BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1978
A
AUTHOR: Jones-Sawyer
B
VERSION: May 7, 2014
HEARING DATE: June 10, 2014
1
FISCAL: Yes
9
7
CONSULTANT: Sara Rogers
8
SUBJECT
Child Welfare Services
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a county child welfare agency from
retaliating against a social worker if the social worker
discloses that they believe a policy, procedure, or
practice endangers the health or well-being of a child or
children, as specified. The bill requires counties, in
developing self-assessments and improvement plans of their
child welfare services, to consult with stakeholders, as
specified, and to consult with at least one county child
welfare worker named by the bargaining unit representing
children's social workers. Makes other related changes.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1)Requires the state, through the California Department of
Social Services (CDSS) and county welfare departments, to
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageB
establish and support a public system of child welfare
services to protect and promote the welfare of children.
(WIC 16500)
2)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)
3)Under federal law, establishes the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which provides fully federal
grant funding to applicant states to improve child
protective service systems and for child abuse prevention
activities. Requires the submission of a state plan, as
specified, and requires services to be coordinated with
Title IV-B services. Additionally requires states to
report specified information regarding child fatalities
(42 U.S.C. 5106 et seq)
4)Establishes the California State Child Death Review
Council to oversee the statewide coordination and
integration of state and local efforts to address fatal
child abuse or neglect and to create a body of
information to prevent child deaths. (PEN 11174.34 (b)
(1))
5)Provides for the establishment of county Child Death
Review Teams to assist local agencies in identifying and
reviewing suspicious child deaths and facilitating
communication among persons who perform autopsies and the
various persons and agencies involved in child abuse or
neglect cases. (PEN 11174.32)
6)Requires each child death review team to make findings,
conclusions, recommendations and specified data available
to the public no less than once each year. (PEN 11174.32
(e) (1))
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageC
7)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)
8)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))
This bill:
1)Makes legislative findings regarding the role that the
delivery of child welfare service by state and local
government plays in meeting the needs of vulnerable
children.
2)Requires counties, in developing self-assessments and
improvement plans of their child welfare services, 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.
4)Requires that county child welfare improvement plans
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.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageD
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
An Assembly Appropriations Analysis states there are
potential state costs in the range of $50,000 to $100,000
(GF) for mandated activities on local agencies associated
with the current and future development of county
self-assessments and county improvement plans.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill
This measure is a re-introduction of AB 921 (Jones-Sawyer)
from 2013. As initially proposed, AB 921 established 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. However those provisions were removed
prior to the bill reaching the Governor. AB 1978 reflects
the final version of AB 921 as was adopted by the
Legislature, but vetoed by the Governor.
The Governor's veto message for AB 921 stated:
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageE
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 sponsor of the bill, Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), this bill is a response to a
series of tragic child deaths as a result of abuse and
neglect that occurred in two of California's largest
counties; Los Angeles and Sacramento. In support of this
bill, SEIU writes:
"Over the years, SEIU members who are social workers
have shared numerous stories of their attempts to make
changes in the child protective services systems they
work in to benefit children and families?but workers'
recommendations often fall on deaf ears, and in some
cases, suggestions and concerns have even been met
with responses ranging from indifference to hostility.
AB 1978 seeks to provide protections to workers who
have firsthand experience and knowledge on how
policies and procedures affect child safety.
This bill will also allow social workers to comment on
circumstances related to a child death. SB 39, enacted
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageF
in 2009 allowed for the public to have access to
specific information in a child's CPS file if there
was a child death. SB 39 required the county to
provide the information in a specified time and also
allowed for county officials to comment on the case
while maintaining strict confidentiality standards. AB
1978 seeks to provide the same ability to comment on
cases with the same confidentiality protection as in
current law for county social workers who have worked
on the case resulting in a child death."
Child Welfare System
California has a complex child welfare system incorporating
federal, state and local funds expended for the broad
purpose of child welfare, including child abuse prevention
and response. The federal Administration of Children and
Families (ACF) administers numerous federal grants intended
to assist states with child abuse prevention and response
and to support the foster care system which provides board
and care payments for eligible dependent children. Within
the statutorily established parameters for each grant,
states have substantial flexibility in how to apportion
funds but are accountable to significant federal oversight
of program administration.
The California Department of Social Services (CDSS)
supervises the 58 county-administered Child Welfare
Services (CWS) system which investigates approximately
32,000 reports of severe injury, death and life threatening
neglect of children annually. According to DSS, as of
January 2014, there were nearly 61,000 children currently
in foster care placement, with nearly one in three residing
in Los Angeles County.
Child and Family Services Review System (CFSR)
Federal law pursuant to Title IV-B of the Social Security
Act and state law pursuant to AB 636 (Steinberg, Chapter
678, Statutes of 2001) establish an outcomes-based review
process administered known as the Child and Family Services
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageG
Review System (CFSR).
At the federal level, the Children's Bureau of the
Administration for Children and Families under the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Agency conducts the
CFSR based on a statewide assessment prepared by CDSS,
state child welfare data, case reviews and interviews and
focus groups conducted on site. Additionally, the process
includes an Annual Progress and Services Report to
establish transparent performance measures, accountability
and program improvement plans (PIPs) for states to improve
child welfare systems. California's most recent CFSR in
2008 found that the state did not achieve substantial
compliance with any of the safety, permanency or wellbeing
outcomes identified including home permanency, safety from
abuse and neglect, timeliness of adoptions, placement
stability, educational needs and others and a PIP was
established.<1>
The report additionally found that California's low
performance may be attributed at least in part to the lack
of state-wideness for implementation of many of the state's
innovative best practices, as well as high social worker
caseloads and high turnover, insufficient numbers of foster
homes and insufficient support and training for caregivers,
and an over reliance on group homes and residential
treatment facilities.<2> The PIP was deemed substantially
completed by 2011 and last year ACF rescinded all
penalties. A new CFSR is expected in 2016.
