Review of the Sacramento County Child Protective Services Division

Child Protective Services Division

Final Report

PRESENTED TO:

Ms. Ann Edwards‐Buckley

Ms. Ann Edwards Buckley

Deputy Agency Administrator

Sacramento Countywide Services Agency

Sacramento County

700 H Street, Room 7650

Sacramento, California, 95814

SUBMITTED BY:

MGT of America, Inc.

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 600

Sacramento, California 95814

916 443 3411

,

,

916‐443‐3411

Linus Li, CPA, CMA, CFM, CIA, Principal

Celina M. Knippling, CPA, Senior Consultant

March 23, 2009

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ... 1

Project Background ... 9

Description of Child Protective Services Processes ... 15

Findings and Recommendations ... 25

Appendix A – Process Maps ... 84

Appreciations

MGT of America, Inc. could not have completed this review without the assistance of the dedicated staff at the Sacramento Children’s Coalition, the Sacramento Child Protective Systems Oversight Committee, and Sacramento County.

We wish to thank Sara Fung and Nancy Bui of the Sacramento Children’s Coalition who helped to facilitate interviews and document requests. We also wish to thank Ann Edwards-Buckley, Deputy Administrator of the Sacramento Countywide Services Agency, who oversaw our progress and provided valuable feedback on our periodic updates and status reports. We also wish to thank all the members of the Child Protective Systems Oversight Committee, and especially Alyson Collier, for participating in the review and providing our team with feedback and perspective.

Finally, we wish to thank all members of the Sacramento County Child Protective Services division who participated in this review. We appreciate the staff’s willingness to participate in time-consuming focus groups and interviews, and for responding quickly to our requests to provide data and documents, and to clarify our understanding of issues.

Executive Summary

This report presents a review of Sacramento County (County) Child Protective Services division (CPS or division) and its management and operations over specific services.

Background

The review was requested as a result of a long history of incidents and investigations pertaining to CPS. In 1996, following the hospitalization and subsequent death of Adrian Conway, a young child whose family had been previously investigated by CPS, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (Board) convened a panel of independent experts to examine what went wrong in the case. The Critical Case Investigation Committee (Committee) was formed to examine this specific case and to determine whether any systemic problems existed with the child protective system. The Committee issued its report in May 1996, concluding that CPS had leaned too strongly towards keeping troubled families together, leaving children at risk. The Committee’s findings mirrored those of the Sacramento County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) report issued in June 1996.

In July 1996, the Board approved policy changes recommended by the Committee and Grand Jury to amend the way CPS monitored and investigated abuse cases. In 1997, the Board issued additional policies mandating that CPS staff become more aggressive in removing children from homes with known drug abuse, stemming from another child fatality in which CPS had closed the case as “moderate-to-low” risk. The Board also added 58 CPS staff positions to deal with the demands of removing children from drug-abusing homes. Concurrent with the process changes, and following the final report of the Committee, the Board took the step of authorizing the creation of a Child Protective Systems Oversight Committee (CPS Oversight Committee). The Board charged the CPS Oversight Committee with the responsibility for providing

community oversight of child protective systems, including preparing annual reports to the Board on the outcomes and effectiveness of the system, and any recommendations for policy and program changes.

The CPS Oversight Committee investigated 13 critical incidents and one near fatality between 1997 and 2007 related to families or children who were known to CPS either through referrals or cases. During these years, the CPS Oversight Committee issued eight reports with 281

recommendations for improvement to CPS services. Despite the efforts of the CPS Oversight Committee, however, CPS continued to attract negative public attention between 1996 and 2008 and experienced criticism from other review organizations. For instance, the Child Death Review Team (CDRT) issued a number of findings and recommendations directed at the County and CPS. CPS was also the subject of six Grand Jury reports between fiscal years 1996-97 and 2007-08. Additionally, the media continued to report on cases involving children known to CPS who were subsequently killed by their parents or guardians.

Beginning in late 2007 and continuing through the end of calendar year 2008, the number of fatalities relating to children or families who were known to CPS through referrals or cases began to rise sharply, increasing the negative public attention to CPS. From September 2007 to July 2008, seven children who were known or whose families were known to CPS were killed, and an additional three children who were known or whose families were known to CPS were killed between August 2008 and December 2008.

CPS was also subject to negative criticism from the media. The local newspaper published a series of articles investigating CPS’ operations and found that CPS had continued to fail to protect the most vulnerable children at the most basic level. The newspaper reported instances in which CPS had an active or recently closed referral or case that involved a child fatality. Subsequent articles described significant deficiencies with CPS operations, including failures by supervisors and managers related to case oversight, case files altered by staff after a child’s death, and missing or incomplete case files and information. Although, CPS initially downplayed some of the newspaper’s articles, reports of another child’s death involving a CPS case

triggered the County to authorize a review of CPS’ activities.

Scope and Methodology

The County awarded a contract to MGT to perform a review of CPS services. This review began in September 2008 and continued through February 2009. The scope of work focused on

evaluating CPS to determine whether it was adequately and sufficiently providing services to families and children to allow it to meet its mission. The review targeted areas that may have been involved in cases or referrals pertaining to child fatalities and did not include analyses of some programs within CPS, such as adoptions, licensing, and permanent placement.

The MGT team reviewed the division’s organizational structure and work-flow processes in four areas: Intake and Emergency Services; Family Maintenance and Informal Supervision; Court Services and Dependent Intake; and Family Reunification. Our work included conducting

interviews and focus groups of CPS staff throughout the organization. In addition, we conducted an on-line, confidential survey of all CPS staff to obtain input regarding various resources and activities within the division. We tabulated the survey results and interview comments and used this information, along with our observations, review of documentation, and analysis of

processes to identify possible findings and recommendations for inclusion in our report. For those items that seemed to indicate weaknesses or obstacles for the division, we substantiated those concerns through our focus group discussions with supervisors, review of CPS’ data and statewide child welfare statistical data, review of child fatality cases, and review of the division’s policies and procedures. We also interviewed staff who provided us with their direct contact information and who were willing to participate in follow-up discussions to obtain perspective on selected issues. Because these staff self-identified and volunteered for interviews, we note that the interviewees do not represent a random or statistical sample of all CPS staff.

