California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities

2024-25 BUDGET California’s Child Welfare System Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST APRIL 2024 www.lao.ca.gov 1 AN LAO REPORT LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Child Welfare System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Child Welfare Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Some Recent Major Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Inherent Challenges of the Child Welfare System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Mitigating Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Poverty and Risk Factors for Maltreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Disproportionalities in Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Lower-Income Families Disproportionately Represented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Black and Native American Children Significantly Overrepresented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 High-Level Factors Contributing to Disproportionalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Disproportionate Exposure to Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Disproportionate Exposure to Mandated Reporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Role of Implicit Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Front-End Policies Impacting Child Welfare System Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Mandated Reporting of Suspected Child Maltreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Neglect: Definition and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Decision-Making Tools and Training for Social Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Options to Begin to Address Disproportionalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Reporting Suspected Maltreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Mitigating Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 General Neglect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Concrete Supports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Data and Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix: Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary Child Welfare System Serves to Keep Children Safe and Strengthen Families. When children experience abuse or neglect, the state provides a variety of services to protect children and strengthen families . The state provides prevention services—such as substance use disorder treatment and in-home parenting support—to families at risk of child removal to help families remain together, if possible . When children cannot remain safely in their homes, the state provides temporary out-of-home placements through the foster care system, often while providing services to parents with the aim of safely reunifying children with their families . If children are unable to safely return to their parents, the state provides assistance to establish a permanent placement for children, for example, through adoption or guardianship . These various services constitute the state’s child welfare system . Child Welfare System Intervention May Be Necessary for Child Safety, but Also May Result in Additional Trauma. Families who come to the attention of the child welfare system often are experiencing poverty and other significant challenges, such as substance use disorder or domestic violence, which can cause trauma to the children and family . Given the shorter- and longer-term negative impacts of experiencing trauma and maltreatment, child welfare system intervention may be necessary to help keep children safe from these potentially harmful situations . At the same time, involvement with the child welfare system also may result in trauma, particularly when a child is removed from their parent(s) or caregiver(s) . How best to ensure child safety in a way that minimizes and mitigates trauma and ideally keeps the child with their parent(s)/caregiver(s) is a core challenge inherent to the child welfare system . California’s Child Welfare System-Involved Families Are Disproportionately Black, Native American, and Low Income. Black and Native American children are significantly overrepresented in California’s child welfare system relative to their shares of California’s child population . Moreover, these children and their families tend to have worse child welfare outcomes, such as longer time spent in out-of-home care and higher likelihood of termination of parental rights . In addition, most families involved with the child welfare system are experiencing poverty or otherwise facing significant economic hardship . These demographic and outcome trends have persisted for many years . Understanding which California communities and families are impacted at disproportionate rates—and the possible reasons why—can help the Legislature consider which policy interventions may be most effective at addressing these disproportionalities and disparities . Drivers of Disproportionalities Are Complex. The causes of the disproportionalities and disparities across California’s child welfare system are complex and nuanced, reflecting challenges and risk factors that certain groups are more likely to experience . Research finds that the presence of risk factors can create stressors and result in conditions wherein maltreatment is more likely to occur . Importantly, however, the presence of risk factors alone does not mean maltreatment will occur, and families also may benefit from the presence of protective factors . How to differentiate between families in need of supports to address risk factors, as opposed to families who require child welfare system-level intervention, is an inherent challenge for decision makers across the child welfare system . This report describes some broader, high-level social and economic factors— beyond the child welfare system itself—that may contribute to why certain racial/ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system today . In particular, we focus on www.lao.ca.gov 5 AN LAO REPORT poverty and correlated risk factors, which certain groups are more likely to experience as a result of historical polices and other factors . We also examine certain groups’ disproportionate exposure to mandated reporters, as well as the role that implicit bias may play in reporting and decision-making . Front-End Policy Areas Impacting Child Welfare System Involvement. In identifying policy levers that can help address disproportionalities and disparities, this report focuses on decision-making and policies at the “front-end” of the system . We define front-end as all policies and decision points prior to and including a social worker’s decision to remove a child and place them into foster care . Thus, this definition includes services and supports for families prior to allegations of maltreatment, as well as protocols and decisions around reporting, investigating, and substantiating allegations, and possible removal and foster care placement . We focus on these areas because addressing front-end system issues could help mitigate the growing disparities at later stages of the system . In addition, a number of recent legislative actions already have aimed to address challenges at later stages of the system . Options to Begin Addressing Front-End Disproportionalities and Disparities. We lay out a number of options for the Legislature to consider, all while aiming to continue ensuring child safety is prioritized while mitigating trauma and preventing unnecessary child welfare system involvement . Given the complex and interwoven factors contributing to disproportionalities and disparities, addressing them will require broad efforts both across the child welfare system and policy areas external to the system . Many of the options would introduce new costs . Accordingly, the Legislature would need to consider the fiscal implications and associated trade-offs . 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Child Welfare System’s Primary Goal Is to child welfare population) differs from that group’s Keep Children Safe. The child welfare system percentage in the base population (for example, the serves to protect children from maltreatment— state of California), while disparities refer to groups including by removing children from their home experiencing inequities relative to one another (for and placing them into temporary foster care when example, children of different racial/ethnic groups deemed necessary—and to strengthen families so experiencing different outcomes) . This report that children can remain safely with their families focuses on disproportionalities and disparities at whenever possible . When responding to allegations the front end of families’ involvement with the child of maltreatment, social workers use a variety of welfare system—that is, allegations, investigations, tools and training to assess the child’s safety on a substantiations, and decisions to place a child in case-by-case basis, determining whether or not a foster care—as well as families’ circumstances prior child can remain safely at home . to system involvement . We focus on these areas California’s Child Welfare System-Involved as the subject of this report because addressing Families Are Disproportionately Black, Native front-end system issues could help mitigate American, and Low Income. Black and Native disparities at later stages of the system, which are American children are significantly overrepresented greater . In addition, a number of recent legislative in California’s child welfare system relative to their actions already have aimed to address challenges at shares of California’s child population . Moreover, later stages of the system . these children and their families tend to have worse Roadmap for This Report. After providing child welfare outcomes, such as longer time spent in background on the child welfare system and recent out-of-home care and higher likelihood of termination areas of legislative focus, this report examines of parental rights . In addition, most families involved some of the complex factors contributing to the with the child welfare system are experiencing pervasive disproportionalities and disparities poverty or otherwise facing significant economic across California’s child welfare system . The report hardship . These demographic and outcome trends then identifies specific policy and implementation have persisted for many years . areas that may be contributing to front-end disproportionalities and disparities . Finally, the report This Report Examines Front-End presents options for the Legislature to consider Disproportionalities and Disparities. to begin to help address disproportionalities and Disproportionalities persist at all levels of the child disparities, while maintaining a system that ensures welfare system, alongside disparities in outcomes . A and prioritizes the safety and well-being of children . disproportionality occurs when a group’s percentage in a target population (for example, California’s BACKGROUND Child Welfare System Overview to families at risk of child removal to help families remain together, if possible . When children cannot Child Welfare and Foster Care Programs Serve remain safely in their homes, the state provides to Keep Children Safe and Strengthen Families. temporary out-of-home placements through the When children experience abuse or neglect, the foster care system, often while providing services state provides a variety of services to protect to parents with the aim of safely reunifying children children and strengthen families . The state provides with their families . If children are unable to safely prevention services—such as substance use return to their parents, the state provides assistance disorder treatment and in-home parenting support— www.lao.ca.gov 7 AN LAO REPORT to establish a permanent placement for children, for definitions of what constitutes child maltreatment, example, through adoption or guardianship . but leaves more detailed definitions and legislation to California’s Child Welfare System Serves states . California law specifies treatment constituting Nearly 100,000 Children and Their Families in physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, Any Month. In 2023-24, the estimated average and neglect (both general neglect and severe monthly caseloads for various child welfare system neglect) . Specifically, Section 300 of the Welfare and service components include: Institutions Code describes the circumstances under which children may come under the jurisdiction • 32,000 in-person investigations, in response to of the California juvenile court, while Sections maltreatment allegations . 11165 .1-11165 .6 of the Penal Code describe the • 13,000 children with families receiving family acts and omissions that comprise different types of maintenance services to help keep children child abuse and neglect . The box below provides an safely at home . overview of the definition of maltreatment focused on • 17,000 children in foster care whose families are neglect, as that is a primary focus of this report . receiving reunification services . • 33,000 children in foster care for whom the child welfare system is working toward California’s Definition of Neglect, permanent placement . One Form of Child Maltreatment In addition, many families participate in voluntary State statute defines various types of child abuse family strengthening programs through the child and neglect, which include parent/caregiver actions welfare system or community-based organizations, or failures to act resulting in serious physical or which is not captured by these caseload figures . emotional harm or illness (or substantial risk of such The child welfare system also provides monthly harm or illness) . In particular, statute defines neglect maintenance payments to children in adoptive and as due to: guardianship placements, which are not included in • The failure or inability of the child’s parent or the above figures . guardian to adequately supervise or protect California’s Child Welfare System Is Locally the child . Implemented, With Requirements and Oversight • The willful or negligent failure of the parent or From State and Federal Governments. Local guardian to provide the child with adequate child welfare agencies implement child welfare food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment . programs on behalf of the state Department of Social Services (DSS), with oversight from the state • The inability of the parent or guardian to and federal governments . Local agencies include provide regular care for the child due to county child welfare departments, county probation the parent’s or guardian’s mental illness, departments, and certain tribes . (We will refer to developmental disability, or substance abuse . the various types of local child welfare agencies Statute also specifies that certain circumstances as “counties” throughout this report for simplicity .) in and of themselves do not amount to abuse or Funding for child welfare programs comes from neglect: the federal and state governments, along with • Homelessness or the lack of an emergency local funds . The federal and state governments set shelter for the family . standards in terms of the service components that all local child welfare agencies must implement and • The failure of the child’s parent or alleged parent to seek court orders for custody of the oversee the quality of service delivery . child . Child Maltreatment May Take the Form of Abuse or Neglect. “Maltreatment” refers broadly • Indigence or other conditions of financial difficulty, including, but not limited to, poverty, to any action or failure to act by a caregiver that the inability to provide or obtain clothing, home puts a child at risk of or results in serious physical or property repair, or child care . or emotional harm . Federal law outlines minimum 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Neglect Is Most Common Type of California’s counties operate child welfare hotlines, Maltreatment Allegation. A near majority of which receive reports of suspected maltreatment . maltreatment allegations—and ultimately the vast Once an allegation of suspected maltreatment majority of placements into foster care—are due is reported, child welfare social workers decide to neglect rather than due to physical or sexual whether the allegation merits investigation along with abuse or another reason . This has long been the appropriate next steps . In making these decisions— case, as illustrated by Figure 1 . This trend is more along with other decisions throughout a family’s pronounced for foster placements: more than involvement with the child welfare system (including 80 percent of foster placements over the past foster care)—social workers across all counties decade have been due to neglect . use their professional training and knowledge and Given that most child welfare cases involve the employ standardized decision-making tools, which broad category of neglect, a recent study sought are designed to help social workers navigate child to characterize various types of neglect and define welfare system decisions in a more uniform manner the factors most commonly associated with neglect . across cases . Decisions also may be reviewed Based on examining narrative reports written by collaboratively with other social workers and social workers and other case file information for a supervisors . representative sample of 295 neglect investigations Substantiated Investigations Can Result in in California in 2017, the study identified common Support Services to Families and Possibly Foster types of neglect as inadequate supervision, failure to Placements. For roughly three-quarters of children protect, and physical neglect . Common parental risk with allegations, the allegations result in an in-person factors in these investigations included behavioral investigation from a social worker . In roughly health needs, domestic violence, and economic/ 20 percent of those investigations, social workers material need . The study’s findings are summarized determine that maltreatment is more likely than not in Figure 2 on the next page . to have occurred or that the child faces substantial Suspected Maltreatment Is Reported to risk of harm—this is referred to as substantiation . Local Child Welfare Agencies, Which Investigate Substantiated cases generally follow one of two Allegations and Determine Next Steps. possible paths: (1) services and monitoring while the Figure 1 Reason for Child Maltreatment Allegations Percentage of Total Children With Allegations 60% 50 Neglect 40 30 Other 20 Physical Abuse 10 Sexual Abuse 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Notes: Other includes exploitation, emotional abuse, caretaker absence/incapacity, and at risk due to sibling being abused. Each child is counted only once, even if they are the subject of multiple allegations. Child is counted in the category of highest severity. Data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. July 1 through June 30 of each year. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 2 Extract. Retrieved November 2, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. www.lao.ca.gov 9 AN LAO REPORT Figure 2 family has been the subject of an allegation of child maltreatment . Summary of Neglect Investigations • Family Maintenance (FM). The FM program Characteristics, According to One Study offers time-limited protective services to Based on Examining Case Documents for a Sample families whose children are at potential risk of of 295 Neglect Investigations in California in 2017… maltreatment, but for whom the county/court ...Most Common Types of Neglect May Be Categorized As: has determined the children can safely remain in the home . Specific services are detailed in the child’s case plan and the county oversees 44% Inadequate Supervision: Child’s parent/caregiver a family’s progress . Services may include, is not providing appropriate oversight and care. for example, counseling, parent training, transportation, emergency shelter care, respite Failure to Protect: Parent/caregiver is unable to care, and more . FM is a core child welfare 29% prevent a child from experiencing injury or harm (including psychological harm). services component required to be provided by all counties; however, specific services vary Physical Neglect: Child has unmet material needs, 14% such as inadequate food, inadequate or hazardous across counties . FM services may be offered shelter, or inadequate clothing or hygiene. to a family on a voluntary basis at any point of a family’s child welfare system involvement, ...Most Common Parental Risk Factors Identified Are: or may be court mandated as a condition of a child remaining in the home . • Differential Response (DR). After assessing 41% Substance Use an allegation and finding a family is at relatively low risk, rather than offering services through 21% Domestic Violence the child welfare system, counties may opt to refer families to community-based 18% Mental Illness organizations, such as Family Resource Centers, as described in more detail in the 11% Unmet Material Needs box on the next page . DR, also referred to as alternative response, is an optional service Source: Palmer, Lindsey et al. “What Does Child Protective Services Investigate as Neglect? A Population-Based Study,” Child Maltreatment, Volume 29, Issue 1, pages element and currently 38 counties operate a 96-105, February 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595221114144. DR program . Substantiated Allegations May Result in child remains at home if it is determined it is safe to Foster Placement. When a county substantiates do so (for around 60 percent of substantiations), or an allegation and determines that the child (2) foster care placement (for around 40 percent of cannot remain safely in the home, the county may substantiations) . These two paths are described in remove the child from the custody of the parent(s)/ additional detail in the next paragraphs . caregiver(s) and place the child into foster care . (A juvenile court ultimately must confirm the Counties May Provide Preventative Services maltreatment allegation, but prior to a court hearing, and Access to Other Supports in Lieu of a county may place a child into foster care on an Removing a Child. Counties may offer a variety of emergency basis .) Depending on the needs of the services to families with substantiated maltreatment child, foster placement may be with a resource family allegations aside from foster placement, as long as (formerly known as foster families in California), in a social workers determine the child can remain safely congregate care setting (a more group-like setting), in the home with intervention . Below, we describe or in a more independent placement for older youth . some of these programs . Importantly, access State and federal policies over time increasingly to these programs may be obtained only after a have aimed to place youth with resource families (or 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Family Resource Centers (FRCs) FRCs are defined in California statute as community-based organizations with the goal of preventing child maltreatment and strengthening families . An FRC may be located in, or administered by, different entities, such as a local educational agency or a community/neighborhood resource center . California has nearly 500 FRCs, which are funded in a variety of ways, including through philanthropy and local grants . Recent state funding in response to the pandemic also supported FRCs: around $15 million General Fund was provided across the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 budget years . Because FRCs aim to serve their direct communities, services offered vary center by center, but may include services such as parenting classes and support groups, one-on-one counseling and support, emergency assistance, child care, and access to behavioral health programs and supports . more independent placements for older youth) and Figure 4 on the next page summarizes the to reserve congregate care placements for youth processes around child maltreatment allegation whose behavioral health needs are unable to be met reporting and social worker response and in a home-based setting . In particular, state and decision-making leading up to and including foster federal policies prioritize placements with a child’s care placement . The figure depicts a simplified relatives or kin when possible, based on research overview; each case may progress through the finding that these placements tend to be more process differently . Importantly, there continue to be stable and are more likely to help a child achieve many decision points beyond what is summarized positive well-being outcomes . Figure 3 shows the by this figure, such as case planning and decisions distribution of foster youth across placement types . around reunification or permanent placement . However, this figure illustrates the main front-end process as relevant to this report . Number of Youth in Foster Figure 3 Care Has Decreased Over Time… Foster Placement Types Figure 5 on page 13 illustrates how the rate of children in foster Percent of Total Foster Placements, July 1, 2023 care (compared to total children in California) has changed over the past Group/STRTP/shelter couple of decades and compares SILP/transitional 3% these rates for different racial/ethnic housing 9% groups . As shown, the overall rate of children in foster care has decreased 11% 43% by more than half . This is primarily Other Relative driven by steep declines for Black resource families (includes guardians) children (63 percent decrease), while changes for other racial/ethnic groups 33% have been smaller . (In particular, the Non-relative resource families rate of Native American children in foster care decreased the least of all racial/ethnic groups [28 percent] .) …Driven By Various Policy and Notes: Other placement types include pre-adoption, court-specified homes, trial home visit, runaway, Practice Changes. Various factors non-foster care, other, and missing. have contributed to these decreases Data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 2 Extract. Retrieved November 7, 2023. URL: across groups, such as federal https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. SILP = Supervised Independent Living Placement and STRTP = Short-Term Residential Therapeutic policy changes limiting the amount Program. www.lao.ca.gov 11 AN LAO REPORT Figure 4 Decisions Around Maltreatment Reporting and Entry Into Foster Care Prior to System Involvement A family may seek services and resources through community-based organizations, such as Family Resource Centers. A family may apply for various state and federal programs, such as CalWORKs, CalFresh, Medi-Cal, housing assistance, and unemployment insurance. Report of Maltreatment California law designates certain professionals as “mandated reporters” and requires them to report suspected or known child maltreatment by calling the child welfare reporting hotline. Investigation Initiated Evaluated Out The child welfare agency sends a social Counties that have differential response worker (and law enforcement if needed) programs may refer family to community to investigate maltreatment allegations. services. Family may be offered voluntary family maintenance services. Unfounded Report was false, improbable, or otherwise did not meet the statutory definition of child maltreatment. Services The child welfare agency may refer the family to Inconclusive various services, such as home visiting or parent Report was not unfounded, but support programs, general assistance there is insufficient evidence to programs, substance use treatment programs, substantiate the report. mental health counseling, parenting classes, or others. Services may be voluntary or required, Substantiated depending on the family's safety assessment Child maltreatment more likely and case plan goals. occurred than not and/or there is imminent risk maltreatment will occur. Petition for Court Dependency The child welfare agency petitions the juvenile dependency court to intervene to protect the child from maltreatment. Court Confirms Dependency and Orders Foster Care Placement Court Does Not Confirm Dependency; Foster Care Placement Not Ordered Note: This figure provides a simplified depiction of the main front-end decision points around families' child welfare system involvement, leading up to and including foster care entry, as relevant to this report. Ultimately, each child welfare case may progress differently, and there are many decision points beyond what is summarized by this figure. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Figure 5 California's Foster Care Rates Have Decreased Significantly, But Unevenly, Over Time Children in Foster Care per 1,000 Children in California's Population 60 50 40 Overall in-care rate decreased by more than half over this period, driven primarily by steep declines in the rate for Black children (63 percent decrease). 30 20 Black Native American Overall 10 Latino White Asian/Pacific Islander 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 2 Extract. Retrieved November 17, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. of time children can remain in foster care . Notably, income of the family from which a child was removed the policy and practice changes that have resulted in foster care cases) . Furthermore, the cost of collectively in the decreases shown in Figure 5 services and supports may vary greatly based on the have done so by increasing exits from care more needs of the individual child and family (and whether so than by reducing entries . Overall, these trends the family is participating in Family Maintenance demonstrate that policy choices over time have had or the child has been placed into foster care) . For an impact on disproportionalities and disparities in example, in 2023-24, the estimated average monthly California’s foster care system, and illustrate that assistance payment for foster care across all further reducing entries into care—that is, focusing placement types is around $3,000, although for an on the front-end of the system—may be an important individual child that payment may range from around area for additional reform . $1,200 to more than $16,000 depending on where a child is placed and the level of care needed . In Child Welfare Funding addition to the monthly assistance payment amount, California’s Child Welfare System Is Funded other costs related to the child and parents’ needs by a Mix of Federal, State, and Local Funds. may include, for example, Medi-Cal coverage for The state’s diverse array of child welfare programs behavioral health services . is funded by federal, state, and local funds, as Federal Funding. When a family requires child illustrated by Figure 6 on the next page . The welfare services or foster care, and that family meets proportional mix of funds used to fund any particular federal eligibility standards based on income and child welfare payment or service varies depending other factors, states may claim federal funds for on whether a family is eligible for federal financial part of the cost of providing care and services for participation (a determination generally based on the the child and family . State and local governments www.lao.ca.gov 13 AN LAO REPORT Figure 6 realignment dollars, counties also may choose to spend other local funds (such as county general fund 2023-24 Child Welfare Funding resources) on child welfare programs . As a result Totals $9.8 Billion of Proposition 30 (2012), under 2011 realignment, counties either are not responsible or only partially Reimbursement responsible for child welfare programmatic cost increases resulting from federal, state, and judicial policy changes . Proposition 30 establishes that counties only need to implement new state policies State that increase overall program costs to the extent that the state provides the funding for those policies . Counties are responsible, however, for all other increases in child welfare costs—for example, County those associated with rising caseloads . Conversely, Federal if overall child welfare costs