|
|
|
|
|
|
Question of the Week
Q: I supervise a THP+FC program and am wondering what the maximum caseload is for a THP+FC social worker? I also would like to know where these numbers can be found in the Community Care Licensing regulations. For the answer, follow this LINK.
|
|
Beall Launches Session with Bill to Increase Pell Receipt Among Foster Youth
Senator Jim Beall (D-15) has introduced Senate Bill 12 which would improve post-secondary educational achievement among foster youth by increasing access to financial aid and campus-based services. SB 12 would increase the rate of financial aid awards received by foster youth by streamlining the financial aid verification process for foster youth who complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), and requiring every county child welfare agency to identify a person to assist the foster youth in the financial aid application process.
SB 12 would increase access to campus-based services by expanding the Cooperating Agencies Foster Youth Educational Support (CAFYES) program from the current level of ten community college districts to 20 districts, thereby enabling more foster youth to receive the support they need to succeed. To learn more about the bill, read the fact sheet or contact Amy Lemley at the John Burton Foundation, the sponsor of the bill.
|
|
Web Seminar to Highlight New Approach to Case Management, Academic Coaching
On Thursday, January 12th from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m., the John Burton Foundation is hosting a web seminar on incorporating academic coaching into case management in housing programs. THP-Plus and THP+FC providers utilizing this practice have found it key to supporting the youth in their programs who are attending college. When case managers are engaged with a young person’s experience as a student and are able to assist them in navigating college, they can help prevent avoidable crises such as failing courses.
This webinar is the third in a series of seven web-based trainings focused on supporting current and former foster youth to and through post-secondary education. To register for this and the other webinars included in the THP-Plus and THP+FC Post-Secondary Education Training Series, follow this LINK. These webinars are held the second Thursday of each month from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m.
|
|
What Did I Miss? Co-Investment Partnership Provides Year-End Round-Up
The California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership has released the latest volume of Insights, summarizing recent child welfare reforms, examining the latest data on children in care, discussing challenges and opportunities and outlining recommendations.
This Insights issue highlights California’s Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) and its key elements, the Resource Family Approval process and Approved Relative Caregiver reforms. Also discussed are the recent policy changes in child welfare across multiple focus areas.
Policies discussed include Bringing Families Home, the increase to the infant supplement, the increase to the budget for the Chafee Education and Training Voucher, the Local Control Funding Formula, the establishment of foster youth support programs at ten community college districts; and policy changes regarding commercially sexually exploited children and youth, mental health services, and postadoption contact for siblings of foster children and youth.
The issue recommends integrating and coordinating supports and services with behavioral health, essential for so many of the legislative reforms pending implementing; and providing a child care subsidy for resource families, a critical component for recruitment and retention. It also recommends evolving responses for foster youth ages 18-21 as many non-minor dependents are parenting and pursuing higher education, which presents new challenges and opportunities for their transition to independence.
Lastly, the issue recommends creating more affordable housing, and providing education and training for courts given the complexity of the many of the new reforms and policies. To read the Insights issue, follow this LINK.
|
|
What is a State Requirement for CSEC, What is Federal? CDSS Provides the Answer
On November 23rd, the California Department of Social Services released All County Information Notice (ACIN) 1-83-16 to provide counties and probation departments with a model policy and procedure to assist them with fulfilling the statewide and federal requirements of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act. This policy and procedure framework, developed by the California Child Welfare Council (CSEC) Action team, was designed for counties that have opted in the Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC) program.
The CSEC Program was established by Senate Bill 855, providing funding to participating county child welfare agencies for the purpose of preventing and intervening on behalf of children and youth who are commercially sexually exploited or at risk of becoming commercially sexually exploited.
Included as an attachment to the ACIN is the Memorandum of Understanding Template for State and Federal CSEC Requirements which includes updates related to recent changes to federal and state requirements for serving children at risk of or victims of CSEC, requirements of the opt-in CSEC Program, and promising practices for addressing the needs of children and youth impacted by commercial sexual exploitation (CSE).
The existing template has been adapted to cover both the requirements of the optional CSEC Program and the statewide requirements to streamline efforts towards similar goals and allow counties who already have an Interagency Protocol to implement a single, comprehensive protocol instead of creating two separate protocols.
Also included as an attachment to the ACIN is a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document. In addition to other information, the FAQ clarifies the difference between the federal requirements included in Senate Bill 794, and the CSEC Program requirements. All counties are federally required to identify, document and determine appropriate services for children receiving child welfare services and who are, or are at risk of becoming, victims of CSE. Social workers and probation officers must be trained to carry out these requirements.
Counties who have opted into the CSEC Program must develop in collaboration with specified partners their county plans and an Interagency Protocol that uses a multidisciplinary team approach to identifying and serving CSEC. To date, 35 counties have opted into the voluntary CSEC Program. Download the ACIN and attachments by following this LINK.
|
|
Children's Well-Being Report Tracks Indicators by County, Illustrates Racial Disparities
Children Now has released the 2016-17 California County Scorecard of Children’s Well-Being. This scorecard tracks 28 key education, health, and child welfare and economic well-being indicators in California across all 58 counties. Data can be viewed for the whole state, by county or by indicator, over time, and by race and ethnicity.
The section on child welfare and economic well-being shows that 94 percent of young children, ages 0-3, do not experience recurring abuse or neglect, a figure that increased just slightly from 93 percent in 2014. This indicator is measured by children who are victims of a substantiated maltreatment allegation and who do not have a second substantiated case within six months of the first allegation.
The data show that 86 percent of California’s children in the child welfare system have stability in their placement, measured by two or fewer placements in 12 months, a figure that dropped slightly from 87 percent in 2014. The percentage of children in the child welfare system who exit to permanency within three years also dropped, from 86 percent in 2014 to 84 percent in 2016. The most significant decrease was the percentage of children in the child welfare system who have had a medical exam in the last year, from 90 percent in 2014 to 84 percent in 2016.
Three indicators in child welfare and economic well-being that remained unchanged between 2014 and 2016 were the percentage of adolescents in the child welfare system who are placed in family-like settings (76%), the percentage of children who are not living in communities of concentrated poverty (83%), and the percentage of youth who attend school or are employed (92%).
Of note are consistent racial disparities across indicators, primarily for African American children. In the area of child welfare and economic well-being, statewide, African American children experience less placement stability (84%), are less often placed in family-like settings (71%), are less likely to exit to permanency within three years (79%), and are less likely to attend school or be employed (88%). The indicator looking at concentrated poverty had the greatest racial disparities, with 95 percent of White children not living in communities of concentrated poverty, compared to 76 and 75 percent of African American and Latino children, respectively. To read the report, follow this LINK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
