Older Youth Access to Foster Care

Older Youth Access to Foster Care GABRIEL PETEK LEGISLATIVE ANALYST MARCH 2019 Summary Supplemental Report Language (SRL) Required LAO to Report on Differences Accessing Foster Care for Older Youth Compared to Younger Youth. During deliberations on the 2018-19 budget package, the Legislature directed our office to review data about the reporting of child abuse and neglect—which we refer to as maltreatment in this report—for older youth (ages 14 to 17) compared to younger youth (ages 0 to 13). Using publicly available data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP) and specially requested data from the Department of Social Services (DSS), we examined and compared maltreatment reporting data for older and younger youth along multiple dimensions to take a closer look at whether youth in the two age groups experience differences in accessing foster care. Available Data on Maltreatment Reports Show Some Differences Between Older and Younger Youth in Accessing Foster Care . . . Based on available data, maltreatment reports for older and younger youth show some differences. Principally, we find that maltreatment substantiation rates—a necessary report investigation finding before a youth can enter foster care—for older youth have consistently been below younger youth. Notably, this gap appears to be the result of two differences in the outcomes of older and younger youth maltreatment reports: (1) maltreatment reports for older youth are determined to not require an in-person investigation at higher rates than reports for younger youth, and (2) fewer maltreatment reports for older youth are determined to be substantiated following an in-person investigation than for younger youth. Despite these differences, older and younger youth have largely equivalent rates of entry into foster care following a maltreatment substantiation. . . . But It Is Uncertain Whether These Differences Are Indicative of Any Problem. Despite some observed differences in outcomes between older and younger youth in accessing foster care, it remains difficult to make more definitive conclusions about why these differences may exist. This is in part due to limitations in the available data. For example, while we know that older youth have lower maltreatment substantiation rates, we do not know the specific reasons for this. We also note that it might be reasonable for some moderate differences in report outcomes for older and younger youth to exist, given that older youth may experience different levels of risk compared to younger youth in similar situations. Recommend Collecting Additional Data to Better Understand Differences. Given these uncertainties, we recommend collecting additional information—which we understand is currently not collected on a statewide, systematic basis—to better inform the reasons for any differences between older and younger youth with reports for maltreatment. We provide a list of suggestions for additional data collection at the end of this report. analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION The Supplemental Report of the 2018-19 Budget • Number of petitions filed under Welfare and Act requires our office to review data about the Institutions Code (WIC) 329, and time frame of reporting of child maltreatment incidents among the filing, if available. children who are ages 14 to 17. Child maltreatment, • Percentage of reports that involved children for the purposes of this report, means parental with prior reports of maltreatment. behavior that results in serious abuse or neglect • Generalized outcomes of prior maltreatment of a child. To determine whether older youth reports. have more challenges accessing foster care than younger youth, SRL directs us, where feasible, This report fulfills this requirement to the best of specifically to compare older and younger youth on our ability, given data limitations discussed below. the following dimensions: Significant Data Limitations. A significant challenge in assessing whether older youth have • Rate of reporting. more challenges accessing foster care than • Outcomes of reporting. younger youth is the limitation of available data. • Sources of reports, if available, including In performing our analysis, we relied heavily on self-reported maltreatment. publicly available data from CCWIP and specially • Living situations, including homelessness or requested data from DSS. At the time of this living with a parent or guardian, at the time of analysis, not all of the data elements requested by the report, if available. the SRL were available through CCWIP and DSS. As such, although we were able to answer some of the questions posed by the Legislature, we were unable to fully address others. BACKGROUND Below, we provide background on the Child system spans across federal, state, and county Welfare Services (CWS) system—specifically with governments. regard to the maltreatment report system and the Responsibilities of Federal, State, and pathway into foster care. For the purposes of this report, we refer to children ages 14 to 17 as older County Governments youth and children ages 0 to 13 as younger youth. The Federal Government Has a Broad Oversight Role. The federal government enacts CHILD WELFARE SERVICES SYSTEM child welfare laws and policies that require (or provide incentive funding for) state compliance. The The CWS system works to protect children federal government evaluates each state’s CWS by investigating reports of child maltreatment, program outcomes based on several performance removing children from unsafe homes, providing measures. The federal government also audits services to children and families to safely reunify state spending of federal CWS funds, sets policy foster children with their families, and finding safe priorities and requirements for using federal CWS placement options for children who cannot be funds, establishes program improvement goals for safely reunified with their families. The principal states that fail to reach federal performance targets, goals of the CWS system are to promote the safety, and issues funding penalties for noncompliance permanency (in family placements), and well-being with federal policies and program performance of youth affected by child maltreatment. The CWS targets. 