fall, counties retain those savings . Parameters set by realignment and Proposition 30 have resulted in the state choosing to implement many new child welfare program components as county options and consequently also result in California’s 58 counties making Includes child welfare services, foster care, Adoption Assistance Program, Kinship different implementation choices for child welfare Guardianship Assistance Payment Program, Approved Relative Caregiver Program, and related automation. programs . Some Recent Major Initiatives provide funding for the portion of costs not covered This section describes some policy areas of by federal funds, based on cost-sharing proportions recent legislative focus . The policy areas described determined by the federal government . These federal here are not inclusive of all of California’s major child funds are provided pursuant to Title IV-E (related to welfare initiatives, but rather are those most relevant foster care) and Title IV-B (related to child welfare) to this report . of the Social Security Act . Other federal funding Implementing Continuum of Care Reform sources that California receives for child welfare (CCR). Beginning in 2012, the Legislature passed purposes include some Temporary Assistance for a series of legislation implementing CCR . This Needy Families dollars and various federal grants legislative package makes fundamental changes to (such as the Child Abuse Prevention Program and the way the state cares for youth in the foster care Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program) . system . Namely, CCR aims to: (1) end long-term 2011 Realignment. Until 2011-12, the state congregate care placements; (2) increase reliance General Fund and counties shared significant on home-based family placements, including those portions of the nonfederal costs of administering with relatives/kin; (3) improve access to supportive child welfare programs . In 2011, the state enacted services regardless of the type of foster care legislation and the voters adopted constitutional placement a child is in; and (4) utilize universal child amendments (in 2012) known as 2011 realignment, and family assessments to improve placement, which gave counties fiscal responsibility for child service, and payment rate decisions . Under 2011 welfare . The legislation also dedicated a portion realignment, the state pays for the net costs of CCR, of the state’s sales and use tax and vehicle which include up-front implementation costs . CCR is license fee revenues—along with a portion of the a multiyear effort—with implementation of the various associated growth in these revenues—to counties components of the reform package beginning at to administer these programs (along with some different times over several years—and the state public safety, behavioral health, and adult protective continues to work toward full implementation services programs) . In addition to dedicated 2011 currently . 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Accessing Federal Funds for Prevention foster youth access Supplemental Security Income/ Services. Historically, one of the main federal State Supplementary Payment benefits . California funding streams available for foster care—Title IV-E— also updated state policy to conform with federal has not been available for states to use on services guidance to allow more child support dollars to flow that may prevent foster care placement in the first to families participating in reunification services . place . Instead, the use of Title IV-E funds has been Supporting Placements With Relatives. As restricted to support youth and families only after a noted, research finds that foster youth placed with youth has been placed in foster care . Passed as part family members or kin tend to experience more of the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act, the Family First stability and better longer-term outcomes than Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) expands allowable those placed in congregate care or with non-relative uses of federal Title IV-E funds to include certain foster families . Accordingly, a number of recent evidence-based and federally approved services to legislative actions and budget augmentations aim help prevent children and families from entering (or to support family members to be able to provide re-entering) the foster care system . care for relative children who are placed into foster California is in the process of implementing the care . For example, Chapter 687 of 2021 (SB 354, state’s FFPSA program . In particular, the 2021-22 Skinner) aims to reduce barriers for relatives to budget provided $222 million for block grants to become resource families, while certain budget counties (on an opt-in basis) to help them develop augmentations in 2021-22 and 2022-23 aim to comprehensive prevention plans (CPPs) and begin provide enhanced supports for finding and engaging implementing optional Title IV-E prevention services, relatives, home-based placement options for foster as well as any other non-federally eligible prevention youth with complex behavioral health needs, and services they choose to implement . In developing case-by-case flexible funding for resource families to CPPs, counties are required to conduct needs and help sustain foster placements . capacity assessments, map current services and Clarifying Differences Between Neglect and providers, define the specific prevention services Conditions of Poverty. In some cases, poverty can they will implement and who the target populations be mistaken for neglect . (We discuss this tension will be, and more . Counties opting into the state in more detail in the next section of this report .) For block grant program were required to submit their instance, a mandated reporter may make a report to CPPs to DSS in July 2023 . As of January 2024, the child welfare hotline based on observing a child DSS had approved CPPs for 49 counties and 2 who appears malnourished—which may or may not tribes (with 1 additional county’s plan still pending ultimately meet the statutory definition of reportable approval) . Counties will continue to scope their neglect . Given the potential to conflate poverty programs and build the needed capacities in the and possible neglect, some recent policy bills— coming years . namely, Chapter 770 of 2022 (AB 2085, Holden) and Improving the Economic Stability of Child Chapter 832 of 2022 (SB 1085, Kamlager)—have Welfare Families. The Legislature has taken several focused on clarifying that experiencing poverty is budget actions and passed policy bills over the distinct from child maltreatment, in particular general past few years that aim to improve the economic neglect . These bills, described in the box on the next supports for child welfare system involved families . page, have amended relevant sections of the Welfare Some examples of recent legislative actions include: and Institutions Code and Penal Code accordingly . time-limited cash assistance for families at risk of Increasing Focus on Behavioral Health. child removal, the creation of a new tax credit for Beyond the child welfare system itself, significant former foster youth, policy changes to continue legislative efforts have focused on California’s providing cash assistance to California Work health care system—including behavioral health Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) programs and services . Ongoing efforts include families for six months after a child is removed, multiyear initiatives led by the Department of Health policy changes and additional funds to support Care Services, such as California Advancing and relative caregivers, and policy changes to help older Innovating Medi-Cal, proposed changes to the www.lao.ca.gov 15 AN LAO REPORT Recent Bills Aim to Distinguish Poverty From Reportable Neglect Chapter 770 of 2022 (AB 2085, Holden) clarified that a parent’s economic disadvantage in and of itself does not constitute neglect and added that “general neglect” entails a situation in which a child is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness . Similarly, Chapter 832 of 2022 (SB 1085, Kamlager) prohibits a child from being found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court solely on the basis of conditions of financial difficulty unless the court determines there is willful or negligent action or failure to act resulting in a substantial risk the child will suffer serious physical harm or illness . Stated legislative intent of these new laws is to: (1) decrease the number of unsubstantiated general neglect allegations that disproportionately impact Black and Native American children (AB 2085), and (2) ensure that families are not subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and children are not separated from their parents based on conditions of economic hardship (SB 1085) . Mental Health Services Act, and the Children and important forms of child maltreatment prevention, Youth Behavioral Health Initiative . Although most and (2) many parents/caregivers and children who behavioral health services are delivered outside of become involved with the child welfare system the child welfare system, this policy area is a notable require these services as components of their overall area of legislative focus given that: (1) services for child welfare case plans . mental health and substance use disorder can be INHERENT CHALLENGES OF THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM Decisions made within the child welfare system health outcomes long term, such as increased risk must prioritize safety, which may in some cases of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, substance abuse, mean children cannot remain with their parent(s)/ and mental health challenges . These negative caregiver(s), at least on a temporary basis . At impacts become much more likely for individuals the same time, the child welfare system aims to having four or more ACEs . Research specifies strengthen families and keep children with their that children who experienced various forms of parent(s)/caregiver(s) whenever possible . As such, maltreatment and family instability faced 16 percent these goals of keeping children safe and keeping to 28 percent higher risk for premature death children with their parent(s)/caregiver(s) sometimes depending on the type of maltreatment/instability . may seem at odds with one another . Getting it Research also has shown ACEs and excessive wrong—either removing a child who could remain or prolonged exposure to stressors—known as safely at home with the right supports, or leaving a toxic stress response—can make individuals more child in a harmful or dangerous situation—can have prone to certain health issues and impact parental dire consequences and result in trauma to children behaviors . Furthermore, some studies have focused and families . In this section, we lay out some issues on how the impacts of trauma may be passed related to these key tensions inherent to the child down, potentially increasing risk for trauma and welfare system . maltreatment—and the various associated negative impacts—across generations within certain families Mitigating Trauma and communities . Public Health Research on Adverse Childhood Research Shows Youth Who Experience Experiences (ACEs) Links Maltreatment With Maltreatment Are More Likely to Experience Negative Health Outcomes. ACEs are associated Other Negative Outcomes. Children who have with a range of negative physical and behavioral experienced the traumas associated with child 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT maltreatment—whether or not they are placed policies and funding also have focused on lessening into foster care—are significantly more likely to the trauma of child welfare system involvement by experience negative longer-term life outcomes . aiming to increase foster placements with relatives In particular, research has found that youth (as opposed to unrelated resource families or experiencing maltreatment are less likely to congregate care) . graduate high school, less likely to attend college or Poverty and Risk Factors for university and to graduate, more likely to experience homelessness, more likely to be incarcerated, and Maltreatment more likely to be referred to substance use disorder Poverty or Economic Hardship Is a Key Risk treatment . In addition, research has found these Factor for Child Maltreatment. Economic hardship outcomes are worse for foster youth compared creates conditions in which the risk of maltreatment to other youth experiencing poverty who did not is higher due to stress, lack of resources, and other experience foster care . factors . Throughout the history of the child welfare Child Welfare System Intervention May system, the vast majority of system-involved families Be Necessary for Child Safety, but Also May have been low or very low income . Research has Result in Additional Trauma. Families who come found both individual family poverty as well as to the attention of the child welfare system often neighborhood/community poverty are risk factors are experiencing significant challenges, such as for child maltreatment . A study from the U .S . substance use disorder or domestic violence, which Department of Health and Human Services found can cause trauma to the children and family . Given that children living in poverty are at seven times the shorter- and longer-term negative impacts of higher risk for neglect, three times higher risk for experiencing trauma and maltreatment, child welfare physical abuse, and two times higher risk for sexual system intervention may be necessary to help abuse . keep children safe within these potentially harmful Centers for Disease Control and Prevention situations . At the same time, involvement with the (CDC) Framework Lays Out How Poverty child welfare system may result in additional trauma, Correlates With Other Risk Factors. The national particularly when a child is removed from their CDC developed a framework of risk and protective parent(s)/caregiver(s) . In spite of the trauma that may factors for child maltreatment, shown in Figure 7 on result from foster placement, removals nonetheless the next page . Many of the risk factors derive from are necessary to protect children in some situations . or otherwise strongly correlate with experiencing For example, a child experiencing repeated physical poverty or economic hardship . According to abuse would experience continued harm if left in the CDC, “Risk factors are characteristics that their situation . While intervention may introduce may increase the likelihood of experiencing or additional or different trauma, it may be less than if perpetrating child abuse and neglect, but they there were no intervention . How best to ensure child may or may not be direct causes . A combination of safety in a way that minimizes and mitigates trauma individual, relational, community, and societal factors and ideally keeps the child with their parent(s)/ contribute to the risk of child abuse and neglect .” caregiver(s) is a core tension inherent to the child Importantly, the presence of risk factors does not welfare system . necessarily mean that child maltreatment will occur, California Increasingly Has Focused on but rather indicates increased risk that maltreatment Trauma-Informed Care and Prevention. may occur . Different families may experience the Many of California’s policies and recent budget same combination of risk factors but have different augmentations in the child welfare system outcomes . focus on preventing maltreatment and providing Differentiating Between Poverty and Possible trauma-informed care when maltreatment has Maltreatment Key Challenge. A key challenge of occurred . In addition, California’s policies (along with decisions made within the child welfare system is federal policies) increasingly have focused more on how best to support families with poverty-related prevention services . When removals are necessary, risk factors for maltreatment . Research finds that www.lao.ca.gov 17 AN LAO REPORT Figure 7 CDC Framework of Risk and Protective Factors