We compared the policies and procedures for the County with those used by a sample of other, comparable, counties in California. Our review of the policies and procedures focused on addressing various issues, including the extent to which CPS’ policies and procedures were current, comprehendible, reliable, effective, and optimal. In addition, we conducted data comparisons for the County against the selected counties and the state, using information related to death rates and outcomes, caseload ratios and funding, and use of technology. We identified any strategies needed for implementation of recommendations, including any necessary changes in staffing levels and funding to enact the recommendations and future planning for expected population growth. We also reviewed “best practices” and benchmarks of measurements in comparable agencies and California counties and recommended a strategy to employ them in Sacramento County.

We obtained and analyzed caseload levels to determine what, if any, impact the levels have had on work quality and performance. Within existing caseload levels, our team identified, to the extent possible, what realistically can be achieved by line workers within established policies and procedures. We used this analysis in our evaluation of the division’s allocation of resources

to identify where, if any, staffing deficiencies or surpluses exist and to develop recommendations on how to correct them.

We conducted a detailed review of seven cases involving child fatalities. To the extent possible, we created a general profile of the children or families, and the employees involved in each critical incident in order to determine if there were any trends. However, due to concerns from the County over identifying specific case workers given the limited number of cases in the sample, we did not present data related to specific social workers in the report. We followed up on problem areas by identifying concerns with the training and level of supervision provided to each employee, including an analysis of the adequacy of training and supervisory support. We also reviewed, but at the County’s request did not report on, demographics related to the employees associated with the child fatality cases, as well as any performance issues noted for the employees on prior cases. The identification of performance issues came solely from our review of case files and quality assurance reports since we were not granted access to

employee files. Based on our analysis, we developed recommendations on the timeliness and quality of service provided, and whether or not adequate resources are made available to staff to best provide this service. These findings and recommendations are summarized in the following sections and described in detail throughout the report.

Overall Findings and Recommendations

Our review found that children and families in the Sacramento child welfare system are under-served and CPS is missing opportunities for improvements to protect children from abuse and neglect and to ensure that children have permanency and stability in their lives. In analyzing outcomes related to safety and permanency for children served by CPS, our team found that Sacramento has seen decreases in many key performance areas in recent years. We note that Sacramento is not the only county in California that has had decreased performance in outcome measures related to children’s safety and permanency. However, the scope of our review was not to determine deficiencies in operations for all counties—rather, our focus was solely on Sacramento’s performance and the results of its efforts to make improvements to its services for children and families in the region. The County’s performance across outcome measures, coupled with internal performance measures, leads us to conclude that CPS may not be adequately or sufficiently providing services to families and children to allow it to meet its mission, that its policies and procedures are not working when followed, and that actions taken to ameliorate findings have failed to result in measurable improvements to CPS operations. Our review of statistics created internally by CPS staff or published through the use of the Safe Measures data system by the County found that on many levels, the County is failing to provide timely services to the children and families it serves. Social workers are not using the SDM risk and safety assessment tools for all referrals for which these tools are required. Furthermore, the social workers often complete the tools late in those instances in which they are being used. Research has found that counties implementing SDM had significant improvements in children and family outcomes. By accurately classifying families according to the level of risk, an organization can also more selectively focus its resources.

Our discussions with supervisors and social workers found that morale levels are low and frustration levels are high within the division. The current structure and requirements contained within this system are such that social workers cannot fulfill all required functions. Staff at all levels lack access to comprehensive formal guidelines. Social workers and supervisors struggle to work in a system that is overly dependent on paper-based and manual systems rather than making better use of the technology and data systems CPS currently has. Social workers and

staff we talked to demonstrated a great deal of dedication and commitment to helping families and children. Many social workers and supervisors work far more than the expected 40 hours per week in an effort to provide as many services and to help as many families as they can. Unfortunately, their efforts are often hampered by a system that places a higher emphasis on documentation and deskwork than on children and fieldwork.

In our review, we did not find that CPS is failing to help all or the majority of children and families that it serves. CPS investigates a large number of referrals and provides services to a large number of children and families in the region. However, the current CPS requirements and operating structure hamper its ability to provide child welfare services effectively and efficiently. Moreover, inconsistent procedures and failure to follow best practices have resulted in negative outcomes for some children in the County’s child welfare system. Utilizing poor practices has also resulted in families and children not receiving the best services to meet their needs.

Consequently, the issues within these families that brought them into the child welfare system in the first place may continue to be unaddressed, leaving children at risk. Improving CPS

operations and processes is imperative if the County is to address these issues and optimize its service delivery to families and children in the future.

The number of critical incidents—fatalities or near fatalities of children who were known to CPS through cases or referrals that were open or closed within six months of the incident—has increased dramatically in the most recent year. Between 1997 and mid-2007, the CPS Oversight Committee investigated 13 critical incidents (12 fatalities and one near-fatality) of children who were known to CPS at the time of the incident. However, between September 2007 and July 2008, there were seven critical incidents, along with an additional three incidents that occurred between August 2008 and December 2008. This brings the total in a 15-month period to ten critical incidents—a substantial increase in the occurrence of these tragic events over the prior ten years.

Our review of seven fatality cases that had open or recently opened CPS cases or referrals found procedural deficiencies in all cases. In all seven cases, social workers failed to comply with one or more of the division’s requirements related to referral investigation and/or case management. These failures include inadequate or inappropriate use of the Structured Decision Making (SDM) tool for risk or safety assessments, failure to complete the SDM tool, inadequate case documentation, inadequate follow-up or attempts to corroborate statements made by parents or children, and delays in transferring or handing off cases between bureaus. In four of the cases, the process deficiencies resulted in CPS missing clear opportunities to offer services to the family and/or possibly remove the child from the unsafe situations that led to the child’s death.

CPS has seen increases in higher risk referrals and program caseloads in selected programs. Caseloads are increasing to the point that in many instances, it is not possible for social workers to carry out all required activities for the children assigned to them. We found that management did not appropriately address increases in caseloads. CPS needs to perform contingency planning to allow it to proactively address workload shifts, rather than managing case spikes reactively. Having a contingency plan would also set expectations for staff and also ensure that the division is prepared to handle large influxes of cases or referrals.