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT The State Supervises County CWS Agencies. Pathway for Entry Into Foster Care The federal government gives states some flexibility At a high level, Figure 1 (see next page) in how they operate their CWS programs. Unlike provides a simplified display of the basic process some other state CWS programs which are state and defines the types of outcomes that can result administered, California’s CWS program is state once a report of maltreatment is made to a CWS supervised and county administered. DSS is the agency. In the section that follows, we describe this state agency responsible for oversight of the pathway to foster care after a maltreatment report. CWS program. DSS develops program and fiscal Reporting of Child Maltreatment Begins policies for CWS, provides technical assistance the Process of Entering Court Dependency and training to counties, receives federal CWS and Foster Care. When a county CWS agency funding and distributes these funds to the counties, receives a report of suspected child maltreatment monitors county CWS program performance, and to its reporting hotline, county CWS social collaborates with counties to establish program workers review information provided in the report improvement goals. and decide whether to conduct an in-person Counties Are Primarily Responsible for investigation to determine if the alleged child Administering Child Welfare Services. Under maltreatment is “substantiated”—has actually the supervision of DSS, county CWS agencies occurred as defined in state law—or to “evaluate provide the frontline administration of the CWS out” the report and not pursue further investigation system, including: (1) Receiving reports of child of maltreatment. State law defines multiple maltreatment, (2) investigating maltreatment categories of child maltreatment: physical abuse, reports, (3) removing children from unsafe homes, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, general neglect, (4) finding and funding placements for children in severe neglect, exploitation, caretaker incapacity, foster care, (5) providing services to families for and sibling abuse. The following is a description of reunification, and (6) finding permanent adoptive the different types of child maltreatment as defined parents or guardians for children who cannot be in statute. safely reunified with their families. In addition to county CWS agencies, county probation agencies • Physical abuse is willful bodily injury inflicted perform case management (including family upon a child. reunification and placement services) for foster • Sexual abuse is victimization of a child by children who are also involved in the juvenile justice sexual assault. Sexual assault includes child system. The state provides county CWS agencies molestation, fondling, rape, or incest. with flexibility in how they operate their local CWS • Emotional abuse is unjustifiable mental program, and therefore there is some variation in suffering inflicted upon a child that endangers administration and services offered among county the child’s health and results in certain CWS agencies. behavioral disorders such as severe anxiety, Juvenile Dependency Courts Make Significant depression, withdrawal, or aggressive Decisions Over Placement and Services for behavior. Children in the CWS System. In addition to • General neglect is the failure of a parent or county CWS agencies, juvenile dependency courts caretaker to provide a child with adequate (a division within each county’s superior court) have food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or jurisdiction over the removal, foster care placement, supervision. and permanent placement decisions for children • Severe neglect is negligent care by a involved in the CWS system. Juvenile dependency parent or caretaker of a child that results in courts hold a series of hearings that determine how a child’s medically diagnosed poor physical a child moves through the CWS system. or emotional development. Severe neglect includes a parent’s or caretaker’s failure to protect a child from severe malnutrition. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT • Exploitation is the sexual trafficking of a child. arrange for the care of the child, (3) a relative • Caretaker incapacity is a condition in which or other adult custodian with whom the child a child has been left without any provision resides is unwilling or unable to provide for support for such reasons as (1) physical care or support for the child, and (4) the custody of the child has been voluntarily whereabouts of the parent are unknown and surrendered, (2) the child’s parent has been reasonable efforts to locate the parent have incarcerated or institutionalized and cannot been unsuccessful. Figure 1 Pathways for Maltreatment Reportinga Initial Report of Maltreatment. A call is made to a CWS agency hotline. Investigation Initiated Evaluated Out The CWS agency sends a social worker to Based upon the information in the report, investigate maltreatment allegations in person. the CWS agency determined that no child maltreatment (as defined in statute) has occurred, and no further investigation is conducted. (This category of case disposition Unfounded is not defined in statute, but is used in practice.) The investigator determined that the report was false, improbable, or otherwise did not meet the statutory definition of child maltreatment. Inconclusive The investigator did not determine that the alleged child maltreatment was unfounded, but there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the report. Substantiated The investigator determined, based upon available evidence, that child maltreatment more likely than not occurred. Petition for Court Dependency Juvenile Dependency Court Hearings The CWS agency petitions the Juvenile courts confirm whether maltreatment juvenile dependency court to occurred, what services should be provided, intervene to protect the youth and whether to enter the youth into foster care. from maltreatment. Do not enter foster Enter foster care. care but may receive some other services. a We note that this is a simplified illustration of the pathway to foster care. Individuals may progress along the pathway in a variety of ways. CWS = Child Welfare Services. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT • Sibling abuse refers to an unacceptable rights are limited and the court can require the risk of abuse or neglect of a child which is family to receive certain services or even remove indicated by the abuse or neglect suffered by the youth out of the home and into foster care for that child’s sibling. the safety of the youth. Generally, for a youth to enter court dependency and foster care a county The Structured Decision Making (SDM) Tool CWS agency social worker must file a petition to Is Designed to Aid Social Workers in Assessing the juvenile dependency court under WIC 300— Reports of Maltreatment. The SDM tool is a which lists the various forms of maltreatment that standardized tool utilized by county social workers qualify a youth to come under court dependency— to assist in accurately assessing risk and making after investigating and substantiating a report of prudent decisions on whether and how to intervene child maltreatment. in families on behalf of children with maltreatment Section 329 of the WIC (hereafter referred to reports. The SDM tool provides social workers as WIC 329) entitles anyone who reports child with a structure for analyzing the information maltreatment, including the child, to receive provided in maltreatment reports and determining notification of the social worker’s decision to file appropriate actions to be taken regarding the family or not file a dependency petition to juvenile court in the report—for example whether to evaluate following an investigation. If the social worker out the report or continue to investigate. Social declines to file a dependency petition or fails workers consider various factors such as age to notify the reporter, the reporter or the child’s and developmental status when deciding whether attorney may submit a Section 331 of the WIC reported information constitutes maltreatment. (hereafter referred to as WIC 331) petition to While the SDM tool is designed to provide social have the juvenile court review the social worker’s workers with a comprehensive and accurate decision and either affirm that decision or require assessment of risk to a child, social workers have the social worker to submit a dependency petition. the ability to use their professional discretion Juvenile Courts Make Final Decisions on to override the outcome of the SDM tool either Court Dependency and Foster Care for Children. to evaluate out a report or initiate an in-person Juvenile dependency courts have jurisdiction over investigation of a maltreatment allegation. Counties children in the CWS system and make the final began gradually implementing the SDM tool in decision on placement and services for the youth. 1998, with statewide implementation of the tool Through case review and a series of hearings, completed in 2016. juvenile dependency courts decide: (1) if child In-Person Investigation Results in One maltreatment occurred as alleged by the CWS of Several Outcomes. As shown in Figure 1, agencies, (2) if youth removed from their home once an in-person investigation is initiated, due to maltreatment should be returned home or the maltreatment report can be found to be remain in foster care, (3) what services children and (1) unfounded, (2) inconclusive, or (3) substantiated. families receive, (4) where children in foster care are Substantiated reports require further action by the placed, (5) when or if parental rights are terminated, CWS agency through court proceedings, which can and (6) permanent placement plans for foster result in either the agency providing court-ordered children where reunification is not possible. supportive services to the child and family or, if Once in Foster Care, Youth May Remain Until there is unacceptable risk to the child’s safety, the Age 21. CWS agencies serve youth and families CWS agency removing the child from the home and in foster care with various support services with placing the child in foster care. the goal of safely reunifying the child and family. Children Enter Court Dependency Through Examples of such services include counseling, Court Petitions. Section 300 of the WIC parent training, and mental health or substance (hereafter referred to as WIC 300) provides the abuse treatment. In addition to case management legal procedures for youth to come under the services, CWS agencies provide foster caregivers dependency of juvenile courts—whereby parental with monthly financial grants. State policy is to www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT return children to their families whenever safe In recent years, counties have increasingly relied and possible, and these services are designed to upon Supervised Independent Living Placements address family issues that led to the child’s removal (SILPs) and transitional housing placements and provide an opportunity for the child’s safe instead of foster parents and more institutionalized return home. congregate care settings for older, relatively Permanent placement provides case more self-sufficient youth. SILPs are independent management and placement services to foster settings, such as apartments or shared residences, children who cannot be safely reunified with their where nonminors who remain in foster care past families. Placement services include facilitating their 18th birthday may live independently and a child’s adoption, guardianship, or, in some continue to receive monthly foster care grant cases, long-term foster care placement. When a payments. Transitional housing placements child cannot be safely reunified with their family, provide foster youth ages 16 to 21 foster care state policy is to provide a child with a permanent grant payments and supervised housing as well adoptive parent or