for Child Maltreatment Individual Caregivers Families Communities Risk Factors Characteristics that may increase the likelihood of perpetrating child abuse and neglect, but they may or may not be direct causes ∆ Drug or alcohol issues ∆ Household members in jail or ∆ High rates of violence and crime prison ∆ Mental health issues, including ∆ High rates of poverty and limited depression ∆ Isolation from/lack of connection educational and economic to other people (extended family, opportunities ∆ Lack of understanding around friends, or neighbors) children’s needs or development ∆ High unemployment rates ∆ Experience with other types of ∆ Personal experience of abuse or ∆ Easy access to drugs and alcohol violence, including relationship neglect as children violence ∆ Low community involvement ∆ Young or single parents or parents among residents ∆ High conflict and negative with many children communication styles ∆ Few community activities for ∆ Low education or income young people ∆ High levels of parenting stress or ∆ Unstable housing and where economic stress residents move frequently ∆ Use of spanking and other forms of ∆ Frequent experience with food corporal punishment for discipline insecurity ∆ Caregivers in the home who are not a biological parent ∆ Attitudes accepting of or justifying violence or aggression… Protective Factors Characteristics that may lessen the likelihood of children being abused or neglected Create safe, positive relationships Strong social support networks Safe, stable housing ✔ ✔ ✔ with children and stable, positive relationships High-quality preschool with the people around them ✔ Practice nurturing parenting skills ✔ Nuturing and safe child care and provide emotional support Caregivers are present and ✔ ✔ interested in the child Safe, engaging after school Able to meet basic needs of food, ✔ ✔ programs and activities shelter, education, and health Caregivers enforce household ✔ services rules and engage in child Medical care and mental health ✔ monitoring services Have college degree or higher and ✔ have steady employment Caring adults outside the family Economic and financial help ✔ ✔ who can serve as role models or Work opportunities with mentors ✔ family-friendly policies CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT children experiencing poverty and other correlated trauma . How to differentiate between families in factors are at greater risk for maltreatment, need of economic and other supports, as opposed and maltreatment is linked with many negative to families who require child welfare system-level life outcomes . As such, intervening in cases of intervention for substantial risk of harm due to maltreatment is imperative . At the same time, maltreatment, is an inherent challenge for decision child welfare system involvement itself can cause makers across the child welfare system . DISPROPORTIONALITIES IN CHILD WELFARE In this section, we describe the Lower-Income Families disproportionalities and disparities in California’s Disproportionately Represented child welfare system as they relate to income, race, Most of California’s Families Involved With and ethnicity . Understanding which California the Child Welfare System Live in Poverty. We do communities and families are impacted at not have aggregated data about family income level disproportionate rates—and the possible reasons for those involved with the child welfare system, but why—can help the Legislature consider which policy available data reflect that the majority of children interventions may be most effective at addressing in foster care live in deep poverty . Specifically, these disproportionalities and disparities . The an estimated 53 percent of youth in foster care in box below provides additional context around 2023-24 are removed from families who meet 1996 the language used in this report to describe federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children disproportionalities and disparities in California’s eligibility requirements . This roughly equates to child welfare system . earnings of under $1,000 per month for a family of four . Nationally, researchers estimate around 85 percent of families involved with the child welfare General Notes on Language Used in This Report In this report, where disaggregated data are available, we use the racial and ethnic groupings currently employed by the U .S . Census and in state data sources, namely: white, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native (or Native American), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic or Latino, and other . We note that some groups may prefer different terminology to refer to racial and ethnic groupings . However, this report uses these categorizations because they reflect available state and national data . Examining child welfare experiences based on these categories is important because peoples’ race and ethnicity—as well as other characteristics—can influence both their experience in society and with government policy . We also refer to disproportionalities and disparities throughout this report . A disproportionality occurs when one group’s percentage in a target population differs from that group’s percentage in the base population . In the child welfare system, disproportionality occurs when, for example, one group’s representation in foster care is larger than (overrepresented) or smaller than (underrepresented) that group’s share of the general child population . Disparity, on the other hand, refers to groups experiencing inequities relative to one another . Disparity occurs when the ratio of one group experiencing an event is not equal to the ratio of another group experiencing the same event . In the child welfare system, for example, disparity is often used to describe inequitable outcomes experienced by different groups, such as the average amount of time that children of different racial/ethnic groups spend in foster care or the likelihood of reunifying successfully with their parent(s)/ caregiver(s) . www.lao.ca.gov 19 AN LAO REPORT system have incomes below 200 percent of the framework, given that poverty and correlated factors federal poverty level, which is around $5,000 per are known risks that increase the likelihood of child month for a family of four in 2023 . maltreatment . Therefore, the fact that lower-income Rates of Child Welfare System Involvement families are more likely to become involved with the Correlate With Rates of Poverty in California. child welfare system is not surprising and to a large Throughout all levels of the child welfare system, extent reflects differences in exposure to risks . families experiencing poverty are more likely to Black and Native American Children come to the attention of and be impacted by the Significantly Overrepresented child welfare system . For example, across California, foster placements by county increase as the rate of Black and Native American Children poverty increases, as shown in Figure 8 . As another Disproportionately Experience Foster Care example, recent research found that lower-income Placement. The proportions of Black and Native California children—that is, those with public health American youth in foster care are around four times insurance (Medi-Cal)—experienced child welfare larger than the proportions of Black and Native involvement at more than twice the rate of those with American youth in California overall . Figure 9 private insurance . These findings reflect the CDC illustrates these disproportionalities . While the Figure 8 Relationship Between Poverty and Foster Placements Across California Counties Percent of Children in Foster Care 1.25% 1.00 Generally, as county poverty increases, 0.75 so do the rates of children in foster care. 0.50 0.25 5 10 15 20 25 30% Percent of Children in Poverty Notes: Size of bubble represents a county's share of total child population. Data was not available for all counties, due to small foster care populations and privacy considerations. Data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP) reports. Foster care population (ages 0-17) as of July 1, 2022. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 1 Extract. For child population (ages 0-17) estimate for 2022, CCWIP uses Department of Finance population projections. For child poverty population (ages 0-17) estimate for 2022, CCWIP uses American Community Survey five-year sample (2017-2021). All data retrieved August 11, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT to the far left of the figure would Figure 9 indicate ten times lower likelihood of Racial/Ethnic Disproportionalities in Foster Care involvement . Specifically, the top set of bars indicates that Black children Proportion of Youth in Population Compared to in Foster Care are around three times more likely to be the subject of an allegation and 60% nearly five-and-a-half times more Proportion of California's likely to be in foster care compared to Child Population 50 white children . Proportion of Foster Care Total After Accounting for Poverty, 40 Disparities Remain for Certain Groups. When adjusting for poverty, 30 disparities are diminished as shown in Figure 11 on the next page, although Black and Native American 20 youth are still more likely than all other racial/ethnic groups to have 10 substantiated allegations, enter into, and be in care . In addition, when controlling for poverty, the overall Black White Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Native American Islander trend for Hispanic/Latino children changes and they are less likely, Data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project (CCWIP) reports. Foster care population as of July 1, 2022. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 1 Extract. relative to white children, to become For child population estimate for 2022, CCWIP uses Department of Finance population projections. All data retrieved August 11, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. involved with the child welfare system . Notably, these data reflect the federal poverty level . Rates of figure displays aggregated state-level data, deep poverty—that is, families with incomes lower disproportionalities differ across counties . These than 50 percent of the federal poverty level—also disproportionalities have persisted over time . vary by race/ethnicity . In California, Black, Native Disparities Are Present at All Stages of American, and Hispanic/Latino children are more Child Welfare System Involvement, Becoming likely than children of other races/ethnicities to More Pronounced at Later Stages. In addition to experience this more extreme level of deprivation . disproportionate representation, disparities between For example, in 2021, Black children were roughly racial and ethnic groups also are present across the three times more likely than white children to child welfare system . As shown by Figure 10 on the experience deep poverty (16 percent compared to next page, disparities are present beginning with 5 percent) . allegations and are maintained through all stages of Cumulative Lifetime System Involvement child welfare system involvement, becoming most Also Disproportional and Disparate. Recent pronounced for children who are removed from their research on cumulative child welfare involvement home and are in foster care . Figure 10 shows the of California’s 1999 birth cohort found nearly relative extent to which children of different racial/ one-in-two Black and Native American children ethnic groups are involved with various levels of the experienced some level of child welfare system child welfare system, compared to white children . involvement (meaning they were at least the subject Bars to the right of center indicate relatively higher of an investigated allegation) by the time they turned rates of involvement, while bars to the left of center 18 (compared to around 29 percent of Hispanic/ indicate relatively lower rates of involvement . For Latino children, 22 percent of white children, and example, a bar extending to the far right of the 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children) . This figure would indicate ten times higher likelihood of means Black and Native American children are involvement . Similarly, a bar extending all the way www.lao.ca.gov 21 AN LAO REPORT Figure 10 Child Welfare Racial/Ethnic Disparities Indices Group Comparisons to White Less Likely More Likely 3.08 Allegations Black Investigations 5.43 Substantiations Entries into Foster Care Native American In Foster Care Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Ten Times Lower Baseline of Comparison Ten Times Higher Rate of Involvement (White Children) Rate of Involvement Disparity indices by ethnicity data from from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project. Data for January through December 2022. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 1 Extract. Retrieved August 11, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. Figure 11 In-Poverty Population: Child Welfare Racial/Ethnic Disparities Indices Group Comparisons to White Less Likely More Likely 0.95 Allegations Black Investigations 1.67 Substantiations Entries into Foster Care In Foster Care Native American Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Ten Times Lower Baseline of Comparison Ten Times Higher Rate of Involvement (White Children) Rate of Involvement Disparity indices by ethnicity data from from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project. Data for January through December 2022. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 1 Extract. Retrieved August 11, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT more than twice as likely as white children to have and 3 .8 percent of Native American children in experienced some level of child welfare system California experienced termination of parental rights, involvement by the time they turn 18 . compared to 1 .3 percent of white children (and Racial Disparities Persist in Outcomes. 