Increases in caseloads are exacerbated by CPS’ high absentee and vacancy rate for its social worker classifications. These vacancies and absences result in a shift of caseload onto other social workers or programs, impacting the division’s ability to deliver quality services. During a three month period we reviewed, social worker absentee rates division-wide averaged over 12

percent, and two programs—Emergency Response and Team Decision Making—averaged more than 18 percent absenteeism during these months. Moreover, CPS’ vacancy rates have increased in recent years. Combining vacancy and absentee rates, we found that most program areas within CPS averaged more than a 25 percent rate of missed work. Consequently, staff in these units who were available and working had to take on an increasing number of cases flowing into the system, as well as make up for the hours that were not worked by others. Further adding to the problem is Sacramento’s high turnover rates. Average statewide turnover rates in a 2006 study by the Child Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) ranged between 10.6 and 18.4 percent depending on the social worker’s classification (entry level, journey level, or professional level). Turnover rates within the Sacramento CPS exceeded the reported amounts. In the most recent fiscal year (2007-08), CPS’ average turnover rate for all programs was 22 percent, with some units, such as Family Reunification, as high as 30 percent. The County incurs significant fiscal costs related to CPS social worker turnover. Estimates by the CWDA reported that the cost of turnover is approximately $9,500 per employee who leaves. Reducing turnover and increasing retention is thus a key strategy to realize fiscal savings for the County; especially critical given the County’s current economic situation.

We benchmarked CPS caseloads against ratios in the funding levels by the state and found that some Sacramento workers are carrying case loads that are more than double the

recommended and funded levels of children. The trend over the past year has been for case-carrying social workers to have a larger number of cases. Carrying a high number of cases can effectively result in social workers being set up for failure, by not having the ability or time to manage all assigned cases.

In part, low staff morale and high frustration levels may be due to CPS’ failure to provide

adequate resources and guidance to support staff in their work. Staff at all levels lack access to comprehensive formal guidelines. Further, social workers and supervisors struggle to work in a system that is overly dependent on paper-based and manual systems rather than making better use of the technology and data systems CPS currently has.

CPS documents its policies and procedures in a series of guideline documents. Our team found numerous deficiencies in reviewing these guidelines. The division guidelines contain a mix of policies and procedures without clearly defining or differentiating between the two. CPS has a large number and quantity of pages in its documented guidelines compared to some other counties. Many of these guidelines are outdated and duplicated other guideline documents. The County’s guidelines for its social workers contain 167 policies spanning more than 1,300 pages. Over 60 percent of these guidelines were last created or updated more than five years ago. CPS’s existing guidelines include a mix of outdated or conflicting guidance, caused, for example, when the division created a new guideline without revoking or amending a prior guideline document related to the same procedure. CPS’s guideline documents also include redundant or duplicate steps in some instances and fail to document key steps or requirements in other instances. CPS lacks a systematic process to periodically review and update policies and procedures for changes to legislation, regulations, or best practices. It appears that in many cases, as it has identified the need for changes to existing guidelines, CPS simply issued new guidelines or program information notices without rescinding or modifying prior documents. Our review of procedures actually used by CPS staff found a high number of handoffs and a large dependence on paper documentation, which hamper the expedient movement of cases and referrals through the system. Lacking clear guidance, staff and supervisors decide which of

the required activities they will perform. Furthermore, inconsistent written guidelines that are often contradictory, duplicative, or outdated hampered our ability to determine whether policies and procedures work when followed, because the department lacks a consistent set of policies and procedures.

Having multiple handoffs means that the division has a built-in learning curve time required for each social worker to familiarize herself or himself with the case and prior activities. This could be ameliorated with adequate communication between the past and current social workers. However, given increasing caseloads and documentation requirements, in many instances there is minimal contact or discussion between social workers in different bureaus related to case handoff. This has resulted in tension between the programs, which hampers the ability of CPS staff to work together to offer the best services possible to children and families. This tension has only increased in recent months as formerly mandatory meetings (“hand-to-hand” meetings) between the prior and new social workers for case transfers have been suspended.

CPS has multiple paper documents required for case management. These documents may or may not ultimately appear in the Child Welfare Services Case Management System

(CWS/CMS). Therefore, social workers who are not the primary workers on the case or who are waiting for the hard-copy case file to be transported to them do not have full access to all

information related to the case. As a result, they may either duplicate procedures already being performed or fail to perform action steps required for the family. Additionally, most of the paper documents require an approval by a supervisor, and in some instances by a program manager. Because the division lacks a process for transmitting and tracking these documents

electronically, there are hundreds of paper documents at any given time circulating throughout the division with no formal tracking process. Staff and supervisors reported a great deal of frustration when documents are lost, delayed, or returned to the wrong person.

CPS has processes that are not adding value or that require a great deal of manual or duplicative steps. These problem areas include the staff meeting process, which requires a large amount of paperwork and documentation, much of which could be documented in the electronic data system. Additionally, we found that Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings are not resulting in significant value to the division and have resulted in the division under-utilizing some social workers.

Taken as a whole, the division’s processes result in it placing more emphasis and focus on documentation and desk-work activities than it does on meeting with children and families and performing out-of-office fieldwork. This focus does not result in the best services for children and families and does not ensure social workers can give the support to families that is needed to reunify or end CPS involvement safely and promptly.

In looking at prior external reviews, we found that CPS has failed to adequately address ongoing and recurring issues and recommendations by the CPS Oversight Committee, the primary external reviewer of CPS for the past several years. Since 1996, the CPS Oversight Committee has issued eight reports and 281 recommendations. Although CPS has reported implementing many action items, the majority of the issues identified by the CPS Oversight Committee have continued to be reported from year to year, and continue to persist within the division’s current practices. Moreover, many of the CPS Oversight Committee’s

recommendations have been mirrored in the six Sacramento County Grand Jury reports issued between fiscal years 1996-97 and 2007-08.

CPS management has not disagreed with the findings in the CPS Oversight Committee reports, and in many instances has acknowledged that the problems exist and that it intends to find solutions. In fact, CPS management has implemented a large number of action steps to attempt to resolve deficiencies and findings. However, these actions have failed to result in substantive changes and improvements to service delivery. In general, it appears that most of

management’s solutions are short-term in nature or involve creating, but not necessarily

implementing, new policies or procedures. In other cases, these solutions are quickly overridden by staff’s actions, especially when the new requirements add to already high workloads. CPS does not appear to be effectively tracking the implementation status of its action plan items. CPS’ action items do not contain timelines, responsible staff, start and end dates, or steps to measure the results of its actions. Therefore, not only does CPS lack data on the effectiveness of its actions, it also lacks a means to determine which recommendations staff have actually implemented.