guardian as soon as possible as supportive services, such as counseling and (with placement preference with other members of employment services, that are designed to help the child’s family). foster youth achieve independence. DETERMINING WHETHER FOSTER CARE ACCESS ISSUES FOR OLDER YOUTH EXIST The Supplemental Report of the 2018-19 Budget rates following a report substantiation for older and Act directs our office to examine whether certain younger youth. We first examine publicly available differences exist in whether and how older youth— data from CCWIP for overall trends for the state as as compared to younger youth—are accessing a whole. foster care in the state based on available data. Overall Outcomes of Maltreatment We understand that there is concern among certain youth advocates involved in the state’s Reports for Older and Younger Youth CWS system that there may be systemic issues Older Youth Have a Consistently Lower hindering the ability of older youth to access foster Rate of Maltreatment Reports as Well as care even if they need it. In accordance with SRL, Substantiations, Relative to Younger Youth . . . we examined the rates, types, and outcomes of Figure 2 and Figure 3 (see page 8) show a maltreatment reporting for children in older (ages consistent gap between older and younger youth 14 to 17) and younger (ages 0 to 13) age groups— in both reporting and substantiation rates. Figure 2 with available population data from CCWIP and shows that, since 2010, the rate of maltreatment DSS—to see what differences exist between reports made—the first step in the reporting the age groups and whether any inferences can process in Figure 1, and measured by the number be made from the available data regarding the of maltreatment reports per 1,000 children in the treatment of older youth in the state’s child welfare state—for older youth have been lower by about services system. five reports per 1,000 children compared to the rate for younger youth. Figure 3 shows that older youth ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE have also maintained a lower rate of maltreatment STATEWIDE DATA substantiations for all reports by between 5 percent and 6 percentage points in any given year relative Below, we offer our comparative assessment to the rate for younger youth. of maltreatment report data on rates of reporting, Due to the sustained difference over this time report substantiation rates, and foster care entry period between older and younger youth when 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT it comes to the percentage of cases that are substantiation, which did not display the same type substantiated, we decided to take a closer look at of decrease with increasing age. substantiation rates by age. Specifically we found . . . But Maltreatment Report Rates and a consistent relationship between increasing age Substantiations for Older and Younger Youth and incrementally decreasing substantiation rates. Show Parallel Trends Over Time. While older and In other words, infants had higher substantiation younger youth have displayed consistent differences rates than elementary school aged youth, who over time in their rates of reported maltreatment had higher substantiation rates than middle school and substantiations of maltreatment, the figures aged youth, who in turn had higher rates than also show that the rates of maltreatment reports high school aged youth. Consistent differences and substantiations for both older and younger in substantiation rates, therefore, occur not only youth have generally moved in the same direction between older teenagers and younger children, with similar magnitudes. Figure 2 shows that, over but are a pattern that can be observed across the an eight year period, the rate of maltreatment entire age spectrum for youth in the state. This was reports for both age groups has increased by not the case with the rates of maltreatment reports less than five reports per 1,000 children in each made or entry rates into foster care following a age group. Similarly, Figure 3 shows that the rate Figure 2 Rate of Maltreatment Reports by Age Group Evaluated Out Report of Unfounded Maltreatment Investigation Inconclusive Initiated Enter Foster Care Petition Juvenile and Receive Services Substantiated for Court Dependency Dependency Court Hearings Do Not Enter Foster Care but May Receive Some Other Services 60 50 40 30 20 10 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 www.lao.ca.gov 7 nerdlihC 000,1 reP stropeR analysis full gutter Age 0-13 Age 14-17 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT of maltreatment substantiations for all reports if it is found to be inconclusive or unfounded. has decreased for both age groups by less than Figure 4—which includes the reporting data from 5 percentage points over the same period. 2010 to 2017—displays more detail on the step Lower Overall Substantiation Rates for Older where maltreatment is reported and a decision is Youth Correspond to Higher Rates of Reports made on whether to evaluate it out or initiate an Evaluated Out. As shown in Figure 4, overall investigation. It shows that for each category of about 19 percent of maltreatment reports for maltreatment report, older youth had a relatively younger youth were evaluated out from 2010 to higher proportion of those reports evaluated out, 2017, compared to about 30 percent for older especially for sexual and physical abuse, than youth. As Figure 1 shows, there are two points in younger youth. the process after a maltreatment report is made After an Investigation, Older Youth Also Have where it may not be substantiated. First, a report Higher Rates of Maltreatment Reports That Are may not be substantiated if it is evaluated out Not Substantiated. As shown in Figure 5 (see without further investigation. Second, it may not page 10), overall 22 percent of all maltreatment be substantiated after an in-person investigation reports that were investigated for younger youth Figure 3 Maltreatment Substantiations as a Percentage of All Reports by Age Group Evaluated Out Report of Unfounded Maltreatment