0 .8 percent and 0 .3 percent for Hispanic and Asian In addition to disproportionate and disparate children, respectively) . This means California’s Native representation of certain groups’ involvement with American children were more than three times more all levels of the child welfare system, disparities likely than white children, and more than 12 times in terms of child welfare outcomes also are well more likely than Asian children, to have their legal documented . For example, the same research relationship with their biological parents severed by referenced in the preceding paragraph also found the time they turned 18 . that 3 .2 percent of Black children in California HIGH-LEVEL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO DISPROPORTIONALITIES The disproportionate and disparate involvement community characteristics increase the likelihood of some racial/ethnic groups in California’s child that child maltreatment may occur . For example, welfare system is concerning because race/ethnicity as shown in Figure 7 (on page 18), one factor alone is not a determining factor of the need for child associated with higher risk for maltreatment is welfare system involvement . The causes of these economic stress . Black, Native American, and disproportionalities and disparities are complex Hispanic/Latino communities in California are more and nuanced, reflecting challenges and risk factors likely to experience poverty, as shown in Figure 12 that certain groups are more likely to experience . In on the next page, and deep poverty . Increased this section, we describe some broader, high-level exposure to poverty is in part due to policies and social and economic factors—beyond the child practices that disproportionately impacted these welfare system itself—that may contribute to why communities over time . For example, discriminatory certain racial/ethnic groups are disproportionately housing and lending practices significantly reduced represented in the child welfare system today . Black families’ ability to accumulate wealth . Black While the factors described in this section reflect Californians today are less likely than other racial/ some issues impacting families, the child welfare ethnic groups to own homes, with less than system makes decisions on a case-by-case basis 40 percent of Black Californians living in homes that and every case is unique . Each family is dealing with they own, relative to nearly 65 percent of white and its own set of circumstances, risks, challenges, and Asian Californians . Absent the wealth accumulated supports/lack thereof, and each county/individual through home ownership, families may be more likely social workers are making decisions based on their to experience economic instability and stress . own experiences and training . This individualized As shown in Figure 7 (on page 18), another factor decision-making in many ways represents a associated with higher risk for maltreatment is low strength of the system, while simultaneously adding education . Research finds that income and racial complexity in terms of understanding the drivers of segregation across schools is associated with lower disproportionalities at the system level . levels of educational proficiency and attainment for Black, Native American, and Hispanic/Latino Disproportionate Exposure to Risk students . Notably, these racial/ethnic groups Factors continue to experience less desirable educational Some Groups More Likely to Be in outcomes when accounting for income . For example, Low-Income Families and Experience Broader as illustrated by Figure 13 on the next page, across Risk Factors. Certain individual, family, and both higher-income and lower-income families in www.lao.ca.gov 23 AN LAO REPORT Figure 12 Poverty Rates in California Vary Across Groups Share of Californians Living Below the Federal Poverty Level 30% 25 Black 20 American Indian/ Alaska Native 15 Hispanic/Latino Two or More Races Asian 10 White 5 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Notes: Due to how data are categorized, some individuals are counted in more than one group. Smaller sample size for American Indian/Alaska Native results in year-to-year changes that may appear larger than for other groups. Data from American Community Survey. Figure 13 Significant Disparities in Student Achievement Percent of Students Who Met or Exceeded Standards in 8th Grade Math in 2022-23 80% Low income 70 Non-low income 60 50 40 30 20 10 Asian Filipino White Two or Hispanic Native Hawaiian American Indian Black more races or Latino or Pacific Islander or Alaska Native Notes: "Low income" includes students receiving free or reduced priced meals, or otherwise determined by California Department of Education to come from economically disadvantaged families. Data from California Department of Education. 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT California, Black, Native American, and Hispanic/ Disproportionate Exposure to Latino students are significantly less likely than white Mandated Reporters and Asian students to meet or exceed 8th grade math Low-Income Groups More Likely to Come proficiency levels . Into Contact With Social Workers. Some child Native American Children Were Systematically welfare policy experts have raised the idea that Removed From Families. Studies estimate that certain groups are more likely to come into regular 25 percent to 35 percent of all tribal children were contact with professionals, such as social workers, removed from their parents and communities under who are required by law to report any suspected federal policies that existed through the 1970s . child maltreatment . For example, given Black, Native Specifically, these policies aimed to displace American, and Hispanic/Latino families are more and assimilate tribal communities by placing likely to be low income, they may be more likely to children in white, English-speaking settings . Due come into contact with social workers serving these in part to these policies, Native American families families through programs like CalWORKs . These disproportionately continue to experience risk interactions may contribute to the disproportionate factors for child maltreatment such as isolation from involvement of these groups in child welfare by family and community . While the federal and state resulting in additional referrals . governments have taken steps to address these Some Communities More Likely to Come Into discriminatory policies, they continue to impact Contact With Criminal Justice System. Families Native American communities in California . The box living in high-crime neighborhoods and areas below describes these federal and state steps to otherwise experiencing higher levels of criminal protect and strengthen Native American children’s justice system involvement—which tend to be connections to their tribes . lower-income Black, Native American, and Hispanic/ Latino communities—are more likely to come into Child Welfare Policy Toward Native American Tribes Historical federal policies overtly sought to displace and assimilate tribal communities . The child welfare system was used as a policy tool to this end: through Indian boarding schools and later the Indian adoptions project, federal government policy was to remove children from their homes, tribes, languages, and culture and place them into white, English-speaking settings . Specifically, studies have found that 25 percent to 35 percent of all tribal children were being removed from their parents and communities through these policies, and of those removed, 85 percent were placed outside of their families and communities—even in cases when relative or other tribal placements were available . Research has found these policies contributed to intergenerational trauma, disproportionate exposure to risk factors for child maltreatment within Native American communities, and persistent child welfare system overrepresentation . In response to Congressional testimony detailing the impacts of these policies, the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 and seeks to preserve cultural connections for tribal children involved with the child welfare system . Since 2006, the California Legislature has passed a series of state laws which incorporate (and expand upon) ICWA’s protections for tribal communities within the child welfare context . The Department of Social Services (DSS) continues to work toward fully updating child welfare guidance and regulations in line with these state laws as well as the federal ICWA . As a recent example, since May 2023, DSS has been issuing a series of letters to county welfare directors with guidance around implementing specific requirements for partnering and collaborating with tribes in child welfare cases subject to ICWA . In addition, other recent laws have sought to improve various other elements of California’s government-to-government relations with tribes, including, for example, Chapter 475 of 2022 (AB 923, Ramos), which encourages state agencies to cooperate with tribes on matters of economic development and other programs . www.lao.ca.gov 25 AN LAO REPORT contact with police . Police officers commonly refer has documented that all individuals have biases, families to the child welfare system in situations including implicit/subconscious biases, which of domestic violence, substance use, and other impact individuals’ decision-making . Research has circumstances when children may be unsafe in their tried to identify the role these implicit biases may home . In addition, arrest and incarceration rates have on child welfare-related decisions . For example, in California for Black and Native American men some studies find that despite similar assessment and women, as well as for Hispanic/Latino men, of risk and other family characteristics, caseworkers are significantly higher than for other racial/ethnic were more likely to substantiate allegations for and groups . When a parent/caregiver is incarcerated and remove Black children compared to white children, no other caregiver is present, foster care placement and less likely to offer preventative services to Black may be necessary . Overall, Black, Hispanic/Latino, families . In contrast, however, other research finds and Native American communities’ disproportionate that accounting for family and case characteristics exposure to and involvement with the criminal justice explains most racial disparities in substantiations system may contribute to disproportionate child and removals . Other research examining decisions welfare system involvement by resulting in additional made by medical professionals finds implicit bias referrals and necessitating foster placement when a may play a role . For example, research found that parent/caregiver is incarcerated . medical professionals examining similar injuries were significantly more likely to report suspected abuse Role of Implicit Bias for Black children compared to white children . Implicit Bias May Impact Child Welfare Decisions. Psychological and sociological research FRONT-END POLICIES IMPACTING CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT In this section, we lay out “front-end” child important to help improve outcomes for youth once welfare system policy areas potentially impacting they are in foster care; however, this report focuses disproportionalities and disparities . In some cases, on disproportionalities and disparities prior to that the Legislature already took some actions to enact point . policies aiming to mitigate the overrepresentation of Mandated Reporting of Suspected Child certain groups in foster care . We define front-end policies as all policies prior to and including a social Maltreatment worker’s decision to remove a child and place State Law Defines Certain Professionals as them into foster care . Thus, this definition includes Mandated Reporters and Requires Them to services and supports for families prior to allegations Report Any Suspected Maltreatment to Child of maltreatment, as well as protocols and decisions Welfare Agency. Federal law requires states to around reporting, investigating, and substantiating have provisions or procedures for reporting known allegations, and possible removal and foster care or suspected child maltreatment . However, federal placement . We focus on these areas because law does not specify who should be required to addressing front-end system issues could help report or the standards for making a report, leaving mitigate the growing disparities at later stages of the this to states’ discretion . In California, the Child system . As described in the background section of Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) (Penal this report, some recent legislative bills and budget Code Sections 11164-11174 .3) defines numerous augmentations have focused on reducing disparities professionals as “mandated reporters” and lays at later stages of the system, often by supporting out the specific procedures for required reporting . placements with relatives . Continuing to implement The state’s mandated reporters include teachers reforms beyond the front-end of the system will be and other school personnel, medical professionals, 26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT social workers, law enforcement, child care workers, Substantiation Rates Vary Significantly by and numerous other professionals who may be Reporter Type. Allegations from certain reporter in regular contact with children and their families . types, relative to other reporter types, are much CANRA specifies that mandated reporters must more likely to be substantiated and result in entries report to their local child welfare agency (or police/ to care . In particular, as shown in Figure 15 on the sherriff department) as soon as possible upon next page, reports from law enforcement are the suspecting maltreatment . CANRA further specifies most likely to be substantiated (around 30 percent that mandated reporters may face consequences for substantiation rate in recent years), while reports failing to report, including up to six months jail time from teachers and other school personnel are and a $1,000 fine . around five to six times less likely to be substantiated Large Number of Mandated Reports Each (around 5 percent in recent years) . Reports from Year, Mostly Coming From Teachers. Annually, child welfare and medical professionals also are around half a million reports are made to the state’s substantiated at relatively high rates (around child abuse hotlines . As shown in Figure 14, in 20 percent in recent years) . Part of this difference most years, the largest percentage of these reports across reporter types likely is related to the are made by teachers and other school personnel circumstances under which the mandated reporter (around 20 percent) with the second largest has contact with the child . For example, medical percentage coming from law enforcement and other professionals may be more likely to report allegations legal professionals (also around 20 percent in recent of physical abuse based on observing certain types years) . The COVID-19 pandemic period saw the of fractures or patterns of bruising, which may be number of reports from teachers/school personnel more straightforward for child welfare social workers drop sharply, likely in large part due to school to substantiate compared to some other types of closures which resulted in less in-person contact allegations, such as general neglect . between teachers and children . Figure 14 Most Maltreatment Allegations Come From Education Professionals and Law Enforcement 120,000 100,000 Education 80,000 Law Enforcement/Legal 60,000 40,000 Medical Other Reporters 20,000 Child Welfare Services 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pandemic School Closures Each child is counted only once. For children with multiple reports in a year, the reporter counted here is the reporter responsible for the highest-severity report. Other Reporters is an average percentage of total allegations from: family/friend, neighbor, counselor/therapist, court-appointed special advocate, foster care/day care, other professional, other, and missing/unknown. Data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. For January 1 through December 31 of each year. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2023 Quarter 1 Extract. Retrieved August 14, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. www.lao.ca.gov 27 AN LAO REPORT Figure 15 Substantiated Allegations Vary by Type of Mandated Reporter Percentage of Allegations From Each Reporter Type That Are Substantiated 40% Law Enforcement/Legal 35 30 Child Welfare Services 25 Medical 20 All Allegations 15 Other Reporters 10 Education 5 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Data provided by California Department of Social Services. Data for July 1 through June 30 of each year. In Total, Small Percentage of Allegations Are notable exception is for teachers and other school Substantiated and Result in Foster Placement. employees: the Education Code (Section 44691) Ultimately, a large share of families who are the specifies that school employers shall annually train subject of a maltreatment allegation are not found their employees regarding mandated reporting to have mistreated their children . As shown in duties . While the required training must be in line Figure 16, while there are around half a million with guidance provided by the California Department California children who are the subjects of allegations of Education and DSS’s Office of Child Abuse in any given year, only around 15 percent of Prevention (OCAP), there is not a specific training allegations are substantiated, and around 6 percent curriculum that school employers must use . OCAP result in foster care entry, with the remainder of has developed standard training modules (including allegations determined to be unfounded, evaluated a general training as well as modules tailored for out, or inconclusive . Some portion of allegations teachers, child care providers, social workers, and that do not result in foster placement are referred more), which are available online and meet all state to family strengthening services (which could be requirements . However, most school employers court-mandated FM, voluntary FM, or provided by (around 60 percent of school districts) use a training community organizations as part of a county’s DR other than the state-developed standard modules . program—as described on page 10) . Additionally, for certain professions, training State Law Does Not Require Most Mandated around recognizing child maltreatment and Reporters to Receive Specific Training. CANRA understanding mandated reporting responsibilities requires employers of mandated reporters to is a part of professional education and development . inform their employees of their legal responsibilities For example, social workers learn about reporting to report suspected or known maltreatment . responsibilities and protocols as part of their However, the law does not require most mandated foundational training (described more on page 32) . In reporters to complete any training related to these addition, many medical and nursing school programs responsibilities (although the law does “strongly teach students about pediatric injuries commonly encourage” employers to provide such training) . One associated with child abuse, and California’s peace 28 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Figure 16 Results of Allegations (Around 500,000 Children With Allegations in a Given Year) 50% Unfounded Over time, the percentages of allegations that are 45 substantiated and result in foster care entries have remained relatively small shares of total allegations. 