In part, CPS’ problems with addressing issues stems from executive management (division managers and the deputy director) not functioning as strategic leaders within the division. Issues related to child fatalities in recent years have resulted in executive managers spending a large portion of their time reviewing cases and unit metrics—tasks better suited for program managers or supervisors. Communication issues and staff resistance have also played a role in CPS’ failure to implement recommendations and make substantive changes within the

organization. CPS executive managers will need to address and remedy communication gaps at all levels if they are to successfully implement fixes to the system and improve outcomes for children and families.

It appears that given the number of cases and children served by CPS compared to expectations established by the state in funding child welfare services, CPS may need additional staff. However, determining the number of staff required by CPS and for which programs is difficult to estimate. This is because the inefficiencies in the current system contribute greatly to the amount of work social workers must perform. Bringing in more social workers without addressing process deficiencies and lack of clear guidelines could result in CPS paying for a larger number of staff who are not providing timely or compliant services to children and families. These actions could also result in increase costs to the County as social workers become frustrated with working in a broken system and subsequently leave the division. The County therefore needs to combine exploring ways to address issues with CPS lacking sufficient staff in conjunction with making system improvements to better retain existing staff. CPS also has a continuing problem with obtaining sufficient technology and resources for staff to effectively and efficiently perform their jobs. The division needs technology that allows social workers to document case notes and findings and perform risk assessments while in the field. CPS’ manual process that must be used to obtain vehicles is frustrating for social workers. Social workers also expressed concern with the quality of the vehicles available to them. Given the large geographic area and number of children served, cars are experiencing a high degree of wear and tear, resulting in shorter than expected life spans. Social workers reported feeling unsafe in cars and experiencing frequent breakdowns while in County vehicles. Given the high usage and large geographic area, it may be beneficial for CPS to consider contracting with the County for additional vehicles, using lower paid staff as “runners” to obtain vehicles for social workers at their field offices, and reviewing replacement policies related to vehicles to determine if the policy should be modified.

Finally, CPS has opportunities to improve its coordination with other governmental agencies and not-for-profit organizations. Building on and strengthening partnerships with other organizations

would allow CPS to foster the strengths of these groups and leverage their resources to help families and children in the community.

Given the nature and extent of the issues, we found that CPS needs to take significant efforts to address the findings. It will need to undertake a comprehensive plan of action to restructure its policies and procedures, reallocate staff based on identified needs and caseloads, train staff on the proper use of available resources and tools, and analyze technology and resource needs to ensure staff have the resources available to do their jobs. We are concerned that CPS has had a number of years to correct problem areas identified internally and by external agencies, but has consistently failed to fully address these recurring issues in ways that result in meaningful and substantive changes. The County needs to strongly consider bringing in external assistance to lead the change development efforts and to ensure that the action steps taken have clear, measurable goals. These steps will help the County oversee the efforts made by CPS to remedy the areas of concern. Although the County is experiencing a large budget deficit, we believe that CPS has opportunities to achieve cost reductions by implementing the

Project Background

Introduction

This chapter describes the project background, including the scope and methodology used by our team to evaluate the Sacramento County (County) Child Protective Services division (CPS or division).

Project Background

A number of issues led to the request by the County to review CPS’ activities. In this section, we present the issues leading up to the County’s request for a comprehensive review of CPS and its services.

CPS began its time in the public spotlight in 1996 following the hospitalization of a young child, Adrian Conway. Adrian Conway’s family had previously been investigated by CPS. However, the division had closed the case in 1995 after determining the child’s risk to be “moderate.” Responding to the negative public attention generated after a newspaper investigation

described the child’s death and CPS involvement, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (Board) called for a full investigation and announced plans to convene a panel of independent experts to examine what went wrong in the case. The primary charge of this Critical Case Investigation Committee (Committee) was to examine this specific case and to determine whether any systemic problems existed with the child protective system. Adrian Conway subsequently died from his injuries during the time the County was forming the Committee. In May 1996, the Committee issued its report, concluding that CPS had leaned too strongly towards keeping troubled families together, leaving children at risk. The Committee issued 43 findings and 35 recommendations. In June 1996, the Grand Jury (Grand Jury) also issued a report of its investigation of CPS activities. In this report, the Grand Jury noted that CPS had improperly evaluated the Adrian Conway referral and that supervisors had failed to catch the social worker’s error. The Grand Jury noted that the explanation for the failure appeared to be case overload as well as a misguided emphasis on trying to unify a totally dysfunctional family. In July 1996, the Board approved policy changes recommended by the Committee and Grand Jury to amend the way CPS monitored and investigated abuse cases.

In 1997, after another child fatality in which CPS had closed the case as “moderate-to-low” risk, the Board issued additional policies mandating that CPS staff become more aggressive in removing children from homes with known drug abuse. The Board also added 58 CPS staff positions to deal with the demands of removing children from drug-abusing homes.

Implementing these changes led to the County’s foster care population increasing from approximately 5,500 children in 1998 to almost 6,000 children in 2000. In 2001, given the increase in children in foster care, the Sacramento County Grand Jury asked the County to assess whether its new policy emphasizing child safety was working, or if officials needed to return to the practice of helping troubled families stay together. After studying the matter, the Board decided to make no policy changes, wanting to continue to emphasize child safety over family reunification.

Concurrently with the process changes, and following the final report of the Committee, the Board took the step of authorizing the creation of a Child Protective Systems Oversight

with the responsibility for providing community oversight of child protective systems, including preparing annual reports to the Board on the outcomes and effectiveness of the system, and any recommendations for policy and program changes.

The CPS Oversight Committee investigates critical incidents (fatalities involving families or children who were known to CPS either through referrals or cases), and issues reports to the Board. The reports contain findings related to the critical incidents and a series of

recommendations for improvement to CPS activities. Between 1996 and 2008, the CPS Oversight Committee issued eight reports and made 281 recommendations.

Despite the efforts of the CPS Oversight Committee, CPS continued to attract negative public attention between 1996 and 2008. CPS experienced criticism from other review organizations, such as the Child Death Review Team (CDRT)—a collaborative inter-agency team that

investigates, analyzes, and documents the circumstances that led to all child deaths in

Sacramento County. The CDRT issued a number of findings and recommendations directed at the County and CPS. CPS was also the subject of six Grand Jury reports between fiscal years 1996-97 and 2007-08. Additionally, the media continued to report on cases involving children known to CPS who were subsequently killed by their parents or guardians.