Investigation Inconclusive Initiated Enter Foster Care Petition Juvenile and Receive Services Substantiated for Court Dependency Dependency Court Hearings Do Not Enter Foster Care but May Receive Some Other Services 45% 40 35 30 25 Age 0-13 20 15 10 Age 14-17 5 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 4 Older Youth Have a Relatively Higher Proportion of Maltreatment Reports Evaluated Out Evaluated Out Report of Unfounded Maltreatment Investigation Inconclusive Initiated Enter Foster Care Petition Juvenile and Receive Services Substantiated for Court Dependency Dependency Court Hearings Do Not Enter Foster Care but May Receive Some Other Services a Maltreatment Reports Evaluated Out Compared to Investigated Age 0-13 Evaluated Out Investigated Age 14-17 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% a Reports Evaluated Out Compared to Investigated (Age 0-13 by Maltreatment Category) Neglectb Evaluated Out Investigated Emotional Abuse Sexual Abuse Physical Abuse Otherc 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% a Reports Evaluated Out Compared to Investigated (Age 14-17 by Maltreatment Category) - Neglectb Evaluated Out Investigated Emotional Abuse Sexual Abuse Physical Abuse Otherc 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% a Combined reports from 2010 to 2017. b Includes general and severe neglect because severe neglect is a very small portion for both age groups. c Includes abuse of sibling, caretaker incapacity, and exploitation. www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT were substantiated from 2010 to 2017 compared to is determined either to be substantiated or to be about 17 percent for older youth. Figure 5 provides not substantiated (unfounded or inconclusive). more detail on report outcomes at the second step The figure shows that of those maltreatment where an investigation is conducted and the report reports that were investigated, older youth had a Figure 5 Older Youth Have Relatively Lower Substantiation Rates for Investigated Neglect and Emotional Abuse Reports, but Higher Rates for Physical and Sexual Abuse Evaluated Out Report of Unfounded Maltreatment Investigation Inconclusive Initiated Enter Foster Care Petition Juvenile and Receive Services Substantiated for Court Dependency Dependency Court Hearings Do Not Enter Foster Care But May Receive Some Other Services Investigated Reports Substantiated Compared to Not Substantiateda Age 0-13 Substantiated Not Substantiated Age 14-17 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% Investigated Reports Substantiated Compared to Not Substantiated (Age 0-13 by Maltreatment Category)a Neglectb Substantiated Not Substantiated Emotional Abuse Sexual Abuse Physical Abuse Otherc 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% Investigated Reports Substantiated Compared to Not Substantiated (Age 14-17 by Maltreatment Category)a Neglectb Substantiated Not Substantiated Emotional Abuse Sexual Abuse Physical Abuse Otherc 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% a Combined reports from 2010 to 2017. b Includes general and severe neglect because severe neglect is a very small portion for both age groups. c Includes abuse of sibling, caretaker incapacity, and exploitation. 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT lower proportion of their neglect and emotional of entry into foster care over time. The rate of abuse reports substantiated than was the case substantiated allegations resulting in a child’s entry for younger youth. However, older youth also had into foster care have increased for both age groups a slightly higher proportion of their investigated by about 5 percentage points between 2010 and physical abuse reports substantiated and a 2017. higher percentage of their investigated sexual Maltreatment Reports for Older and abuse reports substantiated than younger youth. Younger Youth Come From Largely the Same Older and younger youth had roughly the same Sources. The SRL asked us to determine whether substantiation rates for other types of maltreatment. maltreatment reports coming from different Following a Substantiation, Older Youth Have sources lead to different outcomes for older youth Largely Equivalent Rates of Entry to Foster compared to younger youth. Reports of child Care as Younger Youth. While there are some maltreatment to county CWS agencies come differences in report and substantiation rates from a variety of sources, including education between older and younger youth, Figure 6 shows professionals, law enforcement, medical that following a substantiation of maltreatment, professionals, and friends or family members of older and younger youth have had similar rates the child. Available data from CCWIP indicate that Figure 6 Rates of Foster Care Entry Following a Substantiated Report Are Similar for Older and Younger Youth Evaluated Out Report of Unfounded Maltreatment Investigation Inconclusive Initiated Enter Foster Care Petition Juvenile and Receive Services Substantiated for Court Dependency Dependency Court Hearings Do Not Enter Foster Care but May Receive Some Other Services 45% 40 Age 0-13 35 Age 14-17 30 25 20 15 10 5 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT maltreatment reports for older and younger youth of substantiated reports and sources of evaluated primarily come from the same types of reporting out reports. sources in fairly similar overall proportions. Determining Whether Data for Certain Figure 7 shows what proportion of substantiated maltreatment reports for older and younger youth Subpopulations Based on Ethnic come from different reporting sources. Figure 8 Group or Geographic Region Show displays the same information for maltreatment Differences From Statewide Averages reports that are evaluated out. The two figures As part of our analysis, after analyzing older show that when a report is evaluated out or and younger youth maltreatment reporting data for substantiated, the source of the maltreatment the state as a whole, we then looked at available report is primarily the same between the age CCWIP data for certain geographic regions and groups. We