40 35 30 Inconclusive 25 Assessment Only/ Evaluated Out 20 Substantiations 15 10 Entries 5 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 The number of children with allegations in 2020-21 was substantially less (around 400,000), in large part due to the pandemic. However, trends in terms of results of allegations were not significantly impacted, as depicted by this figure. Data (aside from entries) provided by California Department of Social Services. Data for July 1 through June 30 of each year. Entries data from University of California, Berkeley California Child Welfare Indicators Project reports. Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 2022 Quarter 3 Extract, retrieved March 9, 2023. URL: https://ccwip.berkeley.edu. officer training academies introduce candidates 2023 through spring 2024 “to ensure the online to various state reporting requirements, including training provides the most upstream and supportive CANRA . content to mandated reporters for having the Administration Beginning Efforts Focused on necessary resources to adequately report only when Mandated Reporter Reforms. Improving mandated necessary .” reporting practices is currently a focal point of the Neglect: Definition and Data state’s Child Welfare Council (CWC) . CWC is an advisory body statutorily responsible for improving Statutory Definition of General Neglect collaboration across the multiple agencies and the May Be Broadly Interpreted and Confused courts that serve the children in the child welfare With Conditions of Poverty and Other Factors. California law defines neglect as one form of child system . CWC is co-chaired by the Secretary of the maltreatment . Although the law specifies that a California Health and Human Services Agency and parent’s economic disadvantage does not itself the designee of the Chief Justice of the California constitute general neglect, the definition nonetheless Supreme Court . In March 2023, CWC voted to form may be broadly interpreted . For example, OCAP’s a “Mandated Reporting to Community Supporting standard mandated reporter training module Task Force,” which will provide a final report with describes some examples of neglect to include implementation recommendations to CWC by failing to provide enough healthy food and drink, June 30, 2024 . The new task force began meeting failing to provide clothes that are appropriate in September 2023 . In addition, in September to the weather, failing to ensure adequate 2023, DSS publicly announced plans to review and personal hygiene, and exposing a child to unsafe/ redesign the standard mandated reporter trainings . unsanitary environments . Within these parameters, To inform the redesign, DSS will conduct focus individuals working with children may have difficulty groups with various stakeholders beginning in fall www.lao.ca.gov 29 AN LAO REPORT distinguishing between a family’s need for support Decision-Making Tools and Training for (due to poverty and other risk factors) or need for Social Workers child welfare system involvement . Structured Decision Making® (SDM) Tools Guidance and Protocol Changes Resulting Employed by Social Workers Help Guide Various From Recent Legislative Actions Beginning Decisions. As noted below, California’s child welfare Implementation. Given the complex relationship social workers use standardized decision-making between poverty and interpretations of neglect, tools, which are designed to help them navigate the Legislature in 2022 enacted AB 2085 and decision points and employ more uniform standards SB 1085, which aim to distinguish reportable across cases . The specific tools used in California neglect from a family’s challenges related to are called SDM tools . (These are proprietary experiencing poverty (as described in the box on tools developed and maintained by a third-party page 16) . Ultimately, outcomes of these statutory contractor .) Since 2016, all of California’s 58 counties amendments will depend on changes in practice . have been using a suite of SDM tools, including a To this end, in December 2023, DSS issued number of specific point-in-time decision-making updated guidance to county welfare directors in assessments, each aiming to guide social workers accordance with these new laws . Specifically, in determining the best next steps for the youth and All-County Letter 23-105 encourages local child family in question . California’s SDM assessment welfare agencies to: refer families with economic tools currently include the specific tools outlined in needs to available services; develop clear policies Figure 17 . and procedures for determining what constitutes Each tool includes a series of questions “economic disadvantage,” and when a child may and decision trees that guide social workers to be at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness; and otherwise review their existing Figure 17 policies and procedures to align with California’s Structured Decision Making Tools these legislative provisions . State-Level Aggregated Data Tool and Purpose Required Use Around Underlying Causes of Neglect Are Limited. As shown Hotline Intake: Screen referrals for Required in assessing every by Figure 1 (page 9), the majority of in-person response and determine how hotline call. quickly a response must be made. families who become involved with the child welfare system are referred to the system due to allegations of Safety Assessment: Determine if it is Required whenever an in-person neglect . However, the state’s current safe for a child to remain home or what investigation is conducted in actions need to be taken to assure safety. response to an allegation. child welfare data system does not provide quantifiable data about the harm or risk to the child underlying Risk Assessment: Support decisions Required any time an investigation about opening a case for court-ordered or is conducted and the social neglect cases . Instead, understanding voluntary supervision based upon the worker substantiates the characteristics of the household associated allegation or finds it inconclusive. the basis of investigated and with likelihood of future maltreatment. substantiated neglect allegations requires reviewing counties’ narrative Reunification Reassessment: This is an optional tool for reports for individual cases . As shown Determine if children are able to return social workers. home after time spent in foster care. by Figure 2 (page 10), one recent study reviewed a sample of qualitative information from investigations and In-Home Family Risk Reassessment: This is an optional tool for Determine if a Family Maintenance case social workers. offers insight into common types of can be closed or if the children will continue to remain at home. investigated neglect and parental risk factors; however, systematic data are Source: Evident Change not available . 30 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT recommended actions and next steps based on tools as deemed necessary . Notably, in December calculated risk scores . However, social workers 2023, DSS and the proprietor made a number make the ultimate decision about next steps . For of changes to some of the tools to align with the example, if a social worker believes that the risk recent departmental guidance around AB 2085 score does not accurately portray the household’s and SB 1085 (described on page 30), as well as actual risk level, the social worker may increase or with recent guidance related to communication decrease the risk level and provide an explanation and collaboration with tribes in cases potentially for the decision . Most of California’s SDM tools subject to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were developed through a process involving the (described on page 25) . DSS communicated these proprietor, state, and local stakeholders, informed changes to counties via All-County Letter 23-101 . by statute, policy, and child welfare practice in State Beginning to Use Blind Decision-Making the state . However, the risk assessment tool was Tools in Some Policy Areas. Another approach to developed by the proprietor using data pertaining to attempting to mitigate individual implicit biases in the characteristics of families who have had ongoing child removal decisions is known as “blind removal,” involvement with the child welfare system after an which some counties (and other states) have begun initial investigation . to pilot . (Examples of blind removal initiatives, DSS and Proprietor Review and Update SDM and other types of “blind” decision-making, are Tools. DSS and the proprietor have access to SDM described more in the box below .) In the child welfare tools data, and also review and update the suite of context, blind removal refers to the practice of having “Blind” Review and Decision-Making Blind removal practices were first implemented as a pilot program in 2009 in Nassau County, New York, where at the time, Black children were nearly 15 times more likely to be placed into foster care compared to their white peers . An assessment of program outcomes found that the rate of Black children removed (per 1,000 Black children in the general population) declined from 5 .5 in 2009 to less than 2 .0 in 2019 . We note that there may have been other policy, practice, and external changes that occurred during this same period . As such, the decline may not have been solely the result of the blind removal pilot . New York’s governor in 2020 directed the state administration to begin implementing blind removal practices statewide . In 2021, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to implement a similar blind removal pilot program . The pilot, which concluded in fall 2023, was implemented at two regional county child welfare offices . To evaluate the pilot, the county partnered with the University of California, Los Angeles’ Pritzker Center for Strengthening Children and Families . The evaluation, published in March 2024, found some limitations of the pilot including data limitations and that other simultaneous initiatives with similar goals made identifying the specific impacts of the pilot challenging . That said, the evaluation noted some promising qualitative outcomes, such as changes to case worker practices based on an increased awareness of the role that race may play in decision-making . Furthermore, the evaluation highlighted some lessons learned that could be applied to future blind removal efforts in other counties, such as the importance of dedicated staffing resources and consistent data management . Beyond the child welfare system, other types of blind review and decision-making also have been piloted in the criminal justice system . For example, in 2022, the Legislature unanimously approved Chapter 806 of 2022 (AB 2778, McCarty), which requires the Department of Justice to develop “Race-Blind Charging” guidelines beginning January 1, 2024, with implementation by local law enforcement agencies slated to begin January 1, 2025 . According to the legislation, race-blind charging refers to processes whereby prosecuting agencies review cases for charging based on information from which all means of identifying the race of the suspect, victim, or witness have been removed or redacted . This legislation follows race-blind charging pilot programs in certain jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Yolo Counties . www.lao.ca.gov 31 AN LAO REPORT a social worker (different from the social worker who grant dollars included in the 2021-22 budget to help conducted the initial investigation) review allegation counties begin implementing their CPPs may be reports and removal decisions without having access used more broadly, although these are one-time to racially/ethnically identifiable information about funds . the family/child . The aim of this practice is to ensure Access to Prevention Services Within the Child that a decision maker focuses only on the specifics Welfare System Is Uneven. In addition, the state of an allegation and risk factors, without exposure gave counties flexibility over whether and how to to race/ethnicity information, which could result in implement prevention services . This means access subconscious bias . for California’s youth, families, and communities to Training Around Recognizing and Mitigating Title IV-E prevention services and other supports Biases. While a specific implicit bias training is not will vary depending on geography and participating required by state statute or regulations, recognizing counties’ CPPs . For example, for the 50 counties and mitigating bias is intertwined throughout the and 2 tribes that have opted into prevention services mandated statewide curriculum that all new child under FFPSA, the Title IV-E eligible prevention welfare social workers complete to ensure they have services that child welfare agencies most commonly the foundational training necessary for competence selected to implement include: in the field . DSS contracts with the California Social • Motivational Interviewing (25 agencies), a Work Education Center and the statewide Regional method of counseling designed to promote Training Academies to provide this initial training and behavior change and improve physiological, continuing education to child welfare social workers . psychological, and lifestyle outcomes . Various optional trainings—such as those provided • Parents as Teachers (21 agencies), a by different DSS-contracted vendors—are also home-visiting parent education program that available and may address topics related to implicit teaches new and expectant parents skills bias and uniform decision-making . Previous budgets intended to promote positive child development also have provided funding for implicit bias training and prevent child maltreatment . for certain program staff, such as for CalWORKs • Healthy Families America (16 agencies), social workers . a home-visiting program for new and Prevention expectant families with children who are at-risk for maltreatment or adverse childhood Availability of Prevention Services Within experiences . the Child Welfare System Is Limited. As noted earlier, some recent legislative actions and • Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (13 agencies), budget augmentations focus on preventing child in which parents are coached by a trained maltreatment and the associated trauma . While therapist in behavior-management and FFPSA presents a significant potential expansion relationship skills . of Title IV-E dollars, certain key limitations exist . • Functional Family Therapy (12 agencies), a In particular, FFPSA allows Title IV-E funds to short-term prevention program for at-risk youth be used only for prevention services provided and their families