Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Report Number : 2015-115

Dually Involved Youth
The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems

Responses to the Audit

Use the links below to skip to the specific response you wish to view:





JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

February 5, 2016

Ms. Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: Dual Status Youth—Audit 2015-115

Dear Ms. Howle:

This letter is in response to your audit report and recommendations concerning the Judicial Council with regard to dual status youth, particularly crossover youth. The findings and recommendations are of interest to the council and the courts, given the council’s sponsorship of Assembly Bill 129 (Cohn; Stats. 2004, ch. 468), which first created the option for counties to establish dual jurisdiction over youth with child welfare and delinquency issues to better serve these youth and their families coming to the attention of the court initially through either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

As your report notes, the Judicial Council was actively involved in providing support to the courts and their county partners as they opted to implement the legislation, and the council collected data and reported to the Legislature in 2007 on the early stages of that implementation.

The council remains interested in ensuring that courts are able to serve these youth, and council staff remain available to provide technical assistance to any court or county seeking to adopt or modify a dual status protocol.

If directed by the Legislature, the council has the expertise and is prepared to work with an existing committee or group to fulfill the recommendations of the audit regarding data collection and definition, provided the Legislature can make available the resources needed to accomplish those tasks. The Judicial Council is experienced at establishing standardized outcome measures and definitions in both juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency. These projects were undertaken as part of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care and the Judicial Council’s Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment.1 Our experience was that this work is valuable but also costly and time-consuming. Both projects utilized the work of consultants and subject matter experts in the courts and counties. This involved original data collection through file review and analysis of case management data. Given the current status of court and probation case management systems, an expert group beginning this work would also want to consider approaches such as probabilistic matching of existing data sets before establishing data collection requirements.

We would also note that while there is a case management system that collects data on a statewide basis for the child welfare system, there is no comparable system for juvenile justice data. The Legislature recently directed the Board of State and Community Corrections to assemble a Juvenile Justice Data Working Group, which submitted its final report and recommendations to the Legislature earlier this year.2 That report documents the lack of a statewide system and the resultant problems in measuring recidivism or evaluating different programs and processes in the juvenile justice system. Given these shortcomings we would simply note that it may be difficult for recommendations on dual status data collection to be implemented by a council committee on a timely basis without an effective statewide data system for collecting juvenile justice-related data and outcomes.

We agree that it is critical that California’s courts as well as child welfare and juvenile justice county agencies better understand and serve the dually involved youth population. These youth and their families come to the attention of the court initially through either the child welfare or juvenile justice system, and state and local government must strive to serve them and achieve successful outcomes.

Sincerely,

Martin Hoshino
Administrative Director
Judicial Council of California

MH/AF/tk
cc: Jody Patel, Chief of Staff, Judicial Council
Millicent Tidwell, Chief Operating Officer, Judicial Council
Diane Nunn, Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Judicial Council

Footnotes

1 Judicial Council of Cal., Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures (Jan. 2009), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Combined-impguide010709.pdf
Judicial Council of Cal., Juvenile Delinquency Court Performance Measurement as an Evidence-Based Practice (Dec. 2012), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/JD_Performance_asEBP.pdf.
Go back to text

2 See Rebuilding California’s Juvenile Justice Data System: Recommendations to Improve Data Collection, Performance Measures and Outcomes for California Youth, Report to the Legislature, January 2016, http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/JJDWG%20Report%20FINAL%201-11-16.pdf.
Go back to text


Back to top




KERN COUNTY

February 5, 2016

California State Auditor
Elaine M. Howle
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

Transmitted here within is the response to the California State Auditor’s redacted draft report entitled Dually Involved Youth. The response was a collaborative effort with each of the County departments that manage the operations. The County Administrative Office, Department of Human Services, and Probation Department collaborated and are in concurrence with this response.

California State Auditor’s Recommendations
To identify their population of dually involved youth, Child Welfare Services (CWS) and probation agencies within each county should do the following:

Kern County’s Response
The California State Auditor’s report is substantially correct and the County Probation and Human Services Departments concur that the two recommendations regarding both the tracking of WIC 241.1 Joint Assessments data as well as staff training to ensure this data is properly captured should be addressed. Prior to the audit it was not a practice in Kern County to track WIC 241.1 Joint Assessments and outcomes in any data base. However, since the County was made aware of it during the interview process the County has already implemented changes to rectify this matter. Probation Department staff have been instructed and trained to ensure this information is now entered into the CWS/CMS. Moving forward the County will train new staff and verify this process is continued.