note that both age groups mostly ethnic groups. Our purpose was to determine overlap in terms of which of their report sources whether older and younger youth within certain provide many of their maltreatment reports and subpopulations experienced significant differences which of their report sources provide few of their in accessing foster care that were different than maltreatment reports. To the extent that there are statewide aggregated data. Below, we describe notable differences between the age groups in this the particular subpopulations and explain what we regard, the most significant is that older youth tend found. to have a higher proportion of reports coming from counselors and therapists. As shown in Figures 7 Differences in Outcomes Between Older and 8, this also holds true when examining sources and Younger Youth Do Not Appear to Be Accentuated in Observed Geographic Locations Figure 7 Primary Sources for Reports That Are Substantiated Are Mostly the Same Between Age Groupsa 45% Age 0-13 40 Age 14-17 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Family/ Neighbor Law CASA/ Counselor/ CWS Day Care/ Medical Education Other Other Friend Enforcement/ GAL Therapist Staff Foster Care Professional Legal a Combined reports from 2010 through 2017. CASA = Child Advocate/Court Appointed Special Advocate; GAL = Guardian Ad Litem; and CWS = Child Welfare Services. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Compared to the State Overall. The regions we • Los Angeles County had higher overall investigated further include the San Francisco substantiation rates compared to most other Bay Area, Los Angeles County, a selection of counties we examined and the San Joaquin counties in the Inland Empire and Imperial Valley, Valley counties had lower substantiation rates a selection of counties in the San Joaquin Valley, than most other counties—both by about and a selection of counties in the rural north of the 5 percentage points in any given year between state. In doing this analysis, we did find there were 2010 and 2017. However, again this difference differences in outcomes across regions. In other applied equally to younger and older youth. words, some regions had higher or lower overall • Inland and Bay Area counties also typically substantiation rates and rates of entry into foster had higher rates of entry into foster care after care after a substantiation than other regions. a substantiation than most other counties— Despite these differences, however, we found the with differences ranging in the single digits size of the differences between older and younger to more than 20 percentage points higher youth in each region observed to be similar to the depending on the region. These higher rates differences we found for the overall population. For applied at least as much to older youth as to example: younger youth. • While inland counties tended to have generally Differences in Report Outcomes Between higher maltreatment report rates than coastal Ethnic Groups Tend to Hold Across Age Groups. counties, this was true for both age groups Likewise, we examined data for different ethnic in roughly similar magnitudes as the state groups to see if any ethnic groups displayed overall. significant differences in outcomes between older Figure 8 Primary Sources for Reports That Are Evaluated Out Are Mostly the Same Between Age Groupsa 30% 25 Age 0-13 Age 14-17 20 15 10 5 Family/ Neighbor Law CASA/ Counselor/ CWS Day Care/ Medical Education Other Other Friend Enforcement/ GAL Therapist Staff Foster Care Professional Legal a Combined reports from 2010 through 2017. CASA = Child Advocate/Court Appointed Special Advocate; GAL = Guardian Ad Litem; and CWS = Child Welfare Services. www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT and younger youth that might not be detectable cannot provide an analysis of foster care access when reviewing aggregated statewide data. As for all older and younger homeless youth, we can with the geographic regional data, we found little describe some relevant observations for a subset evidence of significant differences between age of this population—youth in homeless families— groups within specific ethnic groups that were not relative to older and younger youth overall. also shown in statewide data. Black and Native Maltreatment reports for youth who are in homeless American youth tended to have higher rates of families increased between 2010 and 2017 just as maltreatment reports, substantiations, and entries it did for children overall. These youth in homeless into foster care than youth belonging to other families represented less than 1.7 percent of all ethnic groups regardless of whether they were children with maltreatment reports in 2017—this is older or younger. up from about 0.5 percent in 2010. Substantiation rates for older and younger youth in homeless ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR families showed similar trends to youth overall— substantiation rates for both age groups declined SPECIFIED SUBPOPULATION over time by between 5 percentage points and CHARACTERISTICS 10 percentage points over the same time period, as was the case for the broader population of youth. After analyzing available CCWIP data on the Of note, however, both older and younger youth overall population of younger and older youth with in homeless families displayed higher overall rates maltreatment reports, we requested additional of reports being evaluated out than youth overall, data from DSS in order to investigate maltreatment as can be seen in Figure 9. However, Figure 10 report outcomes for the subpopulations shows that a greater proportion of investigated of (1) homeless youth and (2) youth with a reports for both older and younger youth in maltreatment report who had prior maltreatment homeless families were substantiated relative to reports to CWS. Although we were able to identify youth overall, with younger youth having the higher some data for these youth, described more fully substantiation rate. This suggests that while reports below, we note that there are significant data limitations that prevent