California Outcomes and Accountability System (C-CFSR)
In addition to the federal CFSR process, California has
established a corollary process called the Outcomes and
-------------------------
<1> C-CFSR 2008.
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/CFSRExecSummary2008.pd
f
<2> Final Report: California Child and Family Services
Review. July 2008.
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/CFSRFinalReport2008.pd
f
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageH
Accountability System (C-CFSR) which requires counties to
develop a county self-assessment and System Improvement
Plan (SIP). The county self-assessment is completed every
five years by the county in coordination with local
community stakeholders to provide a comprehensive review of
the child welfare and probation placement programs, from
prevention through permanency and aftercare. The subsequent
SIP establishes an "operational agreement" between CDSS and
the county and is developed by lead county agencies in
collaboration with local stakeholders, prevention and early
intervention partners and is approved by the county Board
of Supervisors. Following development of the CSA and SIP,
the county develops an annual SIP Progress Report to
reevaluate and determine whether the SIP strategies are
successful and to provide an opportunity for amendment.<3>
According to CDSS instructions the CFSR process includes
the establishment of a team led by representatives from the
County's Child Welfare Department, Probation Placement
Agency and CDSS. The team may also include additional
county agency staff and community partners who contribute
to quarterly outcome reviews, CSA and SIP development, SIP
Progress reports, as well as other required reports.
According to the CFSR Instruction Manual, "In counties
where staff are represented by labor unions, the county is
encouraged to request participation of line supervisors and
staff as selected by the union, in addition to other
staff."<4> The Instruction Manual additionally states that
"input from stakeholders is essential throughout the C-CFSR
cycle. The C-CFSR process requires input from stakeholders
within the county who participate in providing services to
children and families involved in the child welfare system
as well as from individuals who are receiving or have
-------------------------
<3> California Child and Family Services Review Manual
Instruction
http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/res/pdf/CCFSRInstructionManual
.pdf
<4> Ibid.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageI
received services."
Child Fatality Reviews
SB 39 (Migden) Chapter 468, Statutes of 2007, required
county welfare departments to notify CDSS following every
child fatality that occurred within its jurisdiction
determined to be the result of abuse and/or neglect. The
determination that abuse or neglect resulted in the child's
death can be made by a coroner, law enforcement agency, the
Child Welfare services agency or probation department. SB
39 required CDSS to issue an annual report identifying
child fatalities and any systemic issues or patterns
revealed by the notices submitted by the counties and any
other relevant information in the Department's possession.
Additionally, the federal Child Abuse Prevention Treatment
Act (CAPTA) requires states to have policies that allow for
the public disclosure of child fatality information, but
does not require that information be disclosed. (42 U.S.C.
� 5106) When a county learns that a child fatality has
occurred and has a reasonable suspicion that the fatality
was a result of abuse or neglect, the county is required to
open a child welfare investigation and make a determination
whether the fatality was the result of abuse or neglect. If
it has been determined that the child fatality was the
result of substantiated abuse or neglect, the county is
required to file a report with CDSS including the following
information that is collected in aggregate for further
statewide analysis:
The age and gender of the child.
The date of death.
Residence of child at the time of death.
Whether an investigation is being conducted by a
law enforcement agency and/or the county child welfare
agency.
Which agency made a determination whether the child
fatality was or was not the result of abuse and/or
neglect.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageJ
The law additionally provides for the public disclosure of
specified information related to a child fatality case.
Child fatality cases can generate intense public interest
and media attention, in this regard state and federal law
seeks to balance the need for accountability and attention
to be paid to tragic circumstances that may have been
preventable, with the privacy needs of any surviving
siblings that may be negatively affected by public comment
and publicity. Additionally, criminal proceedings may be
affected by the release of information publicly.
Furthermore, SB 39 authorizes a county human services
director to speak publicly about certain elements of a case
if other parties in the case are also speaking publicly
about the incident. The California Welfare Directors
Association of California writes that:
"The very sensitive nature of the cases of some
children in our care necessitates that any public
commentary regarding same, be handled with the utmost
thoughtfulness and delicacy. There are certainly
instances where a human services director authorized
by SB 39 to publicly comment on a case decides not to
do so to protect the privacy and well-being of
innocent parties, such as a sibling.
We believe if a county human services director opts to
comment publicly about a child fatality, the child
welfare social worker on the case should also have
that option. However, AB 1978 would authorize a child
welfare social worker to comment publicly about a
child fatality case, even if the county human services
director decides not to comment publicly to protect
the privacy of other parties. Given the privacy and
well-being risks to multiple parties that must be
weighed against the interest of transparency, the
decision of a county agency - or its employees - to
initiate public comments about a child fatality is
appropriately made by the agency director.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1978 (Jones-Sawyer)
PageK
Accordingly, we request that your bill be amended to
permit the social worker assigned to the case in
question to publicly comment only when the county
welfare director has done so first."
In response to these concerns, SEIU writes:
"This bill does not propose to change anything in
current law related to confidentiality protections and
rights of children and families that we
serve?.Government Code Section 6252(b) [provides that]
if a social worker discloses any portion of what is in
a case file...including by definition the identity of
anyone in it - she or he loses the modest protection
against being disciplined afforded by the law."
PRIOR VOTES
Assembly Floor 64 - 9
Assembly Appropriations 14 - 3
Assembly Human Services 5 - 0
POSITIONS
Support: Service Employees International Union -
California (sponsor)
Oppose: None received.
-- END --