The County appreciates the opportunity to share with the California State Auditor's office information regarding crossover youth in Kern County. Providing the highest level of services possible to this population is of utmost importance. The Department of Human Services and Probation Department have instituted evidence based assessments to create effective individualized case plans and have increased the evidence based treatment County youth receive. However, the County is always eager to make improvements when possible and therefore again express appreciation for your review and input.

Sincerely,

John Nilon
County Administrative Officer

JN/KB/DHS Probation Crossover Audit Transmittal

cc: Department of Human Services
Probation


Back to top




LOS ANGELES COUNTY

February 5, 2016

Elaine M. Howle, CPA
State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

This is in response to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee request for “Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems” report.

1

Los Angeles County agrees with the recommendation of one designated data system to track the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. Regretfully, we do not have such a system and when this system is developed, Los Angeles County Departments of Children and Family Services and Probation, will provide guidance and training to our staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

If you have questions please call me, or your staff may contact Diane Iglesias, Senior Deputy Director, at (213) 351-5711.

Sincerely,

PHILIP L. BROWNING
Director

CALVIN REMINGTON
Interim Chief Probation Officer

PLB:DI:RRS:lj




Comment

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE RESPONSE FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on Los Angeles County's response to our audit. The number below corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of Los Angeles County’s response.

1

Los Angeles County stated that it does not have a designated data system to track the dates and results of joint assessment hearings, but mentioned the development of one. Therefore, we look forward to the county's 60-day response to learn more about this proposed system and the timeframe for development and implementation.


Back to top




RIVERSIDE COUNTY

February 4, 2016

Andrew Lee, Team Leader
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Lee,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review and to respond to the recommendations.

As noted in the report, the Dual Status program was optional for counties to implement. Riverside County’ Department of Public Social Services and Probation Department proactively chose to implement this Dual Status option in 2006. The two agencies worked together in consultation with the Juvenile Court to create a protocol, joint court report writing guidelines, and a system for communication to coordinate services unique for this population. Both Probation and DPSS provided training to their respective staff specific to serving Dual Status youth. DPSS and Probation currently have 115 youth designated as Dual Status. This represents about 2% of the 5,838 children in foster care and 5% of 2,092 youth under Probation supervision.

The purpose of the State’s 2015 audit/review was to assess whether outcomes for children and families were better as a result of the Dual Status program. We recognize the limitations that the auditors faced in completing this assessment and appreciate their recognition that counties have not received the direction needed nor do we have a system of record where the data can be collected and reported in a consistent manner. Despite these limitations, Riverside County took the initiative to design and implement our own tracking systems to allow us to communicate with one another, and to best support our Dual Status youth and their families.

The review identified the following recommendations for Riverside County, to which we have included responses below.

Recommendation 1: Designate a data system used to track dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

Response: Probation is a dual-entry agency: staff must enter data into the Probation Juvenile and Adult Management System (JAMS) as well as the Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). The capacity to enter more data into CWS/CMS will improve with coming technical improvements, assisting in Dual Status tracking within the limitations of the existing application. In the meantime, both agencies will continue to refine current systems to link the youth both agencies serve, in addition to designating a data system used to track dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

Recommendation 2: Provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

Response: Both DPSS and Probation currently train new staff on Joint Assessments (Welfare & Institutions Code 241.1) and Dual Status recommendations. A joint training is scheduled for March 2016. DPSS and Probation have identified improvements that will enhance coordination and communication related to the court hearings when a W&IC 241.1 Joint Assessment is ordered. In addition, staff will be trained on recording joint assessment hearing information within a designated system agreed upon by both DPSS and Probation.

Please let us know if there is any additional information needed.

Sincerely,

Mark Hake
Chief Probation Officer

Susan von Zabern
Director, DPSS


Back to top




SACRAMENTO COUNTY

February 5, 2016

Ms. Elaine M. Howle, CPA
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems

Dear Ms. Howle:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to a redacted version of this report. We appreciate the interest of the California State Auditor and the California Legislature in this very important issue.

As your report notes, it is well-established that youth who have been abused or neglected face a heightened risk of “crossing over” into the juvenile justice system. Sacramento County is committed to doing everything it can do to intervene early with these youth to interrupt this trajectory. To that end, in late 2014, a team of County leadership alongside the Presiding Judge of our Juvenile Court, embarked on an eight-day program at Georgetown University’s Center for Juvenile Justice Reform to begin a focused commitment toward better serving youth involved in both dependency and delinquency systems. This initiative – known as the Crossover Youth Practice Model and identified as a “best practice” in your report – represents a substantial countywide commitment to improve inter-departmental collaboration, cross-system reporting, and standardized outcomes and, as such, will take years to fully achieve. As noted in your report, we are working toward an integrated data-sharing system across multiple County departments, including education and behavioral health, but this is a large-scale undertaking and we fully acknowledge that the bulk of our work is still to be done. We agree with the recommendations in your report and will implement them as part of this effort.

In the meantime, we are heartened by your report’s confirmation that Sacramento County is “providing a variety of services to dually involved youth, including mental health, substance abuse, youth development, and education services.” We are proud of the treatment and services that Sacramento County provides to our youth. Here again, though, we believe that there are improvements that we can make to better divert young people away from the criminal justice system. We look forward to doing so.

Sincerely,

Sherri Z. Heller, Director
Department of Health and Human Services

Lee Seale, Chief Probation Officer
Probation Department


Back to top




SANTA CLARA COUNTY

February 5, 2016

Ms. Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Ms. Howle:

Please accept this letter as Santa Clara County's response to the California State Auditor's report entitled, "Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems." This audit was conducted at the direction of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee of the California Legislature.

The report indicates that there is insufficient definitional and operational consistency between counties and inadequate alignment of data to make meaningful determinations about what models are most effective to serve this population of youth. As the report clearly delineates, there are myriad strategies being employed to serve these young people and their families, with varying results.

Santa Clara County chose to spend a significant amount of time both defining the Dually Involved Youth (DIY) target population and crafting our intervention model. As a result, due solely to the period of time under review by this audit, only three of the sixteen cases examined in Santa Clara County were served under this intervention model. As with the launch of any new program, there are many lessons learned and modifications required over the course of the first six months to a year. The initial cohort of youth served under this new intervention model were the youth who had deeply penetrated both the juvenile justice and child welfare systems and whose ability to reunify or make significant progress was much more challenging than youth with less system involvement.

Santa Clara County uses the "Kennedy" model as described in the audit report and received eighteen months of intensive technical assistance from the Robert F. Kennedy Children's Action Corps. A robust team of high-level stakeholders, including community representatives in addition to system representatives, have been meeting monthly for over three years to design and implement this model. There are also three sub-committees of this team, comprised of both leadership members and many others, which focus on legal issues, data and evaluation, and resource development.

Santa Clara uses the broadest definition of Dually Involved Youth (DIY), defined as any youth who have experienced significant abuse or neglect at ANY point in their lives, and who are engaging in criminal behavior. This broad definition is intentional, based on the recognition that the trauma a youth experiences when young, even if his/her life stabilizes, often results in significant emotional and behavioral problems when the youth reaches adolescence. Understanding this dynamic, and jointly intervening earlier, when a DIY is engaging in criminal activity, is intended to prevent further penetration into either system. Santa Clara County's goal is to create integrated responses for all DIY, regardless of their system status.

The following are the two recommendations of the audit report: "To identify their population of Dually Involved Youth, CWS and probation agencies within each county should do the following:

  1. Designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings

  2. Provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system."

Santa Clara County Response:

1

There is no one unified system identified by the State to document in the manner that is indicated in the report. CWS has a state-mandated database, and Probation uses a separate database.for all cases, except for those cases involving placements, which are contained within the CWS database. In order for jurisdictions to have a required unified database, additional resources and more interoperability between the databases would be necessary.

In the meantime, Santa Clara County has developed expected outcomes and sixty-eight (68) data variables to track that are anticipated to speak to these outcomes. However, Santa Clara County is in the early data collection phase, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to evaluate all of these expected outcomes.

We would like to thank the California State Auditor for the thoughtful work on this report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via phone at (408) 299-5116 or via email at john.mills@ceo.sccgov.org.

Sincerely

John P. Mills
Deputy County Executive

JPM:kr





Comment

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENT ON THE RESPONSE FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on Santa Clara County's response to our audit. The number below corresponds to the number we have placed in the margin of Santa Clara County’s response.

1

We agree with Santa Clara County's statement that child welfare service (CWS) agencies and probation agencies use separate databases; however, this does not prevent Santa Clara County from designating one data system which it will use to track the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. Furthermore, if it chooses to do so, Santa Clara County can continue to use its current system for logging all joint assessment hearings and the results of those hearings.





Back to top