Excluding the Adrian Conway case, between 1997 and 2007, the CPS Oversight Committee investigated 13 critical incidents and one near fatality related to families or children who were known to CPS either through referrals or cases. Beginning in late 2007 through the end of calendar year 2008, the number of fatalities relating to children or families who were known to CPS through referrals or cases began to rise sharply, bringing a great deal of negative public attention to CPS. Between September 2007 and July 2008, seven children who were known or whose families were known to CPS were killed, and an additional three children who were known or whose families were known to CPS were killed between August 2008 and December 2008. In June 2008, the Sacramento Bee published a series of articles entitled “Unprotected” concerning CPS operations. The investigation found that more than a decade after the Adrian Conway murder and investigation, CPS had continued to fail to protect the most vulnerable children at the most basic level. Over the course of several weeks, the newspaper reported additional instances in which CPS had an active or recently closed referral or case that involved a child fatality.

In subsequent articles, the Sacramento Bee also described significant deficiencies with CPS operations, including failures by supervisors and managers related to case oversight; case files altered by staff after a child’s death; and missing or incomplete case files and information. Initially, CPS downplayed some of the series’ findings, stating it was unfair to compare

Sacramento’s results with those of other large counties. However, after another death occurred involving a CPS case, the County authorized a review of CPS’ activities, including policies and procedures.

Scope and Methodology

In August 2008, MGT responded to the County’s request to conduct a review of CPS services. The County awarded a contract to MGT to perform these services. This review began in

September 2008 and continued through January 2009. Our scope of work for this project was to evaluate CPS to determine whether it was adequately and sufficiently providing services to families and children to allow it to meet its mission. Because the primary focus was on identifying issues that may have contributed to child fatalities, we excluded from our review several programs within CPS, including adoptions, licensing, and permanent placement.

Our team conducted a variety of tests and procedures in conducting the review and gathering data to support our findings and recommendations. First, our team held a number of interviews with staff and stakeholders to identify key issues, trends, goals, expectations, objectives, procedures, and service delivery goals relevant to CPS operations. We interviewed, among others, members of the CPS Oversight Committee and its Critical Incident Review Committee; representatives on the CDRT; CPS supervisors; CPS staff; CPS executive managers; and union representatives.

We performed a detailed case review of seven cases in Sacramento County from fiscal year 2007-08 involving child fatalities and for which either an open CPS referral or case existed, or had recently been closed prior to the child’s death. Due to the confidential nature of CPS case and referral files, CPS and the County declined to provide us with access to the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) to allow us to identify the cases for review. Therefore, we relied on CPS to identify the fatality cases for our review. Once CPS had identified the group of cases, the Sacramento County Office of the County Counsel (County Counsel) filed petitions with the Sacramento County Juvenile Court to request access to the case files. The County Counsel also provided required notifications to the parents or guardians of the children for whom we were requesting case files. After the Juvenile Court approved the petitions, CPS prepared redacted copies of the requested case files for our review.

Our team reviewed demographics associated with the children and families for each case as well as the demographics of the social workers assigned to the referrals or cases. We also reviewed the cases in conjunction with reviewing CPS policies and procedures to determine if CPS workers had complied with best practices and required policies of the division. In cases where we had questions related to social workers’ activities, we followed-up with the appropriate CPS executive managers or administrative staff. Initially, we planned on interviewing the social workers and supervisors involved with these cases. However, the Sacramento County

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and County Counsel raised concerns that interviewing these staff may not be appropriate as the interviews could conflict with ongoing personnel actions and cause concerns with the unions representing the employees. Therefore, at the County’s direction, we did not interview the staff or supervisors directly about these cases.

Next, we reviewed reports from the CPS Oversight Committee and the CDRT related to child abuse and neglect fatalities over the past eight fiscal years. We used these reports to identify ongoing and recurring issues and recommendations, and followed-up with division staff on any items that have continued to be problems for several years. We also reviewed the quality assurance (QA) reports created by CPS related to each of the child fatality cases that we reviewed.

Our team reviewed the division’s organizational structure and work-flow processes through a variety of tasks. To diagram the work flows, we conducted a series of focus groups with CPS supervisors in four areas: Intake and Emergency Services; Family Maintenance and Informal Supervision; Court Services and Dependent Intake; and Family Reunification. During the focus groups, MGT mapped out the case and referral work flows and identified issues of concern or items that prevent cases or referrals from moving as smoothly as possible. MGT identified in its maps critical decision-making points in the processes and any service gaps. After developing the maps and initial issues list, MGT met with the supervisors to vet the maps and issues lists and to verify that our understanding was correct.

Due to the limited amount of time available to conduct the review, we did not interview all CPS staff. However, we did initiate an on-line, confidential survey of all CPS staff to obtain input regarding various resources and activities within the division. We relied on CPS executive management to notify CPS staff of the on-line survey. Ultimately, we received 288 responses to the survey—a response rate of 29.4 percent of CPS’ 981 employees. We tabulated the survey results and used the resulting tables and graphs, as well as employee comments to identify possible findings and recommendations for inclusion in our report. For those items that seemed to indicate weaknesses or obstacles for the division, we verified the survey results through our focus group discussions with supervisors, our review of CPS and University of California Berkeley-provided data, our review of child fatality cases, and our review of the division’s policies and procedures. We also interviewed staff who provided us with their direct contact information and who were willing to participate in follow-up discussions to obtain perspective on selected issues. Because these staff self-identified and volunteered for interviews, we note that the interviewees do not represent a random or statistical sample of all CPS staff.

We reviewed the hiring, training, and supervision practices within the division by examining division policies and procedures, employee minimum qualifications by job type, and training requirements. We also followed-up on any problem areas with executive managers,

supervisors, and CPS staff.

Our team performed a thorough review of policies and procedures in place at CPS, as well as the Corrective Action Plans resulting from critical incidents. The review included the following activities:

♦ Analyzing the practical application of each policy in child fatalities during fiscal year 2007-08, with specific attention to those policies that staff did follow, as well as failed to follow, and any patterns regarding these cases.