to address factors impacting to eligible “candidates”—children and families the adaptive development of 11- to 18-year-old assessed by child welfare agencies as at risk of youth who have been referred for behavioral or child maltreatment and who meet specific eligibility emotional challenges . criteria—not for broader implementation of programs Furthermore, the presence of community-based that could help reduce the risks of child maltreatment organizations currently delivering prevention services for whole communities . In addition, currently there varies throughout the state . Some counties already are limited culturally relevant federally approved may have a variety of organizations and initiatives services that are specifically designed to serve the focused on prevention (beyond the basic services families/communities who are most overrepresented available in all counties) . For example, San Diego in California’s child welfare system . State block 32 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT County’s child welfare agency partners with the eligibility purposes) . Many details of community county 2-1-1 referral hotline to connect families who pathway implementation are yet to be determined . are subject to maltreatment allegations to various DSS plans to establish a community pathway community providers throughout the county and advisory committee and will work with counties streamline intake to needed programs and services, and stakeholders to develop full implementation such as for housing, utilities, nutrition, and health . guidance, oversight and accountability mechanisms, In addition, according to the county’s CPP, a dozen and other details around the community pathway . community-based organizations have been identified As with other elements of FFPSA implementation, across the county that already offer various Title IV-E ultimately, individual counties and tribes will decide eligible prevention services . Some other counties’ whether and how to implement a community CPPs indicate they have more limited current pathway option locally . Of the agencies that have programs and capacity . Differences across counties opted into prevention services under FFPSA, roughly also result from 2011 realignment, which allows half indicated in their CPPs that they intend to counties broad flexibilities in how they implement implement a community pathway . child welfare programs . Some Counties Offer Local “Culturally State Currently Working to Develop Relevant” Prevention Programs to Directly “Community Pathway” Guidance. As part of the Target Overrepresented Families and state’s federally approved plan for implementing Communities. Research suggests that culturally FFPSA prevention services, counties will be able to relevant programs and services—that is, programs offer a community pathway for families to access and services that are designed and tailored prevention services . A community pathway refers specifically for communities and families with shared to a new federal option allowing local child welfare backgrounds and common experiences (such as agencies to contract with community organizations, Black or Native American communities), and that such as Family Resource Centers, to assess families are led by members of those communities—are for needed services and deliver those services while effective because families are able to engage more providing oversight and ensuring child safety . That is, meaningfully and avoid cultural misinterpretation, a community pathway will allow counties to provide thereby leading to more successful child welfare Title IV-E eligible prevention services to families outcomes . We provide some examples of such without significant child welfare system involvement programs currently offered in some counties in the (although federal rules still require the child welfare box below . agency to determine candidacy for federal funding Examples of Culturally Relevant and Community-Led Prevention Programs A number of California counties have “cultural broker” programs, which are community-led initiatives that work with families from overrepresented communities who have an open child welfare case (or are at risk of child welfare system intervention) . Through these initiatives, community members—some of whom also have been involved with the child welfare system—support families by helping to facilitate interactions with social workers and the courts, and to navigate the array of county and local services . For example, cultural broker programs in Sacramento County and Fresno County have contributed to reducing the number of Black families involved with the programs that enter foster care, and increasing reunifications . Some tribes also have culturally relevant and community-led programs . For example, in San Diego, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, the My Two Aunties Program is run primarily by Native American women and currently supports families in nine local tribes . The home visiting program incorporates tribal family and kinship traditions to strengthen parenting capacity and child health and well-being, while also helping families process historical traumas by embracing local languages, legends, and Native American history . www.lao.ca.gov 33 AN LAO REPORT Economic Supports—a Key Form of Primary as California Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC), Prevention—Are Limited and Exist Largely CalWORKs, CalFresh, Medi-Cal, housing assistance Outside the Child Welfare System. Given programs, and subsidized child care programs . that poverty correlates significantly with child Research increasingly focuses now on concrete maltreatment and child welfare system involvement, economic supports provided outside of the child economic supports can help address this key welfare system as an important form of “primary underlying risk factor . However, prevention as prevention .” Primary prevention refers to supports provided through the child welfare system consists provided to families and communities prior to child mostly of services (such as substance use disorder welfare system involvement that can help mitigate treatment and mental health counseling) rather than trauma by addressing poverty and other correlating economic supports for the family . The state provides risk factors for child maltreatment . We discuss this various economic/concrete supports through other research in the box below . programs outside the child welfare system, such Programs and Policies Associated With Reducing the Risk of Child Maltreatment A growing body of research finds that increasing direct economic supports (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and general cash assistance) is associated Cash Aid with a significant reduction in child maltreatment . Other concrete supports (such as housing assistance and Minimum Wage food assistance) similarly are associated with significant Tax Credits reductions in maltreatment . This figure summarizes the focal areas of some of these studies that have found Child Care Subsidies a significant correlation between providing/increasing supports and reducing child maltreatment . Nutrition Assistance One recent study looked broadly at the relationship Supportive Housing between state spending on anti-poverty programs and child maltreatment . Specifically, this research examined Child Support Payments total public benefits spending in all 50 states in 2010-2017, and found an increase of $1,000 in public assistance Note: This is an illustrative list and does not represent all types of programs spending per person living in poverty was associated with and studies that have found a relationship between economic and concrete supports and child maltreatment. more than a 4 percent reduction in child maltreatment allegations, 2 percent reduction in foster care placements, and nearly 8 percent reduction in child fatalities . 34 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT OPTIONS TO BEGIN TO ADDRESS DISPROPORTIONALITIES This section lays out front-end policy options the most exposure to children, such as teachers and for the Legislature as it considers how to begin to other school personnel, medical professionals, law address disproportionalities and disparities present enforcement, social workers, and child care workers . in the child welfare system . These options aim to In adopting these trainings, the Legislature could continue ensuring child safety is prioritized while direct DSS to ensure there is sufficient information mitigating trauma and preventing unnecessary provided to help mandated reporters distinguish child welfare system involvement . Some of the between reportable general neglect—wherein options laid out in this section would be significant children are at substantial risk of harm—and the changes . Additionally, many of these options conditions of economic hardship . In addition, the would introduce new costs, which—given the trainings could outline other services—outside of the parameters of 2011 realignment—would fall primarily child welfare system—that could help families facing to the state . Accordingly, the Legislature also economic challenges . would need to consider these fiscal implications Some counties already are moving toward this and associated trade-offs . Policy changes of approach . For example, Humboldt County has this magnitude likely would take multiple years, adopted a mandated reporting tool that helps and extensive and ongoing consultation with key reporters determine whether their concern rises stakeholders, to implement effectively . Given the to the level of statutory maltreatment . The tool complex and interwoven factors contributing to also includes contact information for various other disproportionalities and disparities, addressing services, such as food and housing assistance, them will require broad efforts both across the child to help mandated reporters facilitate referrals to welfare system and policy areas external to the those programs . Los Angeles County is planning to system . introduce a similar tool . The Legislature could assess In addition, as noted throughout this report, there any available findings from these counties to inform are current administration efforts occurring in parallel consideration of similar changes statewide . to these options, such as CWC’s mandated reporting Consider What Mandated Reporting Reforms task force, DSS’s focus groups around redesigning Will Be Needed to Implement Community the standard mandated reporter training modules, Pathway. As noted in the previous section of this and the community pathway advisory committee . report, developing guidance around a community As the Legislature considers the options in this pathway option—that is, a mechanism to refer report, it may wish also to consider how it would like families to prevention services provided by a to be kept up to date and/or provide input through community-based organization without substantial these ongoing efforts . Additionally, for any actions child welfare agency involvement—is a current focal the Legislature chooses to take, it also may wish area for CWC and the administration . While many to consider how to incorporate findings from the details around community pathway implementation ongoing administration efforts . have yet to be determined, mandated reporters potentially could have a significant role to play in Reporting Suspected Maltreatment referring families to community-based supports . The Review Policies and Standardize Training for state’s mandated reporting statute likely will need to Most Frequent Mandated Reporters. Currently, be updated to provide legislative guidance around mandated reporters are not required by the state when it is appropriate for mandated reporters to refer to receive standardized training (and most are families via the community pathway . An important not required to participate in training at all) . The question will be how to ensure child safety continues Legislature could consider adopting specific required to be prioritized and cases that truly need child training modules for the mandated reporters with welfare system-level intervention are not diverted . www.lao.ca.gov 35 AN LAO REPORT Accordingly, careful legislative language, including data about the underlying harm or risk to the child . oversight and accountability measures, will be To more effectively assess the impact of recent needed in tandem with any reforms . statutory changes and any future efforts to reform policies and practices around neglect, we suggest Mitigating Bias the Legislature consider directing DSS—with Implement Measures to Mitigate Implicit stakeholder input—to improve data collection in this Bias Within Child Welfare Decision-Making. area . For example, new required data fields could The Legislature could consider measures to help be added to social worker reporting forms to collect mitigate implicit biases that may be impacting quantifiable information around the type of neglect individuals working with children and social workers’ and parental risk factors leading to substantial risk of decision-making within the child welfare system . harm to the child . (We note that these new reporting fields would need to be automated, and would • Training. DSS currently is working to develop therefore require state funding .) Moving forward, a racial equity and implicit bias training having quantifiable and aggregated data could help curriculum for CalWORKs social workers and inform where additional augmentations or focus anticipates the training initiative will launch may be needed for services to address underlying by June 2024 . If the training is found to be conditions of neglect . effective once it is implemented, the Legislature could consider the merits of expanding this Consider What Additional Information Would training for child welfare social workers . In Be Helpful to Shape Further Legislative Policy tandem, the Legislature could review the Direction Around Neglect. Beyond changes to variety of trainings related to implicit bias and mandated reporter statute and training materials, uniform decision-making currently available to and efforts to mitigate implicit bias, there may be child welfare social workers (described on page additional policy and practice changes around 32) to determine the strengths and any gaps neglect that the Legislature could consider to help across current training options . ensure that legislative intent of AB 2085 and SB 1085 (that is, reducing unsubstantiated general neglect • Blind Removal. In 2022, the Legislature allegations and ensuring that families do not become approved AB 2665 (Carrillo), which required involved with the child welfare system based on DSS to establish a three-year blind removal conditions of economic hardship) is met . In exploring pilot program in up to five counties . However, what these potential policy and practice changes the bill was vetoed by the Governor, citing could entail, some questions for the Legislature to General Fund cost pressures and the need consider include: for additional time to consider any potential impacts on ICWA compliance . As described • In what ways may counties interpret the in the box on page 31, Los Angeles County recently updated statutory definitions of recently piloted blind removal practices in neglect differently in terms of what constitutes two local offices . If the Legislature wishes to “substantial risk” and when it is appropriate to consider again a state-funded pilot program substantiate a general neglect maltreatment across a few counties, the proposal could allegation involving families facing economic incorporate lessons learned from the Los hardship? Angeles pilot . • Now that DSS has communicated guidance to counties around implementing AB 2085 and General Neglect SB 1085, how can the Legislature best oversee Improve Data Collection to Better Quantify the implementation of this guidance? Depending Drivers of Neglect. As described in this report, the on how the guidance is implemented, is vast majority of California’s child welfare cases are additional legislative direction needed to broadly categorized as neglect, but the state’s child help ensure more uniform interpretation and welfare data system does not provide quantifiable practices across the state? 36 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Concrete Supports Future Decision-Making Around Augmentations or Reductions to Cash Consider How Well Cash Assistance and Other Assistance and Other Concrete Supports Could Concrete Supports Currently Are Contributing Consider Impacts on Child Maltreatment. When to Preventing Child Maltreatment in California. the Legislature considers future augmentations As a matter of standard practice, the state does not or reductions to programs such as CalWORKs, currently assess how programs like CalWORKs or CalEITC, housing assistance, Medi-Cal, child care, CalFresh may reduce child maltreatment allegations, and other programs providing concrete supports, substantiations, or foster placements . This is the Legislature could consider what impact those understandable since, currently, the primary aim of changes could have on the risk or mitigation of these programs is supporting families more broadly child maltreatment . If child maltreatment reporting rather than assessing how these programs reduce were incorporated into various state programs child maltreatment . To improve understanding (as described in the preceding paragraph), these around what specific economic and concrete data would provide the Legislature with even support programs are most effective at helping to more relevant and state-specific measures to reduce the risks of child maltreatment in California, consider when evaluating the merits of various the Legislature could consider: program changes . As with any state program, a • Are there state programs for which the more comprehensive understanding of impacts Legislature would like to be able to measure is beneficial to the Legislature as it considers the and track any reduction in child maltreatment trade-offs inherent to policymaking . for families who participate, and what would be the feasibility of such an effort? For Data and Oversight example, if the state were to consider future Consider What Additional Data Collection May cash payments to Family Maintenance and Be Needed to Improve Insight Into Racial/Ethnic Emergency Response caseloads—similar Disproportionalities and Track Progress. In order to the temporary payments that the state to effectively track the state’s progress around implemented in response to the COVID-19 reducing racial and ethnic disproportionalities and pandemic—how could the Legislature assess disparities throughout the child welfare system, any reduction in maltreatment as a result of the Legislature may wish to review current data these cash payments? What data collection collection in this area . In particular, the Legislature would be needed? What additional resources, if could review data collection around: any, would DSS need to collect and report this • SDM Usage. As described in this report, the information? SDM assessments are existing tools that social • For programs such as tax credits and housing workers use to help navigate various decision assistance for which existing national research points in a more uniform manner across cases . already has demonstrated a link to reduced What aggregated data are available from these child maltreatment (as described on page 34 tools, which could help the Legislature better of this report), how can the state ensure that understand decision-making within the child eligible families have access to them and are welfare system and whether some groups opting in? For example, how could the state are disproportionately impacted at certain more effectively target CalEITC outreach and decision points? For example, how often do support Volunteer Income Tax Assistance social workers follow the recommendation efforts? based on the calculated risk level; are there • Are there economic and concrete support patterns or trends around when social workers programs that are particularly effective at opt to use discretion to decrease or increase reaching groups disproportionately involved the risk level? Is there significant variation with the child welfare system? How could across counties in terms of how the tools are those programs be improved to help mitigate employed? disparities in child welfare system involvement and outcomes? www.lao.ca.gov 37 AN LAO REPORT • SDM Oversight. DSS and the proprietor aggregated state child welfare data include one of the SDM assessment tools may make “multiracial” category for any combination of changes to the tools, as was done recently and racial/ethnic identities . If this category grows communicated by All-County Letter 23-101 to comprise a proportionally larger share of the (described on page 31) . Does the Legislature total child welfare system-involved population, have sufficient oversight when these important having more disaggregated information could tools are reviewed and updated? Do updates be important to effectively track racial/ethnic made by the administration and proprietor disproportionalities and disparities . align with legislative intent for child welfare Monitor Implementation of Child Welfare decision-making? System Prevention Services. As discussed • Native American Children. Stakeholders have previously in this report, the current array of and raised concerns that Native American youth are access to child welfare prevention services, undercounted because they are categorized including culturally relevant programs, is uneven as Hispanic or multiracial in the child welfare across counties . (While families across the state also data system . (Many of California’s tribes also may experience differences in access to broader identify as Hispanic or Latino .) Improving the programs outside the child welfare system, such as state’s ability to accurately identify Native behavioral health services, this option focuses on American children also could help ensure the those services being implemented as part of current state is identifying all cases subject to ICWA child welfare system efforts .) Considering that the requirements . state and counties remain in the early stages of • Broad Racial and Ethnic Categorizations. implementing comprehensive prevention services Stakeholders also have raised concerns that under FFPSA, assessing what additional funding certain racial/ethnic groupings are too broad and capacity building may be needed—and how and could obscure disparities within groups . best to target those resources—will require ongoing For example, child welfare system data often monitoring . As implementation progresses, we are reported combining Asian and Pacific suggest that the Legislature may wish to continually Islander categories . However, where more assess aspects such as: disaggregated data are available (such as for • As counties implement their comprehensive home ownership and unemployment rates), prevention plans, how is DSS evaluating the there are significant differences between these effectiveness of new prevention services? How two groups . Considering the strong correlation is the overall landscape of prevention services between child maltreatment and poverty/ across the state changing? What services economic hardship, there could be significant are provided where, and by whom? What differences in patterns of child welfare system gaps remain, and what additional services involvement and outcomes that are not could support the needs of disproportionately currently apparent in California’s aggregated impacted communities and families? child welfare data . Similarly, there could be • Does the Legislature want to consider a certain significant differences within the Hispanic/ minimum program level statewide? Requiring all Latino population—such as between those who counties to provide certain prevention services racially are categorized as white versus Black— could help to mitigate trauma and reduce child that could help inform policy and practice but maltreatment . currently are obscured . • To what extent are prevention services dollars • Multiracial Children. Demographic trends being used to support culturally relevant suggest that an increasing proportion of programs? Californians over time will be categorized as more than one racial or ethnic group . Currently, 38 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT Set Clear Targets for Reducing Child Welfare determine specific targets for reducing these System Disproportionalities and Disparities. disproportionalities and disparities over time . For Certainly, reducing the disproportionalities and example, the Department of Health Care Services disparities experienced by low-income, Black, as part of its 2022 Comprehensive Quality Strategy and Native American families across California’s committed to reducing five key areas of health child welfare system will take time . To help ensure disparities by 50 percent by 2025 . Similarly, the state ongoing accountability and continued progress, could consider establishing specific near-term and we suggest the Legislature could consider working longer-term goals for reducing disproportionalities with DSS—in consultation with stakeholders—to and disparities across the child welfare system . CONCLUSION To help address the complex drivers of chooses to undertake will need to continue to disproportionalities and disparities present prioritize child safety in all cases, while seeking throughout California’s child welfare system, to strengthen families and mitigate trauma . More key front-end policy areas for the Legislature to broadly, given the CDC risk and protective factors for consider include mandated reporting, general child maltreatment, other areas and programs—such neglect definition and data, decision-making as economic supports, behavioral health, education, tools and training, and prevention services . At the and public safety—can play important maltreatment same time, counties’ current efforts to implement mitigation roles as well . Examining how these comprehensive prevention plans offer the programs could more effectively serve families at Legislature a significant monitoring and oversight risk for child maltreatment could help the Legislature opportunity, which can help the Legislature assess further address child welfare disproportionalities and what additional policy and practice changes could disparities . be warranted . Whatever reforms the Legislature www.lao.ca.gov 39 AN LAO REPORT 40 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX: SELECTED REFERENCES Bhushan, Devika et al . “Roadmap for Resilience: Services Review, Volume 126, July 2021 . https://doi. The California Surgeon General’s Report on Adverse org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106034 Childhood Experiences, Toxic Stress, and Health .” Kunins, Hillary Veda et al . “The effect of race on Office of the California Surgeon General, December provider decisions to test for illicit drug use in the 2020 . https://osg.ca.gov/2021/09/27/roadmap-for-r peripartum setting,” Journal of Women’s Health, esilience-california-surgeon-generals-report/ Volume 16, Issue 2, pages 256-261, March 2007 . Casey Family Programs, “How did the blind https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2006.0070 removal process in Nassau County, N .Y ., address Lane, Wendy G . et al . “Racial differences in the disparity among children entering care?” Updated evaluation of pediatric fractures for physical abuse,” April 2021 . https://www.casey.org/media/21.07-Q Journal of the American Medical Association, FF-TS-Blind-removals-Nassau.pdf Volume 288, Issue 13, pages 1603-1609, October Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002 . https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.13.1603 “Risk and Protective Factors .” Child Abuse and McLaughlin, Michael . “Less money, more Neglect Resources, Division of Violence Prevention, problems: How changes in disposable income National Center for Injury Prevention and Control . affect child maltreatment .” Child Abuse & Neglect, Page last reviewed April 2022 . https://www.cdc. Volume 67, pages 315-321, May 2017 . https://doi. gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/ org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.006 riskprotectivefactors.html National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Dettlaff, Alan and Reiko Boyd . “Racial and Medicine . Reducing Racial Inequality in Disproportionality and Disparities in the Child Crime and Justice: Science, Practice, and Policy. Welfare System: Why Do They Exist, and What Can Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, Be Done to Address Them?” The Annals of the April 2023 . https://doi.org/10.17226/26705 American Academy, Volume 692, Issue 1, November National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716220980329 “Disproportionality and Race Equity in Child Dettlaff, Alan et al . “Disentangling substantiation: Welfare,” updated January 26, 2021 . https://www. The influence of race, income, and risk on the ncsl.org/human-services/disproportionality-and-r substantiation decision in child welfare .” Child ace-equity-in-child-welfare and Youth Services Review, Volume 33, Issue 9, Palmer, Lindsey et al . “What Does Child pages 1630-1637, September 2011 . https://doi. Protective Services Investigate as Neglect? A org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.005 Population-Based Study,” Child Maltreatment, Drake, Brett et al . “Racial/Ethnic Differences in Volume 29, Issue 1, pages 96-105, February 2024 . Child Protective Services Reporting, Substantiation https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595221114144 and Placement, With Comparison to Non-CPS Risks Puls, Henry et al . “State Spending on Public and Outcomes: 2005-2019,” Child Maltreatment, Benefit Programs and Child Maltreatment,” Volume 28, Issue 4, pages 683-699, November Pediatrics – Official Journal of the American 2023 . https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595231167320 Academy of Pediatrics, Volume 148, Issue Font, Sarah A . et al . “Examining Racial 5, November 2021 . https://doi.org/10.1542/ Disproportionality in Child Protective Services Case peds.2021-050685 Decisions,” Child and Youth Services Review, Volume Putnam-Hornstein, Emily et al . “Cumulative Rates 34, Issue 11, pages 2188-2200, November 2012 . of Child Protection Involvement and Terminations https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.07.012 of Parental Rights in a California Birth Cohort, Hobbs, Sue et al . “Foster youth and at-risk 1999-2017,” American Journal of Public Health, non-foster youth: A propensity score and structural Volume 111, pages 1157-1163, June 2021 . https:// equation modeling analysis,” Children and Youth doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306214 www.lao.ca.gov 41 AN LAO REPORT Rivaux, Stephanie L . et al . “The intersection of Weiner, Dana et al . “System transformation to race, poverty and risk: understanding the decision support child and family well-being: The central role to provide services to clients and to remove of economic and concrete supports .” Chapin Hall children .” Child Welfare . Volume 87, Issue 2, pages at the University of Chicago, 2021 . https://www. 151-168, February 2008 . https://www.jstor.org/ chapinhall.org/research/economic-supports-child- stable/48623039 welfare/ Rostad, Whitney L . et al . “The influence of Yu, Jing et al, “Adverse childhood experiences concrete support on child welfare program and premature mortality through mid-adulthood: a engagement, progress, and recurrence .” Children five-decade prospective study,” The Lancet Regional and Youth Services Review, Volume 72, pages Health—Americas, Volume 15, November 2022 . 26-33, January 2017 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100349 childyouth.2016.10.014 42 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 43 AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Angela Short, and reviewed by Ginni Bella Navarre and Carolyn Chu. 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, California 95814. 44 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE