. Enterprise
will also be responsible for disbursing payments
from the project’s private funders to FrontLine and
other project partners. Enterprise will be supported
during the program’s implementation by Third
Sector Capital Partners, Inc., which will provide
ongoing advisory services.
Additional up-front costs for planning and
development were covered through grants from The
George Gund Foundation, Cleveland Foundation
and Sisters of Charity Foundation of Cleveland. The
pilot was funded with a $780,000 grant from the
Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
Under the project contract, the county will only
repay the funders if the project reduces out-of-home
days in foster care for enrolled children compared to
those in the control group. The county will pay $75
per reduced day of foster care, which is the
estimated cost to the county of providing such care,
up to a maximum of $5 million. Above that level, all
additional savings will accrue solely to the county
Evaluation
The program's success will be determined by a
rigorous independent evaluation conducted by the
Center on Urban Poverty & Community
Development at Case Western Reserve University.
The evaluation will measure the program's impact
on out-of-home placement days for enrolled
16
17
For more information, see the organization’s web site at;
http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/
Referrals will be made from the Norma Herr Women’s
Homeless Shelter and a local county domestic violence
shelter.
3
point will vary for each investor. While the
combination of services provided under the initiative
has never been tested together, the negotiated 25
percent break-even level was based on the best
available evidence from the literature.
(see Table 1).
Repayments to the investors will be made by
the county from the newly-created Social Impact
Financing Fund, which will receive $1 million in
payments from the county each year for five
years.18 The first appropriation was approved by the
county council in September 2014. Payments to
investors will be made within 45 days of the
program’s five-year completion date.
If the project is a success and earns a positive
return for investors, The George Gund Foundation
plans to use its share to support future pay-forsuccess transactions. The Sisters of Charity
Foundation plans to reinvest any proceeds in
capacity building for the program’s service provider,
FrontLine.
The break-even point for investors overall is at
about a 25 percent reduction in out-of-home
placement days for enrolled children. Due to
differences in pay-out rates, the actual break-even
Table 1: Payment Terms and Estimated Savings for Cuyahoga County’s Pay-for-Success Program
% Reduction in
Out-of-home Days
Success Payments
Gross Savings
for County
Net Savings
for County
50%
40%
30%
25%
20%
10%
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,550,000
$4,125,000
$3,400,000
$1,700,000
$8,500,000
$6,800,000
$5,100,000
$4,250,000
$3,400,000
$1,700,000
$3,500,000
$1,800,000
$550,000
$130,000
$0
$0
Source: Cuyahoga Pay-for-Success Fact Sheet
Conclusion
Cuyahoga County’s child welfare-focused payfor-success initiative represents an important step
for both the use of evidence-based programs for
children in the child welfare system in general 19 and
for performance-based contracting and the pay-forsuccess model in particular.20
While this case study has focused on the initial
design and launch of the Cuyahoga County
initiative, it is likely to continue to provide important
lessons for other pay-for-success initiatives that
follow in its footsteps.
–– o ––
About the Social Innovation Research Center: The Social Innovation Research Center (SIRC) is a
nonpartisan nonprofit research organization specializing in social innovation and performance management for
nonprofits and public agencies. More information about SIRC is available on the organization's web site at
http://www.socialinnovationcenter.org.
18
19
The program will terminate early if annual appropriations are
not made. Provisions for this are included in the contract.
Another important example of the promotion of evidencebased initiatives in child welfare at the federal level can be
found in Social Innovation Research Center, “Foster Care
Innovation Initiative Charts a Different Path to Evidence,”
December 6, 2014. Available at:
20
4
http://www.socialinnovationcenter.org/?p=769
The pay-for-success model has grown significantly over the
past year. For more information, see Social Innovation
Research Center, “Winning Social Innovation Fund
Applications Suggest Substantial Growth Ahead for Pay-forSuccess Funding,” November 5, 2014. Available at:
http://www.socialinnovationcenter.org/?p=587
CCoA California Commission on Aging … a citizens voice within government
BUDGET FACT SHEET
Adult Protective Services – Training Funds
A joint proposal by the
California Commission on Aging, California Elder Justice Coalition and
the County Welfare Directors Association
Purpose:
Counties operate the Adult Protective Services Program (APS), which provides 24 hour/7 day
response to reports of abuse and neglect of persons over age 65 and dependent adults. The
California Department of Social Services (CDSS) provides support to county APS agencies through
its statewide training program. The current level of training is insufficient to enable counties to meet
local needs to protect and serve this vulnerable elderly and dependent adult population.
Proposed Solution:
Increase state funding support for statewide APS training at a total cost of $5 million General Fund.
This will create a statewide, consistent APS training program infrastructure to provide core training
to all new APS staff, supervisor training, and advance training driven by new policy and emerging
trends. This level of training would be consistent with the child welfare services training
infrastructure. Additionally, this level of funding would ensure access to mandated training for
mandated reporters, as well as training coordination with public guardians/conservators/
administrators who together protect our most vulnerable senior population.
Number of Vulnerable Seniors is Skyrocketing:
The population of seniors continues to dramatically increase. By 2030, about one in five Californians
will be age 65 or older.i California Department of Aging statistics show that between 1990 and 2020,
California’s aging population (those 60 and older) will double, and the oldest demographic, those 85
and older, will grow by 143 percent by 2020ii. Of those 85 and older, an estimated 32 percent have
Alzheimer’s disease, with the highest prevalence of Alzheimer’s among those 75 to 84 years of age
(44 percent).iii County APS must increase its capacity to meet the expected corresponding increase
in elder abuse and neglect cases.
The Need:
Training for APS workers is critical to meet our statutory statewide mandates to respond to reports
of abuse and neglect and to protect vulnerable seniors and dependent adults. Unlike the Child
Protective Services (CPS) program, the APS program completely lacks a training infrastructure to
provide core training to all new APS social workers, advanced training for seasoned workers,
specialized training for APS Supervisors, and new curricula to address emerging trends and
legislative mandates.
The APS program was primarily a state-funded program until recently when, in 2011, state funding
for APS was “realigned” and funding responsibility was given to the counties. However, the
responsibility of funding and providing statewide training to APS workers remains a state function to
promote consistency and coordination of training curricula. CDSS currently contracts with local
universities to deliver this training. Unfortunately, training for county APS workers has not kept up
with caseload and demand, and as a result, training for APS workers and their partner agencies is
woefully underfunded. Currently only $88,000 State General Fund ($176,000 total funds) is allocated
to CDSS for statewide APS training. These funds have not been increased for the past 10 years,
despite the fact that APS cases rose by 35 percent between 2001 and 2013 throughout California.
At this funding level, it is not possible to provide adequate training for APS staff – leaving workers
often under-prepared as they go into the field to protect vulnerable seniors and dependent adults.
CPS vs. APS Training Support
Counties administer both the CPS and APS
programs and CDSS funds training for both. Both
programs have acute training needs, yet the training
supports are vastly different.
CPS:
Receives $22 million in total training funds
($8.9 million State GF)
Responds to 500,000 reports per year
Serves over 85,000 children (2012 data)
Served by 3,000 social workers statewide
Equates to $7,333 training per worker/per year
APS:
Receives $176,000 in total funds ($88,000 state GF)
Responds to 125,000 reports per year
Serves nearly 25,000 cases (2013 data)
Served by 550 social workers statewide
Equates to less than $350 per worker, per year
Although APS and CWS workers protect equally
vulnerable populations who suffer from abuse and
neglect, APS workers receive less than
1 cent for every dollar of state and federally-funded
training that is provided to CWS workers.
i
Statewide training of mandated reporters is
also lacking. County APS is mandated to
provide training to mandated reporters, such
as physicians and public safety personnel.
Unfortunately, counties struggle to meet this
mandate in light of increasing local workloads.
County APS relies on timely reports by
mandated reporters to protect victims from
further harm, so training of mandated reporters
is critical. In addition, county APS and county
public
guardian/conservator/administrators
(PA/G/C) work together to protect abuse and
neglect victims and strive to keep elders and
dependent adults in the least restrictive,
community-based setting. These programs
are often co-located with county APS and are
overseen by the county human services
agency. The PA/G/C is a completely selfsustaining program, but staff must meet
training and certification requirements per
state law. Given the significant overlap often
between the APS and PA/G/C programs,
additional training coordination and support
between these programs is necessary.
For More Information:
Frank J. Mecca, Executive Director
fmecca@cwda.org
Cathy Senderling-McDonald, Deputy Director
csend@cwda.org
(916) 443-1749
Public Policy Institute of CA, “Just the Facts” retrieved 1/29/15 at http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=259
Based on data from the California Department of Aging, accessed at
http://www.aging.ca.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Facts_About_Elderly/, updated March 10,2012.
iii
2014 Alzheimer’s Disease: Facts and Figures, accessed at http://www.alz.org/downloads/Facts_Figures_2014.pdf.
ii
BUDGET FACT SHEET
Relative and Foster Parent Recruitment, Retention and Support
Prepared by the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA)
Purpose:
California’s child welfare agencies protect and serve over 63,000 children who have been removed
from their homes due to abuse and neglect through the state’s foster care system. Whenever
possible, foster children are placed with relatives or in another family-based environment capable of
meeting the child’s needs. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate supports for our kinship and licensed
foster parents discourages new families from fostering and hurts counties’ ability to recruit and retain
high quality caregivers. Support to relatives and family-based homes is also a necessary precursor
in the Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) effort to reduce the use of institutional care settings, such
as group homes and shelter care, and provide permanent homes for foster children.
Proposed Solution:
Increase funding for relative and foster parent recruitment, retention and support by $30.2 million
General Fund (GF). These funds would provide direct support to foster children placed with kin
caregivers and foster parents, increase placements in family-based settings consistent with the CCR
goals, and most importantly, would improve child outcomes for safety, permanency and well-being.
Background:
When children are placed into foster care due to abuse and neglect, counties are mandated by
federal and state law to first consider placement with relatives, and when a relative placement cannot
be found, state law requires that we consider county licensed foster homes as the next priority for
placement. Unfortunately counties have seen a steady decline in the number of licensed foster family
homes since 2003.
These family caregivers receive the least amount of support to care for abused and neglected
children. County-approved relatives and licensed foster parents receive a board and care payment
that covers the basic costs of caring for a child including: housing, food, clothing, and minor other
ancillary costs. Some families may qualify for a supplement if the child has behavioral or medical
needs. Support to these kin and foster parents is very limited, even though they typically care for the
same children with complex trauma, medical and other needs as those served in foster family
agencies and group homes.
In addition, recent federal legislation (P.L. 113-187) requires that child welfare systems make efforts
to “normalize” the foster child’s experience by supporting the child’s participation in activities with
their peers. This includes extra-curricular activities, such as sports, and other expenses including
graduation activities, school projects, and test fees for higher education, which are not currently
factored into the basic foster care rate. For very young children, the added costs of diapers and
wipes, infant formula, and clothing can strain a family’s budget and serve as a disincentive to
fostering.
Greater Supports Will Improve Child Outcomes:
Dedicated funding for recruitment, retention and support of relatives and foster parents is woefully
inadequate and has been stagnant for over a decade. Only $4.2 million ($2.5 million GF) is available
statewide for kin caregiver and county licensed foster parent support. Research and experience
have shown that lack of caregiver support significantly contributes to caregiver turnover. With
turnover, foster children are more likely to experience multiple placement disruptions that can lead
to placement into group homes, and are less likely to achieve desired outcomes of adoption or
guardianship with a permanent family.
Research also shows that increased support to relatives and foster caregivers can improve
outcomes for children in the foster care system. For example, children placed with relatives are
more likely to stay connected to their siblings and maintain family connections, experience
decreased trauma, have better educational, mental health and social outcomes, and are less likely
to suffer repeat maltreatment. The goal of the CCR is to improve the outcomes for children who
come into the foster care system and ensure that services and supports are available to children in
the most family-like setting. To achieve this will first require investment in a robust infrastructure of
supports and services to relatives and foster families. While the Administration’s CCR proposal
acknowledges this by recommending an increase to foster parent recruitment, retention and support
funding, this funding still falls short of the true need to increase and support relatives and countylicensed foster homes.
Investing in Strategies Proven to Improve Child Outcomes:
The proposed $30.2 million GF augmentation will allow counties to implement many promising and
effective strategies to recruit and retain these loving families and ultimately improve child outcomes.
This includes intensive family finding and engagement strategies, foster parent mentors, respite care
and child care for working resource families, enhanced training for relative caregivers, and
supplemental funding provided directly to relatives and foster parents to support “normalcy” for
children in care. The proposal would also support a robust recruitment campaign and encourage
collaboration with community agencies to recruit quality foster homes. Finally, the proposal would
support continued implementation of the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process, which has been
identified as a key strategy by the CCR recommendations in developing a unified, family friendly and
child-centered caregiver approval process in family-based settings.
For More Information:
Frank J. Mecca, Executive Director, fmecca@cwda.org
Cathy Senderling-McDonald, Deputy Director, csend@cwda.org
(916) 443-1749
Rev. March 4, 2015
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
skip to content
home
accessibility
FAQ
feedback
login
Legislative Information header image: click to go to the home page
Legislative Information header image: click to go to the home page
home image: click to go to the home page back button image: click to go to previous page
Legislative Information text image
magnifying glass image Quick Search:
Bill Number
go
Bill Information
California Law
My Subscriptions
My Favorites
Bill Information >>
Bill Search >>
Text
Bill Text
Bill Information
PDF | Add To My Favorites | Track Bill | Version:
02/26/15 ­ Introduced
Go
print page
SB­484 Juveniles.(2015­2016)
Text
>>
Votes
>>
History
>>
Bill Analysis
>>
Today's Law As Amended
>>
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
1/7
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
information Compare Versions
>>
Status
>>
Comments To Author
>>
Track Bill
>>
Add To My Favorites
>>
share this bill in Facebook
SHARE THIS:
share this bill in Twitter
Bill Start
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL
No. 484
Introduced by Senator Beall
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Chiu)
(Coauthors: Senators Mitchell and Monning)
February 26, 2015
An act to amend Section 1536 of, and to add Section 1538.8 to, the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Section
11469 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 484, as introduced, Beall. Juveniles.
(1) The California Community Care Facilities Act provides for the licensure and regulation of
community care facilities, including foster family homes and group homes, by the State Department of
Social Services. A violation of this act is a misdemeanor.
Existing law requires the department director, at least annually, to publish and make available to
interested persons a list covering all licensed community care facilities, except as specified, and the
services for which each facility has been licensed or issued a special permit.
This bill would require the department director to include in that list specified information regarding
administering psychotropic medications to children in those facilities. The bill would also require the
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
2/7
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
department, if it determines based on that information that a facility is administering psychotropic
medications to children at a rate exceeding the average authorization for all group homes, to inspect that
facility at least once a year to examine specified factors that contribute to the high utilization of
psychotropic medications. The bill would require an inspected facility to submit to the department,
within 60 days of that inspection, a corrective action plan including steps the facility shall take to reduce
the utilization of psychotropic medications. The bill would require the department to monitor the
facility’s implementation of that plan and make a report, as provided. Because this bill would create a
new crime, the bill would impose a state­mandated local program.
(2) Existing law requires the department, on or before January 1, 2016, in consultation with specified
associations and other stakeholders, to develop additional performance standards and outcome measures
that require group homes to implement programs and services to minimize law enforcement contacts
with minors in group homes or under supervision of group home staff.
This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2017, in consultation with specified
associations and other stakeholders, to develop additional performance standards and outcome measures
that require group homes to implement programs and services to reduce utilization of psychotropic
medications for children in group homes. The bill would also delete an obsolete provision.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for
certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Digest Key
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes Bill Text
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 1536 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
1536. (a) (1) At least annually, the director shall publish and make available to interested persons a list or
lists covering all licensed community care facilities, other than foster family homes and certified family
homes of foster family agencies providing 24­hour care for six or fewer foster children, and the services
for which each facility has been licensed or issued a special permit.
(2) For a group home, transitional housing placement provider, community treatment facility, or runaway
and homeless youth shelter, the list shall include both all of the following:
(A) The number of licensing complaints, types of complaint, and outcomes of complaints, including
citations, fines, exclusion orders, license suspensions, revocations, and surrenders.
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
3/7
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
(B) The number, types, and outcomes of law enforcement contacts made by the facility staff or children,
as reported pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1538.7.
(C) The number of children administered psychotropic medications in the facility, and all off the
following information pertaining to those children:
(1) The number of children for whom the juvenile court preauthorized the administration of the
psychotropic medication.
(2) The number of children administered psychotropic medication on an emergency basis.
(3) The number of those children who are 6 to 11 years of age, inclusive.
(4) The number of those children who are 12 to 17 years of age, inclusive.
(5) The number of children administered an antipsychotic, mood stabilizing, or antidepressant
medication.
(6) The number of children administered two or more drugs from the same class, including, but not
limited to, antidepressants, antipsychotics, antianxiety medications.
(7) The number of children administered two, three, four, or more psychotropic medications
concurrently.
(8) The number of children administered one or more medications for longer than 90 days.
(9) The number of children terminated from the program due to the child’s refusal to take psychotropic
medication.
(b) Subject to subdivision (c), to encourage the recruitment of foster family homes and certified family
homes of foster family agencies, protect their personal privacy, and to preserve the security and
confidentiality of the placements in the homes, the names, addresses, and other identifying information of
facilities licensed as foster family homes and certified family homes of foster family agencies providing
24­hour care for six or fewer children shall be considered personal information for purposes of the
Information Practices Act of 1977 (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1798) of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of
Division 3 of the Civil Code). This information shall not be disclosed by any state or local agency
pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division
7 of Title 1 of the Government Code), except as necessary for administering the licensing program,
facilitating the placement of children in these facilities, and providing names and addresses only to bona
fide professional foster parent organizations upon request.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the department, a county, or a foster family agency may request
information from, or divulge information to, the department, a county, or a foster family agency,
regarding a prospective certified parent, foster parent, or relative caregiver for the purpose of, and as
necessary to, conduct a reference check to determine whether it is safe and appropriate to license, certify,
or approve an applicant to be a certified parent, foster parent, or relative caregiver.
(d) The department may issue a citation and, after the issuance of that citation, may assess a civil penalty
of fifty dollars ($50) per day for each instance of a foster family agency’s failure to provide the
department with the information required by subdivision (h) of Section 88061 of Title 22 of the
California Code of Regulations.
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
4/7
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
(e) The Legislature encourages the department, when funds are available for this purpose, to develop a
database that would include all of the following information:
(1) Monthly reports by a foster family agency regarding family homes.
(2) A log of family homes certified and decertified, provided by a foster family agency to the department.
(3) Notification by a foster family agency to the department informing the department of a foster family
agency’s determination to decertify a certified family home due to any of the following actions by the
certified family parent:
(A) Violating licensing rules and regulations.
(B) Aiding, abetting, or permitting the violation of licensing rules and regulations.
(C) Conducting oneself in a way that is inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of a child placed
in that certified family home.
(D) Being convicted of a crime while a certified family parent.
(E) Knowingly allowing any child to have illegal drugs or alcohol.
(F) Committing an act of child abuse or neglect or an act of violence against another person.
SEC. 2. Section 1538.8 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
1538.8. (a) If the department, based upon the information gathered pursuant to Section 1536, determines
that the children and adolescents in a facility are administered psychotropic medications at a rate that
exceeds the average authorization for all group homes, the department shall inspect the facility at least
once a year to examine the policies, procedures, practices, child­to­staff ratios, staff training, and other
factors that the department determines contribute to the high utilization of psychotropic medications.
(b) A facility inspected pursuant to subdivision (a) shall submit to the department a corrective action plan
within 60 days of that inspection. The plan shall address the steps that the facility shall take to reduce the
utilization of psychotropic medications among residents.
(c) The department shall monitor a facility’s implementation of its corrective action plan to determine
both of the following:
(1) Whether the facility has reduced the rate at which residents are administered psychotropic
medications, and, if so, the percentage decrease in the administration of those medications.
(2) Whether and to what extent alternative, less invasive treatments are being provided to residents.
(d) Following an inspection pursuant to subdivision (a), the Community Care Licensing Division shall
provide a report to the department’s Children and Family Services Division and to any other public
agency that has certified the facility’s program or any component of the facility’s program, including, but
not limited to, the State Department of Health Care Services, which certifies group homes pursuant to
Section 4096.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
SEC. 3. Section 11469 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
5/7
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
11469. (a) The department, in consultation with group home providers, the County Welfare Directors
Association, the Chief Probation Officers of California, the California Mental Health Directors
Association, and the State Department of Health Care Services, shall develop performance standards and
outcome measures for determining the effectiveness of the care and supervision, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 11460, provided by group homes under the AFDC­FC program pursuant to
Sections 11460 and 11462. These standards shall be designed to measure group home program
performance for the client group that the group home program is designed to serve.
(1) The performance standards and outcome measures shall be designed to measure the performance of
group home programs in areas over which the programs have some degree of influence, and in other
areas of measurable program performance that the department can demonstrate are areas over which
group home programs have meaningful managerial or administrative influence.
(2) These standards and outcome measures shall include, but are not limited to, the effectiveness of
services provided by each group home program, and the extent to which the services provided by the
group home assist in obtaining the child welfare case plan objectives for the child.
(3) In addition, when the group home provider has identified as part of its program for licensing,
ratesetting, or county placement purposes, or has included as a part of a child’s case plan by mutual
agreement between the group home and the placing agency, specific mental health, education, medical,
and other child­related services, the performance standards and outcome measures may also measure the
effectiveness of those services.
(b) Regulations regarding the implementation of the group home performance standards system required
by this section shall be adopted no later than one year prior to implementation. The regulations shall
specify both the performance standards system and the manner by which the AFDC­FC rate of a group
home program shall be adjusted if performance standards are not met.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), effective July 1, 1995, group home performance standards shall
be implemented. Any group home program not meeting the performance standards shall have its AFDC­
FC rate, set pursuant to Section 11462, adjusted according to the regulations required by this section.
(d) Effective July 1, 1995, group A group home programs program shall be classified at rate
classification level 13 or 14 only if all of the following are met:
(1) The program generates the requisite number of points for rate classification level 13 or 14.
(2) The program only accepts children with special treatment needs as determined through the
assessment process pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 11462.01.
(3) The program meets the performance standards designed pursuant to this section.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), the group home program performance standards system shall not be
implemented prior to the implementation of the AFDC­FC performance standards system.
(f) By On or before January 1, 2016, the department, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors
Association, the Chief Probation Officers of California, 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, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders, shall develop
additional performance standards and outcome measures that require group homes to implement
programs and services to minimize law enforcement contacts and delinquency petition filings arising
from incidents of allegedly unlawful behavior by minors occurring in group homes or under the
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
6/7
4/14/2015
Bill Text ­ SB­484 Juveniles.
supervision of group home staff, including individualized behavior management programs, emergency
intervention plans, and conflict resolution processes.
(g) On or before January 1, 2017, the department, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors
Association, the Chief Probation Officers of California, the California Mental Health Directors
Association, research entities, foster youth, advocates for foster youth, foster care provider business
entities organized and operated on a nonprofit basis, Indian tribes, and other stakeholders, shall develop
additional performance standards and outcome measures that require group homes to implement
programs and services to reduce the utilization of psychotropic medications for children in group homes,
including individualized behavior management programs, emergency intervention plans, and conflict
resolution processes.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the
California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government
Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the
California Constitution.
file:///C:/Users/spearl/AppData/Local/Temp/Temp1_4­2015CCASSC%20(2).zip/Bill%20Text%20­%20SB­484%20Juveniles.htm
7/7
CSAC Poverty Working Group 2015
Thursday, March 26  3:00 – 4:00 p.m.
Via Conference Call
Dial In: (800) 867-2581  Passcode: 7500559#
Supervisor Kathy Long, Ventura County, Co-Chair
Supervisor Leticia Perez, Kern County, Co-Chair
Supervisor Lee Adams, Sierra County, Co-Chair
3:00 p.m.
I.
Welcome and Introductions
Supervisors Long, Perez, and Adams
3:05 – 3:20
II.
How Poverty is Measured and What it Means for
Public Policy
Luke Reidenbach,
California Budget and Policy Center
3:20 – 3:35
III.
Poverty Strategies and the County Role
Frank Mecca, Executive Director,
County Welfare Directors Association
3:35 – 3:50
IV.
Question & Answer Session
3:50 – 4:00
V.
Presentation of Proposed CSAC Policy
Farrah McDaid Ting, Legislative Representative
Michelle Gibbons, Legislative Analyst
4:00
VI.
Adjournment
NOTES:
For those who wish to attend the meeting, it will be held in CSAC’s Peterson Conference Room
(1st floor, 1100 K Street, Sacramento).
The conference call number is noted above for those who wish to call in.
Conference Call Etiquette
1. Place your line on mute at all times until you wish to
participate in the conversation.
2. DO NOT PLACE THE LINE ON HOLD.
3. Please identify yourself when speaking.
CCASSC Poverty Resources
 The California Symposium on Poverty (CWDA Poverty Symposiums) 2009,
2010, 2011:

http://www.cwda.org/tools/americanpoverty.php
 CCASSC/Central Region Poverty Facts and Initiatives:
o Poverty Reduction Fact Sheets
o Subsidized Employment Highlights
o “Making Ends Meet” County Profiles
 http://www.fresnostate.edu/chhs/ccassc/resources/povertyreduction.html
 California Poverty Disparity Map:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article8888021.html