BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1978
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1978 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
SUBJECT : Child Welfare Social Worker Empowerment and Foster
Child Protection Act
SUMMARY : Enacts the Child Welfare Social Worker Empowerment and
Foster Child Protection Act. Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares the following legislative findings:
a) While California foster children are in foster care,
they are uniquely dependent upon the lawful, efficient, and
competent delivery of state and local government services
and implementation of state and federal law;
b) The special and uniquely vulnerable status of foster
children warrants extending whistleblower protections for
state employees to county child welfare social workers to
ensure that each worker, without fear of retaliation, can
advocate for policies that benefit every child and publicly
participate in discussions about each child's wellbeing;
and
c) County child welfare social workers who implement state
and federal policy related to the delivery of services and
implementation of programs benefitting foster children
should have an avenue to suggest cost-saving efficiencies
in the delivery of services to foster children, in a
fashion that is transparent and accountable to the public.
2)Requires counties, when doing self-assessments and improvement
plans in child welfare, to consult with stakeholders,
including county child welfare agencies and probation agency
staff at all levels, current and former foster children,
children's attorneys, and foster care providers.
3)Requires counties, when doing self-assessments and improvement
plans in child welfare, to consult with at least one county
child welfare worker named by the bargaining unit representing
children's social workers.
AB 1978
Page 2
4)Requires that each county's child welfare improvement plan,
approved by the county board of supervisors, include a
separately titled provision that lists and provides the
rationale for proposed operational improvements identified
during the stakeholder process that can be implemented at a
cost savings to the county or within existing county
resources.
5)Prohibits a county child welfare agency from retaliating
against a social worker if the social worker has reasonable
cause to believe that a policy, procedure, or practice related
to the provision of child welfare services endangers the
health or well-being of a child or children and the social
worker discloses this information to a government or law
enforcement agency, an appointed or elected official, or the
public.
6)Provides that nothing in this bill authorizes a social worker
within a county child welfare agency to disclose the identity
of a child or any portion of a case file.
7)Authorizes county child welfare social workers to comment on a
child welfare case, within the scope of the information
released, once documents have been released by the custodian
of records, as specified.
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes the California Child and Family Service Review
(C-CFSR) System to maximize compliance with federal Social
Security Act Title IV-E Regulations and to improve child
welfare outcomes for children and their families in the areas
of child protection, foster care, adoption, family connections
and independent living services. (WIC 10601.2)
2)In development of the C-CFSR, required the Health and Human
Services (HHS) Agency to convene a working group comprised of
specified state and local agencies and foster care advocacy
organizations to develop a work plan by which a child and
family service review are conducted. (WIC 10601.2(c)(1))
3)Requires the Department of Social Services to undertake
individual child and family service reviews of each CWA and
requires counties found out of compliance with the C-CFSR to
undergo technical assistance, as specified. (WIC 10601.2(h))
AB 1978
Page 3
4)Upon determination of the Director of the Department of Social
Services (DSS) that a county child welfare agency (CWA) or
probation agency is failing to comply with federal and state
child welfare laws and regulations, permits the Director, in a
specified period of time, to bring an action for injunctive
relief to secure immediate compliance, or to hold a hearing at
which the CWA or probation agency must appear, as specified,
to show cause why the Director should not take administrative
action to secure compliance, as specified. (WIC 10605 and
10605.2)
5)Provides that all applications and records maintained or kept
in regards to the administration or provision of social
services, as specified, to be confidential and not be made
open other than for the purposes of the administration or
provision of the social service programs, unless otherwise
specified. (WIC 10850)
6)Requires specified information from a child welfare case
related to the suspected death of a child cause by abuse or
neglect to be released within five days, and permits DSS and
the CWA to comment on the case within the scope of the
release, as specified. (WIC 10850(a) and (g))
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Background : AB 636 (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001,
established the California-Child and Family Services Review
System (C-CFSR), which was implemented in January 2004.
Development of the C-CFSR marked a shift from the previous
oversight system focusing on regulatory compliance to a system
focusing on measuring outcomes for children in the child welfare
services system, including recurrence of maltreatment and child
safety, number of foster home placements, length of time to
reunification with birth parents and permanency. In addition to
the federally required outcome measures, the C-CFSR includes
state-specific outcome measures for overall child and family
well-being. DSS reviews all counties on a five-year cycle under
the C-CFSR to determine county performance in meeting system
requirements and improving outcomes for children.
The reviews consist of a county self-assessment, which is
AB 1978
Page 4
influenced by local stakeholder input and identifies the
county's strengths, areas needing improvement and barriers to
improvement within the local system; a Peer Quality Case Review,
which supplements the self-assessment with input from peer
counties and outside experts; and a System Improvement Plan
(SIP), which identifies annual targets for improvement in
outcomes for children within the local child welfare services
system. The state encourages counties to use existing planning
processes and community groups to increase public participation,
and most counties work with a group of core representatives in
the development of self-assessments. Additionally, DSS approves
each county SIP, and monitors compliance using quarterly
performance reports.
Need for the bill : Stating the need for the bill, the author
writes:
"With recent, sweeping budget cuts to child welfare and
foster care and re-alignment, it is more important than
ever for county social workers, boards of supervisors, and
child welfare directors to identify and implement
operational improvements that will reduce paperwork,
enhance social worker productivity and job satisfaction,
and help ensure that abused and neglected children are well
looked after.
Unprecedented budget cuts and external audits from two
counties that found that bureaucracy impedes effective
social work, imperiling the lives of children, it is
apparent that social workers have not had a platform where
they feel free to advocate for common-sense policies and
procedures."
Staff comments : This measure is a re-introduction of AB 921
(Jones-Sawyer) from 2013. Initially proposed to also include
civil penalties for specified offenses committed against a
social worker and a requirement for counties to adopt an
ordinance that provides social workers specific additional
authority and protections, its scope was limited as it moved
through the legislative process. The current language in this
measure is a replication of the final version of AB 921, which
was adopted by the Legislature, but vetoed by the Governor.
In justifying his veto of AB 921, the Governor wrote:
AB 1978
Page 5
Among its provisions, the bill would allow any social
worker to comment on any child welfare services
policy, procedure and practice, or any publicly
released child fatality case, with impunity.
While this bill has the best of intentions, it
overreaches. The judgment of social workers should
be valued, but we don't need a law to protect their
opinions, and theirs alone. Social workers, like
other public or private employees, already have
"whistleblower" protections for illegal acts they
report. Specific county policies and practices that
are legal but problematic should be resolved at the
county level, or through legislation as a last
resort, when counties cannot do it on their own.
Social workers, the state and counties all have a
duty to protect children who are abused and
neglected. We should all work together in good faith
to that end.
According to the Service Employees International Union
(SEIU) - California, it sponsored AB 921 in response to a
series of tragedies, including child deaths as a result of
abuse and neglect that occurred in two of California's
largest counties; Los Angeles and Sacramento. In its
support of AB 921, SEIU wrote:
"Our workers are the ones one the front lines,
providing essential services to protect youth from
horrible circumstances. We believe that AB 921 is
necessary to ensure that social workers are heard and
feel comfortable and protected to share their
stories. This bill will ensure that our workers have
a voice and a seat at the table when operational
reforms are made, discussed and/ or recommended.
SEIU understands that the current process set forth
by AB 636 requires social workers to provide
information and recommendations around systemic
reforms and we certainly don't want to be duplicative
in our efforts, however for unexplained reasons many
of our CWS social workers believe that their
recommendations are often not considered or provided
in the reports required by the AB 636 process. We
believe that if the stakeholder discussions set forth
AB 1978
Page 6
in AB 636 were effective our local union would not
have needed to independently research and draft
recommendations for operational improvements. SEIU
believes that this bill will help rectify that
problem and ensure that front line workers are able
to voice their concerns and opinions on what
improvements are necessary to help provide better
outcomes for the youth and families we serve."
The argument in support of this measure exposes some differences
between what statute requires and what DSS requires in regards
to how a county conducts its C-CFSR process. Specifically,
under current statute, there is not a specific list of
stakeholders counties are required to consult in the development
of its C-CFSR. Rather, that level specificity is left to
guidance required by DSS through the issuance of an All-County
Letter (ACL). ACL 04-05, issued in February 2004 to implement
the requirements and provide guidance for the C-CFSR, states
that the County Self-Assessment Team (CSAT) is required to be
composed of the following stakeholders:
1)The California Youth Connection, if available;
2)The County Health Department;
3)The County Mental Health Department;
4)CWS Administrators, Managers, and Social Workers;
5)Parents;
6)The local educational agency;
7)Local native American tribes, as applicable and available;
8)Probation administrators, supervisors, and officers; and
9)Licensed adoption agencies, as specified.
It also specifies groups that must be consulted or represented,
which includes court appointed special advocates (CASAs), the
County Alcohol and Drug Department, labor, law enforcement,
child and parent representatives, the juvenile court, and a
regional training agency. It goes on to provide examples of
other groups that may be consulted, however, there is no
AB 1978
Page 7
requirement or stated permission for stakeholders to provide a
selected individual to represent their interests, or whether a
minor's counsel, licensed foster care giver, or current or
former foster youth are to include a children's counsel
organization, firm or a minor's counsel. Current law is also
unclear as to whether the current process to identify
individuals and organizations for participation in the C-CFSR
may be selective.
This measure highlights a more comprehensive challenge with the
C-CFSR; its lack of details on how stakeholders may have their
input solicited and taken into account. Current governing
C-CFSR statute is now ten years old and has not been modified to
reflect the lessons learned since its implementation.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
The author, although proposing to address involvement of
specific individuals who represent a particular portion of the
child welfare system in the C-CSFR, touches upon what may be a
more timely issue; evaluating and modifying, as necessary, the
county process to ensure inclusive and thoughtful feedback of
all stakeholders involved in providing for the improved outcomes
of children in foster care.
Should the Committee choose to pass this measure, it should
strongly encourage the author and sponsors to engage with DSS,
the County Welfare Directors Association, the County Probation
Officers of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts,
social worker and probation officer representative organizations
and associations, youth-based foster youth organizations and
current and former foster youth, minors counsel agencies, foster
care giver organizations, health and education advocacy
organizations, and other related stakeholders to determine
whether this bill should be amended to reflect a more holistic
approach to revising how the C-CFSR process includes and takes
into consideration broader stakeholder input.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS :
The bill amends Section 10850.4(h) of the Welfare and
Institutions Code to allow any social worker, in addition to the
state or county CWS agency to respond publicly to a child death
review. This could be construed to allow any social worker to
comment regardless of whether he or she was associated with the
AB 1978
Page 8
subject of the child death review. The bill should be limited
to allow only those associated with the case to comment.
Specifically, committee staff recommends the following
amendments:
Amendment #1 - On page 11, line 33 delete "the" and insert "and
the respective"
Amendment #2 - On page 11, lines 33 and 34 delete "agency, and
any" and replace with "agency and"
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SEIU - Sponsor
Children's Advocacy Institute, USD - Co-sponsor
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089