♦ Identifying barriers to the successful application of policies.

♦ Reporting on the status and implementation of activities called for in the Corrective Action Plans for critical incidents, as well as any barriers to the successful

implementation of any recommended corrective actions.

We compared the policies and procedures for the County with those used by a sample of other, comparable, counties in California. These comparison counties were selected based on the size and demographics of the counties, as well as the identification of counties leading in “best practices” related to child welfare services. The counties selected for comparison with Sacramento County were San Joaquin, Fresno, Santa Clara, and San Diego counties. Our review of the policies and procedures was developed to allow us to answer the following questions:

♦ Does the division have policies and procedures that are reliable?

♦ Is there an adequate management control system for measuring, reporting, and monitoring a program’s policies and procedures?

♦ Is there duplication of effort by employees and procedures that serve little or no purpose?

♦ Are effective operating procedures in place?

♦ Is there consistency in interpretation and application of the policies and procedures?

♦ Are the policies and procedures in need of revision?

♦ Are policies and procedures working when followed?

♦ Is the division using the optimum amount of resources (staff, equipment, and facilities) in producing or delivering the appropriate quantity and quality of services in a timely

manner?

♦ Based on a review of the division’s approach to new and proposed legislation impacting the business of the division, is there a proactive approach and adequate advocacy in the legislative process, and is there adequate planning and preparation for the changes enacted by the legislature?

We conducted data comparisons for the County against selected counties and the state, using information related to death rates and outcomes (such as permanency); caseload ratios and funding; and use of technology. We identified any strategies needed for implementation of recommendations, including any necessary changes in staffing levels and funding to enact the recommendations and future planning for expected population growth. We also reviewed “best practices” and benchmarks of measurements in comparable agencies and California counties and recommended a strategy to employ them in Sacramento County.

We obtained and analyzed caseload levels to determine what, if any, impact the levels have had on work quality and performance. Within existing caseload levels, our team identified, to the extent possible, what realistically can be achieved by line workers within established policies and procedures. We used this analysis in our evaluation of the division’s allocation of resources to identify where, if any, staffing deficiencies or surpluses exist and to develop

recommendations on how to correct them. We considered staffing levels, staff deployment, and the use of temporary employees and consultants, workload, shifting priorities, demands for service, response time, job descriptions, division organization, and management. We also reviewed vacancy reports and staff-leave statistics as part of this review.

To the extent possible, we created a general profile of the employees involved in each critical incident in order to determine if there are any trends. However, due to concerns from the County over identifying specific case workers given the limited number of cases in the sample, we did not present data related to specific social workers in the report. We did follow-up on problem areas by identifying concerns with the training and level of supervision provided to each employee, including an analysis of the adequacy of training and supervisory support. We also reviewed, but at the County’s request did not report on, demographics related to the employees associated with the child fatality cases, as well as any performance issues noted for the

employees on prior cases. The identification of performance issues came solely from our review of case files and QA reports since we were not granted access to employee files.

Finally, based on the work described above, we developed recommendations on the timeliness and quality of service provided, and whether or not adequate resources are made available to staff to best provide this service. We documented all study findings, conclusions, and

recommendations in a formal written report.

In December 2008, as we neared the end of our fieldwork, we met with both the County and CPS executive managers in separate meetings to discuss our draft findings. We also met again with the County and CPS executive managers in January 2009, holding separate meetings to discuss the findings and recommendations in our draft report. At the conclusion of the meetings

with CPS, we requested additional data and documents based on CPS executive managers’ response to our draft findings. CPS provided these in early January 2009.

To solicit input from the CPS executive managers, we provided the deputy director and her division managers with a copy of the draft report and gave them 27 calendar days to review and comment on the report. At the end of this review period, CPS provided its response in the form of four binders containing over 2,100 pages of material. The majority of the documents provided by CPS were not germane to our review and did not provide any additional information that changed the context of our findings and recommendations. For example, we reported on CPS’ difficulties in forming and building on partnerships and linkages with community-based

organizations and other governmental entities serving much of its population. Our report addresses problems in CPS’ relationship with agencies such as the County Department of Mental Health or the Department of Health Services. However, in its response, CPS provided more than 1,800 pages of copies of agreements with foster family agencies and vendors that were unrelated to the types of partnerships referenced in our finding.

After reviewing CPS’ response, we provided the County and CPS with a revised report and a summary table that addressed each of the comments and identified any edits we made to the report then requested the County and CPS to provide a formal written response to address the findings and recommendations in the report. We met with the County and CPS in a joint meeting in mid-March 2009. The County and CPS provided verbal comments at this meeting that we considered in drafting the final report. At the end of the comment period, neither the County nor CPS provided additional written comments or changes. Therefore, at the conclusion of this process, we prepared and presented the final report to the County.

Description of the Child Protective Services

Processes

Introduction

To appreciate the significance of the findings and recommendations, one must understand the separate processes carried out by staff within CPS. This chapter describes the main processes at a high level. For a detailed description of each process, please see Appendix A, which is a pictorial representation of some of the County’s child welfare processes.

Child Welfare System in California and Sacramento County

In California, almost a half a million children come to the attention of child welfare officials via reports of suspected abuse or neglect each year. On any given day, more than 100,000 children are active in the child welfare system. That is, one or more counties in

California are maintaining an active case or referral and/or providing services to these children and their families.

Child welfare services are provided by a variety of agencies and organizations. Federal, state, and county governmental organizations, Juvenile Courts, and private social service agencies all play a part in administering and overseeing child welfare services. The basic philosophical tenets of child welfare services in California are as follows:

♦ A safe and permanent home and family is the best place for a child to grow up.

♦ Child welfare services activities are most likely to succeed when clients are involved and actively participating in the process.

♦ When parents cannot, or will not, fulfill their responsibilities to protect their children, the state has the right and obligation to intervene directly on the child’s behalf.

California has a state-supervised and county-administered child welfare system. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) is responsible for designing and overseeing an array of programs and services for California’s at-risk families and children. Among other services, CDSS provides education and outreach related to child abuse prevention; helps to develop family strengthening approaches to children’s services, such as wraparound services, family unity models, and best practices guidelines; and develops and monitors

county performance metrics related to child welfare services. Individual counties are responsible for administering the child welfare services within their geographic boundaries.

As shown in Exhibit I-1 on the following page, there are a number of County organizations that oversee, administer, or provide input into the child welfare services process in the County. CPS is a division in the County’s DHHS, which is in turn a department of the Sacramento Countywide

Child Welfare Services Participants

Federal: The U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services— Administration of Children, Youth, and Families provides oversight of state child welfare services and foster care programs.

State: The CDSS supervises

county administration of child welfare system and foster care programs through statute, regulation, policy, and compliance reviews.

County: Social services

agencies comply with federal and state requirements and provide child welfare services and foster care programs. Each county’s Juvenile Court system determines if the child needs protection, and, if so, removes responsibility for care from the parents and assigns custody and care responsibilities to the social services department.

Services Agency. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (Board) oversees the County Executive and the public services agencies, including DHHS and CPS.

Exhibit I-1—Sacramento County Organizations Involved in Providing or Overseeing Child Welfare Services SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTYWIDE SERVICES AGENCY Sacramento County Department of Health and

Human Services

Sacramento County Division of Child Protective Services

(CPS)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO COUNTY

Sacramento County Juvenile Court Sacramento Child Protective

Systems Oversight Committee

Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento Child Death Review Team

Reports annually to the County on child fatalities that had CPS

involvement.

Juvenile Court has authority over dependent children. CPS carries out court orders and reports on

family progress with case plans. Annually reviews child fatalities

with CPS involvement.

Reports annually to the county on all child fatalities,

including those with CPS involvement.

CPS is responsible for carrying out state and federal initiatives, and overseeing child welfare in the County. Among other tasks, CPS is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect, and for providing a variety of services to keep children safe and to strengthen families. CPS also recruits and trains foster parents, acts as an adoption agency, and licenses family day-care homes. The mission of CPS is to achieve the well being of children in the community by protecting children, strengthening families, providing permanent homes, and building community partnerships.

In addition to CPS, the Juvenile Court also plays a role in protecting children. The Juvenile Court system has ultimate authority over outcomes for children and families. The court serves as an independent judge of fact; its role is to protect the rights of all interested parties and to ensure that each child has a permanent home. The Juvenile Court decides if children will remain in foster care, and whether (and when) they will return to their parents.

Several other agencies assist in monitoring and reporting on CPS activities in Sacramento. First, the state Welfare and Institutions Code authorizes counties to establish review teams to receive information related to child abuse or relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of child abuse. In November 1988, the Board directed the Child Abuse Prevention Council of Sacramento, Inc. to develop and coordinate an interagency team to investigate child abuse and neglect fatalities. After a year of planning, the CDRT was initiated in November 1989. The CDRT meets monthly to review deaths of all children under the age of 18 in the County. The team identifies the deaths from the Vital Records Unit of DHHS. Members of the team

include representatives from the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, the Sacramento City Police and Fire Departments, DHHS, the

Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, and local hospitals. The CDRT issues an annual report to the Board related to each child’s death, with an assessment of what contributing factors existed and what recommendations, if any, exist to prevent similar deaths in the future. To the extent that the team identifies issues with service delivery provided by any of the County’s agencies, departments, or divisions, it presents recommendations for improvements related to these findings. Between 2000 and 2005, the majority of the CDRT’s findings and recommendations related to County activities as a whole and tangentially to CPS. However, in its 2006 report, the CDRT issued six recommendations directly related to CPS.

Additionally, as discussed earlier in the project background section of this report, in February 1996, the Sacramento County Executive convened a Critical Case Investigation Committee in response to the child abuse and neglect death of Adrian Conway. The primary charge of this Committee was to examine this specific case and to determine whether any systemic problems existed with the child protective systems. Following the final report of this committee in May 1996, the Board authorized the creation of the CPS Oversight Committee. The Board charged the CPS Oversight Committee with the responsibility for providing community oversight of child protective systems, including preparation of an annual report to the Board on the outcomes and effectiveness of the system, and any recommendations for policy and program changes. The CPS Oversight Committee consists of members from the Sacramento area who are employed in a variety of occupations and who possess a wide range of expertise related to children’s issues. Members include representatives from the Sacramento County Children’s Coalition, Sacramento County DHHS, law enforcement, education, District Attorney’s office, medical profession, and mental health, as well as foster parents. Annually, the CPS Oversight Committee investigates critical incidents (fatalities involving families or children who were known to CPS either through referrals or cases), and issues a report to the Board. The reports contain findings related to the critical incidents and a series of recommendations for improvement to CPS activities. Since 1996, the CPS Oversight Committee has issued eight reports and made 281 recommendations.

Description of the Child Protective Services Process

The County’s involvement in children’s lives typically begins with a phone call or letter sent to the CPS hotline (Intake) unit. Intake workers process referrals from the general public as well as from mandated reporters, and determine whether the allegation of abuse or neglect meets the division’s standards for acceptance of the referral.1

Intake workers determine whether there is sufficient information for them to process allegations as referrals. Intake social workers try to determine the answers to key questions, such as the following:

♦ Is the child in imminent danger?

1

Mandated reporters are those people who have a special relationship or contact with children or the home such as teachers, counselors, or law enforcement and who are legally required to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse or neglect.

♦ What is the risk of maltreatment?

♦ Does the suspected child abuse meet the legal definition of abuse or neglect?

♦ Is an in-person response required and, if so, how quickly?

Intake staff report allegations as “information only” if insufficient information exists to conduct an investigation, or refer the allegation out to another County organization or entity if it does not fall within CPS parameters. If the Intake workers determine that an in-person investigation is

appropriate, they assign a response time based on state and local criteria. This requires them to determine that either an immediate response is called for (an in-person contact with the family within 24 hours, although Sacramento attempts to make contact within two hours), or a ten-day response is appropriate (an in-person contact with the family within ten calendar days of the referral).

After the referral is accepted and assigned to an Emergency Response social worker, the Emergency Response staff begin investigating the referral and attempting to make contact with the child and family members. Social workers gather information from their interviews as well as from collateral contacts (discussions with doctors, teachers, witnesses, neighbors, and relatives, among others). The social worker also uses the Structured Decision Making (SDM) assessment tools to weigh the safety and risk to the child. The social worker can designate referrals as low, moderate, high, or very high-risk depending on the investigation and the results of the SDM assessments.

Using the information gathered, the social worker makes one of three determinations for the referral:

♦ Unfounded: The report is determined to be false, inherently improbable, to involve accidental injury, or not constitute child abuse as defined in the law.

♦ Substantiated: The report is based on credible evidence and constitutes child abuse and/or neglect.

♦ Inconclusive: The findings are inconclusive and there is insufficient evidence to determine whether child abuse and/or neglect have occurred.

If the social worker deems the report of child maltreatment to be unfounded or finds that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the maltreatment occurred, he or she closes the case. Based on the conclusion and the severity of the abuse or neglect, the social worker will determine an appropriate response for families for which it has substantiated abuse or neglect. If the social worker finds that the parents do not pose an immediate and high risk of maltreating their child the social worker can decide to leave the child at home and offer caregivers up to 30 days of emergency response services or up to six months of voluntary family maintenance services. At the end of these periods, the case is either closed or referred to juvenile dependency court if there is a new report of suspected child abuse or the social worker determines that the voluntary services have failed. If the parents refuse to voluntarily accept services, the social worker may leave the child at home and petition the court for an order to provide court-ordered family maintenance services.

If the social worker determines that the child cannot remain safely in the home, he or she must take immediate steps to remove and place the child in a safe environment. Social workers, with the assistance of law enforcement, can place children into protective custody (PC) for up to 48 hours if exigent circumstances exist. The term “exigent circumstances” encompasses a group of

related exceptions to probable cause and search warrant requirements. Government officials are required to obtain prior judicial authorization before intruding on a parent’s custody of his or her child unless they believe that exigent circumstances exist. Exigent circumstances are those circumstances that support a reasonable belief that there is an imminent and substantial threat to the child’s life or health. The determination of exigent circumstances is made on a case-by-case basis by the social worker and/or his or her supervisor. For children removed from the home under exigent circumstances, the social worker must file a Section 300 petition to the court within 48 hours of the child being taken into custody if the social worker feels that the intervention of the juvenile court is required.

If exigent circumstances do not exist, but the social worker has concerns about the child’s long-term health or safety in the home, the social worker can seek a protective custody warrant. Social workers first consult with their supervisors about the case to determine whether a protective custody warrant petition is required for the child. If the social worker and supervisor agree that they would like to seek a protective custody warrant, they consult with County Counsel to discuss the case and the support for the petition. If the County Counsel, social worker, and supervisor feel that adequate support exists, the social worker prepares a petition to the juvenile dependency court to request that the court grant a protective custody warrant. The Juvenile Court generally elects to approve the petition if it finds circumstances that cause harm or pose a serious risk of causing harm to a child exist. These circumstances are outlined in Section 300 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, and include, but are not limited to, the following circumstances:

♦ There is substantial danger to the child.

♦ A person residing in the home has sexually molested the child.

♦ The child is left without provision for his or her support.

♦ The parent or caretaker is unwilling to have physical custody of the child.

When the court approves the protective custody warrant it gives the social worker the authority to remove the child from the home. To declare dependency and formally place the child under the court’s jurisdiction, the court subsequently holds one or more of a series of hearings outlined in the Juvenile Court Process section. In doing so, the court determines the appropriate actions to take related to the child and his or her family.

The Emergency Response activities typically end when the referral is closed as unsubstantiated or inconclusive, when the case is accepted and transferred to a voluntary services unit (such as Informal Supervision), or when the child is placed into custody and the case is transferred to the Dependent Intake and Court Services unit.

Dependent Intake and Court Services

Dependent Intake social workers, who are part of the CPS Court Services program, process children who have been placed into protective custody, either by the courts or by social workers and law enforcement. Children are initially brought to one of two locations depending on their age and needs. At the intake facilities, the Dependent Intake social workers conduct a body check, assess the child’s need for urgent care, process children who meet the criteria to the University of California at Davis, Child and Adolescent Abuse, Resource, Evaluation (UCD CAARE) center for a medical exam as needed, and interview children on the circumstances

related to their removal. The Dependent Intake worker then places the child into his or her first temporary placement.

After processing a child into custody, the Dependent Intake worker provides case file and contact information to the Court Services unit. Court Services social workers are responsible for filing petitions with the court (if not already done so), and for investigating situations where other social workers have filed petitions with the Juvenile Court.

During the course of their investigation, Court Services staff gathers information about the parents, the family, the child, siblings, and the home. Based on the investigation results, the Court Services social worker prepares a report for the court. The report includes

recommendations about child placement during the time the child is a dependent of the court. Additionally, the social worker assists the family in developing a case plan to be presented to the court. The case plan is a plan of action to improve the situation that led up to the court’s involvement in the child’s life. The case plan can include parenting classes, individual counseling, family counseling, alcohol or drug treatment, visitation requirements, or other

programs and classes as needed. The court can choose to adopt the case plan in part or in total and can also elect to add requirements to the plan. The social worker then assists the family in obtaining the services that the court has determined to be necessary.

Juvenile Court Process

The Juvenile Court has the ultimate responsibility for outcomes for children and families. The court process involves a series of hearings and case reviews within specified time frames. Judges or court-appointed referees rely on assessments and information from social workers, service providers, and others to reach their decisions. They may appoint special child advocates and attorneys to represent the child, parent, and placement agency. The legal process is

ultimately intended to protect children through the use of the Court’s authority.

The court process begins when the social worker or law enforcement removes a child from his or her parents or when the social worker determines that court intervention is required. The social worker files a petition with the Juvenile Court to request that the Juvenile Court take the child under its jurisdiction and declare the child a dependent of the Court. Through a series of hearings, and depending on the safety needs of the child, the Court can leave the child in the care of the parents and order family maintenance services for the parents to address concerns. The Court can also place the child in out-of-home care as a necessary step to keep the child safe and order the family reunification services be provided to the parents to help them regain custody of the child. Following the filing of the WIC 300 petition and the detention or initial hearing, the Juvenile Court conducts additional hearings to determine whether the allegations are true, and, if true, whether Court jurisdiction is necessary.

The Juvenile Court relies on the social worker to provide case management for the family, to prepare service plans aimed at family reunification or alternative permanent placement, and find appropriate out-of-home placement that meets the child’s needs, among other services. The court obtains periodic updates from social workers via court reports and periodic hearings in compliance with statutory timeframes and requirements. Types of hearings and statutory timeframes are described below—it should be noted that not every child will need all of these hearings.