us from making any definitive findings Figure 9 related to these subpopulations. More Maltreatment Reports for Available Data on Youth in Youth in Homeless Families Are Evaluated Outa Homeless Families Show Some Similar Trends to Youth Overall, 100% but Also Indications of Some 90 Differences. Although the SRL Investigated 80 directs our office to determine Evaluated Out 70 whether older homeless youth 60 access foster care at different 50 rates than younger homeless youth, it is our understanding 40 that the data to fully perform this 30 analysis is not available. Instead, 20 we note that the available data 10 referenced in this section is for Ages 0-13 All Youth Ages 14-17 All Youth homeless families, which would in Homeless Ages 0-13 in Homeless Ages 14-17 not capture children who are Families Families themselves homeless, though belonging to a family that is not a Combined rate from 2010 to 2017. homeless. Accordingly, while we 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT for youth in homeless families Figure 10 are somewhat more likely to be More Investigated Maltreatment Reports for evaluated out, those reports Youth in Homeless Families Are Substantiateda that do receive an in-person investigation are more likely to 100% be substantiated than reports 90 for youth overall. Unfortunately, Not Substantiated 80 in time for this analysis, we were Substantiated 70 unable to obtain comparable data that showed the entries into foster 60 care after a substantiation for 50 youth in homeless families over 40 the same time period. 30 Data on Youth With Prior 20 Reports Is Limited. While we 10 were able to obtain data showing that a greater proportion of older Ages 0-13 All Youth Ages 14-17 All Youth youth with current maltreatment in Homeless Ages 0-13 in Homeless Ages 14-17 Families Families reports had prior reports in their history, we were unable to obtain a Combined rate from 2010 to 2017. data on the outcomes of those prior reports. We were also unable to determine whether youth in data on the most common reasons for reports either age group with prior reports were more or to be evaluated out for different age groups less likely to have a current report substantiated or is not available. We further lack data on to enter foster care. the court processes that would occur after an investigation. This type of data would show the prevalence with which certain WIC SUMMARY OF KEY DATA GAPS code petitions—such as petitions under As mentioned in previous sections, not all of WIC sections 329 and 331—are invoked the data is currently available to enable us to fully for older and younger youth and how often investigate some of the requested information in they result in an entry into foster care. We the SRL. Here we provide a summation of key data also do not have data which distinguishes gaps that impacted our analysis for the SRL. We between maltreatment reports for youth who note that pointing out these current data gaps is self-report—or claim maltreatment—and those not meant to be a critique of the administration or for whom maltreatment is observed by others. the counties, as they are not data elements that This lack of detail regarding these types of have previously been requested or required. process-related data hinders our ability to fully determine to what extent older and younger • Lack of Complete Data Related to Decision youth have different experiences accessing Making Processes. We lack certain data that foster care. would provide greater context to the available • Lack of Complete Data Related to Certain data on maltreatment report outcomes. Subpopulations. The data available for Specifically, in time for this analysis we did not homelessness is for homeless families, which have information on how report determinations does not fully capture children who are were made, such as whether the SDM tool themselves homeless, though belong to a was overridden by social workers (as allowed) family that is not homeless. Likewise, data on more for one age group than the other during youth with prior reports lists how many prior the time period we examined. Additionally, www.lao.ca.gov 15 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT reports youth with a current maltreatment youth access foster care services compared report have, not the outcomes for either those to the broader population of youth, and prior reports or the current reports. These accordingly our ability to make comparisons data gaps significantly preclude our ability between older and younger youth in these to determine how these subpopulations of subpopulations. LAO COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE NEXT STEPS LIMITED ABILITY TO DRAW increasing rates of entry into foster care following a substantiation. These trends held true even when DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED controlling for other factors such as geographic ON AVAILABLE DATA location and ethnic group identity. Some Differences Exist Between Report . . . But It Is Uncertain Whether These Outcomes for Older and Younger Youth, Which Differences Are Indicative of Any Problem. Warrant Further Investigation . . . Based on While we believe that some consistent, sustained our analysis of available data, certain consistent differences in report outcomes for older and differences are worthy of further investigation younger youth are noteworthy and merit further to determine whether older youth in the state investigation, we also note that it may be experience greater difficulty gaining access reasonable for some moderate differences in report into foster care. In particular, maltreatment outcomes between older and younger youth to report substantiation rates for older youth have exist. Given that older youth are inherently at least consistently been below younger youth, even somewhat more independent and capable than as both age groups have experienced the same younger youth, it is possible that certain family overall decline over time. Notably, this difference situations that constitute unacceptable risk for appears in two steps in the reporting process. younger youth, might not constitute the same level First, a higher proportion of maltreatment reports of risk for older youth. It is also worth noting that for older youth are evaluated out—especially abuse consistent incremental differences in maltreatment reports—resulting in fewer reports for older youth substantiation rates occur not only between receiving an in-person investigation than reports older teenagers and younger children, but are a for younger youth. Second, older youth have an pattern that can be observed across the entire overall higher proportion of investigated reports age spectrum for youth in the state—and therefore not substantiated—though this is not the case might be due to factors that do not uniquely affect for sexual and physical abuse. Even though older youth ages 14 to 17 compared to all other youth. and younger youth have largely equivalent rates Certain Categories of Data Are Unavailable of entry into foster care following a maltreatment or Lack Detail. Some of the difficulty in making substantiation, lower substantiation rates for older more definitive conclusions about the treatment youth result in fewer entries into foster care per of older youth in the CWS system comes from report of maltreatment compared to younger youth. limitations in the available data. For example, while We do note that notwithstanding these consistent we know that older youth have lower maltreatment differences, older and younger youth referred substantiation rates, we do not know the specific to CWS agencies generally experienced similar reasons why their reports are evaluated out or the trends in reporting outcomes over time in key details of in-person investigations. We do note categories, such as increasing maltreatment report that DSS provided us some limited data on SDM rates, decreasing overall substantiation rates, and overrides and rates of entry to foster care for youth 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT in homeless families after this report was finalized. report language that was not available. Data Unfortunately, this data does not align with the on self-petitions for court dependency using other data we used in this report. It does, however, WIC 329 and 331—as well as the outcomes indicate that DSS does have the ability to track this of those petitions—would provide a better type of information. understanding of whether older youth experience relative challenges gaining access RECOMMENDATIONS FOR to foster care, even if their rate of entry into foster care following a substantiation of ADDITIONAL DATA GATHERING maltreatment is equivalent to younger youth. Given the aforementioned uncertainties over • Record Whether Reports Involve Youth whether older youth face systemic differences in Self-Reporting Maltreatment. This was accessing foster care, we recommend that DSS another data point requested in the SRL that collect additional information—which we understand was not available. Such data might provide is currently not collected on a statewide, systematic insight into whether older and younger youth basis—to be reported to the Legislature to better are treated differently when they themselves inform the reasons for any differences between older report maltreatment rather than when it is and younger youth with reports for maltreatment. reported by others. Such data would also help determine whether policy • Monitor Outcomes for Youth With Prior interventions would be an appropriate remedy for Reports. This data was requested in the SRL, those differences. Below we list some suggestions but was not available. Data on the outcomes for additional data collection: of prior reports, as well as the most recent report, for youth with a history of multiple • Systematically Track the Reason a reports might help determine whether certain Maltreatment Report Is Evaluated Out. youth have had more difficulty gaining access This type of data would be particularly useful to foster care over time. for developing a better understanding of why older youth and youth in homeless families With the state in the process of implementing have higher rates of reports evaluated out. a new information technology system for CWS, • More Precisely Track Homeless Youth. stakeholders will want to consider which types of Current data on homelessness is limited. recommended data collection can be implemented Current available report data does not indicate more immediately in the current system and which whether a child is homeless despite the family can be incorporated over a longer time period in having a home. This is important data for the new system as it is being developed. Given that understanding whether homelessness impacts there would likely be county workload and technical access to foster care for both age groups. challenges associated with new requirements for • Track Reports for Other Social Services data collection, the Legislature might also want to After an Investigation Is Completed or After request input from the administration and counties Deciding Not to Place a Child in Foster on the short- and long-term feasibility of collecting Care. Even if a report is evaluated out or a certain types of data. Potential increased costs to child does not enter foster care, counties may the state and counties to collect additional data are still refer a family for other social services. among the feasibility considerations the Legislature Better knowledge about how often such will want to consider, as well as various options referrals are made and for what services, for limiting those costs—such as pilot programs could add more context to outcomes in which involving a limited number of counties to refine youth do not enter foster care. processes before creating statewide reporting requirements. • Collect Data on Dependency Petitions by Welfare and Institutions Code. This was a data point requested in the supplemental www.lao.ca.gov 17 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 19 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Ryan Millendez and reviewed by Ginni Bella Navarre. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE