1992-93 Santa Clara County Grand Jury FINAL REPORT 1. INVESTIGATION: THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES INVESTIGATION: THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES SUMMARY The Department of Family and Children's Services in the Social Services Agency (SSA) is charged with providing child welfare services to abused and neglected children in accordance with the California Welfare and Institution Code. The Grand Jury was informed by the independent auditor that the Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) has made more progress within the last two years than it had made in the previous twenty years. The Grand Jury acknowledges that progress has been made but found major areas in need of attention. These include: practices and procedures in the foster care system; child abuse reporting; checks and balances relating to internal processes within the department; and a noticeable absence of management and individual accountability in decision-making. INTRODUCTION U.S. Public Law 96-272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, reflects a dramatic change in the goals and philosophy of child welfare practices. Historically, the practice of separating neglected and abused children from their families and placing them in out-of-home care had been in place since the first Elizabethan "poor laws" in England during the sixteenth century. Public Law 96-272 mandates prevention of unnecessary separation of children from their families by providing social services to these families. Since the impetus for the law was the problem of "foster drift,"(1) the goal of the act was to ensure permanence for children, preferably with their natural families. The interpretation and implementation of Public Law 96-272, however, was left to the states, thereby providing no minimum standards. A recent national study(2) found that the majority of the time and effort of the staff of social service agencies is spent on services available once the child has been removed from the home rather than on primary prevention services. This finding suggests that the states' prevention efforts are directed primarily toward children identified to be at risk of-or already in out-of-home placement, rather than prevention of risk itself. **FOOTNOTES** (1)"Foster drift" is defined as excessive time spent by a child in the foster care system prior to a definitive resolution of his or her status. (2) Ref. 9 INVESTIGATION In 1990 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors commissioned an audit by the Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation of the county's system of services for the protection of abused and neglected children. The report made several recommendations designed to improve the level of service provided by DFCS. Based on this report and in response to community concerns the Grand Jury elected to revisit the agency to determine what changes, if any, had been made regarding the protection of abused and neglected children. A Santa Clara County Social Services Agency publication(3) states that approximately 26,000 child abuse and neglect reports are filed annually. The Department of Family and Children's Services places over 3,000 children in foster homes and another 159 children in adoptive homes. This department is charged with the responsibility of protecting the interests of Santa Clara County children who are victims of child abuse and neglect. DFCS has approximately 550 employees and an annual budget of approximately $40 million. It is divided into nine units. Each unit is supervised by a program manager. Grand Jurors interviewed the Director of the Social Services Agency, the Director of the DFCS, and representatives of each unit. Others interviewed included judges, child advocates, psychologists, the SSA ombudsman, social workers, natural parents, foster parents, and representatives from both the district attorney's office and county counsel. The jurors also visited the Children's Shelter, including the Assessment Center, the Child Abuse and Neglect (CA/N) Center, and Clover House and Monroe House, both of which are county visitation centers where parents can have supervised or unsupervised visits with their children. With the support received from the Superior Court, the Grand Jury reviewed a selection of case files. The jurors spent time in Juvenile Court listening to and observing pending cases, and attended a training seminar on court report writing which was sponsored by the Social Services Agency. FINDINGS Reports of Child Abuse The Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act of 1974, commonly known as the Mondale Act, has been expanded several times. In order to qualify for federal funds, Public Law 96-272 requires that states had to pass legislation that provided immunity from prosecution for all those reporting child abuse. In addition, states were also required to pass laws mandating that specified persons report suspected child abuse and neglect to the appropriate child protection agency. **FOOTNOTE** (3) Ref.10. Although California's child abuse reporting law dates back to 1963, the basic reporting system used today was established in 1980 with the passage of SB 781, a bill supported by the California Department of Justice. There have been several amendments to the reporting law since 1981. California's child abuse reporting law is found in Penal Code Sections 11165 through 11174. The purposes of the child abuse reporting law are: 1. To protect children by the earliest possible identification of child abuse; 2. To provide help to families in trouble; 3. To identify persons suspected of crimes against children. The primary intent of the California reporting law is to foster and establish cooperation between persons mandated to report child abuse and the public agencies charged with the responsibility to protect children and help families. Penal Code Section 11165, subdivision 9, contains the legal definition of child abuse. The subcategories of the child abuse definition are further defined in Penal Code Section 11165, subdivisions B through F. The reporting law also establishes a system, the entry point, which is the CA/N System. Senate Bill 14 is California's implementing legislation which sets priorities for working with reports entering the CA/N System. In effect since October 1, 1982, the bill directs efforts toward: 1. Preplacement preventive services; 2. Family reunification; 3. Permanent out-of-home placement. The Santa Clara County CA/N Center, a unit of DFCS, receives all reports of alleged child abuse and neglect and determines whether the reports should be forwarded to the Emergency Response (ER) unit for investigation or should be handled on a nonemergency basis. The CA/N System is vast and complex. As mandated by law, cooperation and coordination is required from many agencies including the Juvenile Court, education, the police and mental health. The Grand Jury found evidence of communication, cooperation and coordination among some of the agencies. DFCS has personnel assigned to the juvenile unit of some police departments within the county, such as San Jose and Sunnyvale. Their job is to act as a liaison between the police and DFCS. The assigned social worker can conduct joint interviews with the police officer and do diversions on site. Further, the social worker can work with officers in fostering community awareness of social service matters. In roughly 90 percent of the cases, it is the police officer who actually removes the child from the home. In January 1993 the Child Interview Center was opened. This joint effort between the DFCS and the San Jose Police Department is another example of cooperation, coordination and communication among the agencies and was a response to the recommendation of a prior Grand Jury investigation. Personnel for both departments attended a state-sponsored training session in Long Beach. The CA/N Center receives 120-140 calls per day and operates, as mandated by law, on a 24-hour basis. The majority of calls come from child care and health care providers. A segment on child abuse by a popular television talk show or a local news article about the failure to report child abuse by a child or health care provider prompts calls to the CA/N Center to skyrocket. Managers within the department agree that over-reporting takes place for varied reasons with the primary reason being one of fear: fear on the part of child and health care providers because of the possibility of the loss of job, prosecution and jail, or fear of potential harm to the child. Some parents will report child abuse in an attempt to gain sole custody of a child. The department acknowledges that these types of reports drain already limited resources allocated to children's services. The Grand Jury visited the CA/N Center and listened to the taking of reports and reviewed existing initial reports. The jurors learned that sometimes it does not take much of an allegation to land a child "into the system." In one particular case a seven-and-a-half-year old boy was reported, by the principal of the school, as a sexual abuser because he "inappropriately touched" two playmates. Because of this report the child will be questioned about possible sexual abuse by his parents. Further, the parents will be subjected to the same type of questioning regarding the possibility of sexually molesting their child. It appears that there may be a tendency to jump to an unwarranted conclusion for what could possibly be nothing more than a case of innocent, although inappropriate child play. When the Grand Jurors voiced concern about this particular case, a manager responded with, "Where else would a child learn that type of behavior?" The jurors invited the CA/N manager to watch television. Many within the department appear to overlook the fact that there are ways, other than sexual molestation, that children can be exposed to what is termed "inappropriate behavior." The jurors reviewed a case where a child was actually removed from the home based on a report from a child care provider. In this particular case the child, age four, was alleged to have "French kissed" another playmate. On the theory that this behavior could only have been learned at home, an allegation of child abuse was lodged against the father. The child was subsequently removed from the home because the mother would not believe the allegation and was therefore believed to be incapable of protecting the child. It was only after the father removed himself from the home that the child was returned to the mother. The parents have been financially ruined as all their assets have been funneled into efforts to end the nightmare. Also in this particular case the Grand Jury has learned that the reporting child care director incorrectly reported the facts as relayed by a teacher. The teacher who witnessed the incident reported to the Grand Jury that the matter was blown out of proportion. The children did not kiss, and contrary to the report to DFCS the child had not been involved in a prior incident. The teacher also said she was contacted by phone by the District Attorney's Office and DFCS. However, they did not meet in person and a formal statement was not taken. She believes the reason for this was simply that she did not say what either of them wanted to hear. The work performed by social workers at the CA/N Center, and subsequently at the Emergency Response Center, is of the utmost importance. Sixty percent of reports to the CA/N are sent on to the Emergency Response Center for further assessment. It is at these initial processing stages that decisions are made that can, forever, affect the lives of parents and children. As the law is currently interpreted by mandated reporters, any type of sexual behavior may be reported as "inappropriate sexual behavior." There is no latitude for child play. This lack of common sense is further exacerbated by the frequent assumption that any type of behavior must have been learned at home, thus going from unjustified evaluation of child behavior to equally invalid conclusions about parents' culpability. In another case which the Grand Jurors reviewed, the principal of a school reported emotional abuse by a parent. After the principal let the student know that he would have to notify the parent of continued poor academic performance, the student said she would be afraid to go home if such a call was made. Based upon this conversation, the principal suspected emotional child abuse and made "the call" that changed the life of this family. The parent was later given an hour's notice of the detention hearing. He couldn't make it, and his daughter was taken from his care. This occurred in 1991 and, as of May 1993, the student remains out of the home. In its review of this case the Grand Jury did not find any reasonable evidence of abuse on the part of the parent. What was found was a parent who appeared to care greatly for his daughter and her welfare but would not admit to something he did not do. His refusal to admit to abuse was viewed as a lack of cooperation on his part; therefore, his child was not returned. Federal law mandates immunity from prosecution for those reporting child abuse. Therefore, there is no deterrent for reports made for other than honorable purposes. This law needs to be changed to reflect and acknowledge that untrue reporting occurs, and there should be a penalty for reporting other than legitimate and well-founded child welfare considerations. There is no doubt on the part of most people interviewed, and from most of the cases read by this Grand Jury, that the majority of the reports of child abuse are valid. However, there is growing concern about the number of unsubstantiated child abuse reports. For example, it is believed by some in the DFCS that in child custody battles, sexual molestation allegations have become a tool used to gain custody of children. Managers within the DFCS acknowledge that this is a growing trend but appear confident that they are able to identify these cases and handle them in a fair and timely manner. The Grand Jury is not as confident of the department's ability to identify and dispose of these cases. Once an allegation is made, the accused parent immediately loses contact with the child. This lack of contact can last for more than one year. There appears to be a standard line of thinking: that the alleged perpetrator must admit to the act as a condition for the return of the child. Further, that to not admit means one is in denial and will offend again. Therefore, the child cannot be returned home. Assessments and Investigation The law mandates that CA/N assume the leadership role to carry out the intent of the reporting law. The Grand Jurors were surprised to find the manager of the unit was unaware of this requirement. Although there is positive interaction between the unit and various police departments within the county, it is clear that more can be done and more needs to be done. As it stands, the CA/N system does not foster enough coordination and collaboration among all agencies responsible for the protection of children. The safety of children is left in the hands of the dependency investigator in the Social Services Agency whose primary responsibility according to documentation . . .is to investigate allegations of abuse in a timely manner. Within 48 hours of the time a child is taken into custody, the investigator must talk with the child (if over 4 years of age), the parents, and any other principals about the allegations that have been made that caused the child to be taken into custody. The dependency investigator must determine what, if any, services can be provided so that the child can safely be returned home and make arrangements for these services to be provided. If the child cannot be returned home safely, a petition must be filed within 48 hours of the time the child is taken into custody. Having read a number of cases and interviewed both line and management staff, the Grand Jury believes that a major problem exists in the functioning of the dependency investigator. When the investigative function was transferred from the Juvenile Probation Department to the Social Services Agency, the social worker had to assume responsibility for investigation as well as assessments. Foster Care System Foster care is one of many child welfare services provided by the Department of Family and Children's Services. A child enters the foster care system as a result of having been a victim of physical, emotional, sexual abuse; neglect; exploitation; parental absence or abandonment. According to statistics provided by the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency, 25,499 cases of child abuse were reported to the CA/N Center in fiscal year 1991-1992. Dispositional action was taken on 25,614 cases which include actions on cases coming in from a previous time period. The categories of child abuse are as follows: Sexual abuse 5,114 20.0% Physical abuse 8,627 33.7% Severe neglect 1,679 6.5% General neglect 4,261 16.7% Emotional abuse 1,752 6.8% Exploitation 63 .2% Caretaker absence or incapacity. . . 4,118 16.1% Disposition of the 25,614 (include actions on cases coming in from previous time period) cases were as follows: Case work completed by emergency response social worker including evaluation, assessment and specified social services. . . 23,760 92.8% Referred by emergency response social worker for additional services: family maintenance, family reunification, permanency planning, adoption, guardianship 1,854 7.2% Since the implementation of the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which was designed to correct the problem of under reporting of child abuse cases, the number of reported cases continues to rise at an alarming rate. The Little Hoover Commission Report, Mending our Broken Children: Restructuring Foster Care in California, states: Over 81,000 children are in the foster care system in California. They are either in foster family homes, group homes, fost-adopt homes, or family agency homes at a total cost to taxpayers of approximately $1.4 billion a year. When a case of child abuse is reported to the Emergency Response unit (the intake unit) a determination is made whether the child needs to be removed from the home for safety reasons. This is the most critical assessment period in the foster care process. In the words of more than one program manager, once you are in the system you are in for life." The law mandates that, once it is determined that the safety of the child is predicated upon removal from the home, consideration for out-of-home placement first be given to relatives. The Grand Jury did not always find clear and convincing evidence that appropriate efforts were made to find placements with relatives. If the child is not placed with a relative, the child is taken into protective custody. A petition is filed within 48 hours to determine whether the child should become a dependent of the court. A detention hearing is the next order of progression and the juvenile court will determine whether the child shall be further detained. A jurisdictional hearing is held to determine whether the petition is true. The next hearing is the dispositional hearing which will address removal of the child, reasonable reunification efforts, and visitation rights. From this point there is a six-month review, twelve-month review, eighteen- month review, permanency plan hearing, post-permanency planning hearing and, finally, dismissal hearing. Until the post-permanency planning hearing, the child is in foster care. The time period is years in some cases. This is an example of the failure to meet the intent of the federal law to prevent "foster-drift." While foster care is an integral part of child welfare services, there continues to be concern about Santa Clara County's foster care system. Sometimes, foster care placements are made that are just as abusive, if not more so, than the home from which the child was removed. The Grand Jury learned of placements where sexual and physical abuse took place. There was even a case where the infant died. Unnecessary Removal of Children From Homes In Public Law 96-272 the definition of child welfare services was redefined and in essence shifted from the practice of separating children from their families to assisting families in order to prevent unnecessary removal of children from the home. Santa Clara County DFCS now provides a service, the Family Maintenance (FM) Program, specifically designed to provide time- limited protective services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or exploitation for the purposes of preventing separation of children from their families. Services are provided to the child and family while the child remains in the home with caseworker supervision. However, the Grand Jury notes that this is merely a pilot program at the Agency. It needs to become a permanent program and expanded in order to prevent the costly expense, both monetary and psychological, of family breakdown. The Grand Jury heard from staff members of the DFCS and others outside the department that the department puts too much money into "back-end services," i.e., therapists and attorneys, and not enough money into "front-end" or basic services. The county does not receive as much in federal funds for "front-end" services, which could help solve the problems causing family inadequacies, as it receives for out-of-home placements or foster care services. In other words, the Agency benefits, financially, from placing children in foster homes. Fost-Adopt Program One of the most controversial programs in the Social Services Agency involving child welfare services is the Fost-Adopt Program. There is even controversy as to which children are selected for the program. These children are referred to as "marketable children," meaning they are young and cute. According to the DFCS, one of the primary goals of fost-adopt placement is to provide stability and consistency through continuing care in a nurturing family environment. The department goes on to say that the program was designed to minimize the number of moves for children prior to adoption and that it takes a special kind of person to become a fost-adopt parent because of the dual role of foster parent and prospective adoptive parents. The Grand Jury reviewed cases involving fost-adopt and heard from professionals inside and outside the department on this issue. There are two major concerns: 1. The conflict in terms: Foster care is temporary care whereas adoption connotes permanency. 2. Reunification efforts can be adversely affected by a fost-adopt parent who wants to adopt the child. While the department recognizes the unique position of the fost-adopt parent, it believes the fost-adopt parent is capable of handling the dual role. The Grand Jury disagrees. There are two possible outcomes to any given fost-adopt case: 1. The child is reunified with the birth parent(s), or 2. The birth parent(s) lose parental rights and the child is ultimately adopted by the fost/adopt parents. The Fost-Adopt Program makes alternative (1.) more difficult since the prospective adoptive parents cannot help but try to influence the child. It can cause failure of reunification efforts or, at the very least, make reunification efforts more difficult than they might otherwise be. In deciding that a child should be assigned to the Fost-Adopt Program, the case worker makes a judgment call, namely, that reunification efforts will fail. This looks like half a decision just waiting for the court's concurrence or nonconcurrence. A judgment call has been made before the natural parents have had a chance to prove their fitness, or to show that they are not unfit. A case reviewed by the Grand Jury involved a parent who worked, against all odds, to complete satisfactorily her reunification plan. Had it not been for the tenacity of a very strong, highly principled and sensitive social worker and her supervisor, a child would have been adopted by fost-adopt parents even though the birth parent had met all of the reunification goals. The social worker put her job in jeopardy and refused to be intimidated by administrators within the department, the court- appointed evaluator, and the district attorney's office. It was obvious that DFCS managers and members of a private family agency intended to circumvent the positive reunification results and to allow the fost-adopt parents to adopt the child. This was only one of several instances in which the integrity of the department and adherence to its mission appear to be questionable. Another instance involves a case in which the law mandates that the adoptive parents, prior to finalization of the adoption, receive a copy of a form documenting the psychosocial and medical history of the child and that the adoptive parent acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the form. The required form was omitted in this case. Upon learning of a similar case in another county, where this form had not been provided to the adoptive parents, the department requested that a social worker complete the form and insert it in the file. The social worker refused and the case was taken away from her. The following day the social worker observed that the newly assigned social worker had typed the form and inserted it in the file. Rather than face its mistake and take corrective action to prevent reoccurrence, the agency chose this questionable and inappropriate method to protect itself. Actions of this nature erode the agency's credibility and foster the belief of some that the agency operates under the cloak of secrecy and is answerable to no one. Complaint Process In January 1990, the Harvey Rose Accountancy Corporation, commissioned by the Board of Supervisors, completed a report that was critical of the Department of Family and Children's Services as lacking comprehensive written policies, practices and procedures for handling complaints and service- related inquiries from child welfare recipients. The report went so far as to recommend the creation of a complaint investigation officer position in the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court. The report further recommended distributing informational pamphlets to all recipients of services in order to provide them with a better understanding of the child welfare system and to promote more effective services. In August 1992, the Department hired a part-time ombudsman. At the time of the selection a job description had not been developed. In the Grand Jury's first meeting with SSA in August 1992 it was clear that one responsibility of the ombudsman was to implement a procedure for tracking and handling complaints from recipients of services. As of November 25, 1992 the ombudsman had discussed five cases with the director of the Agency. As of May 1993, there is not in place the formalized complaint-handling process referenced in the Harvey Rose audit report. It was learned by the Grand Jury that very little, if any, change has taken place as the result of the new position. Families receiving services and department personnel alike gave the ombudsman low marks for accomplishments for the time period on the job. In respect to the audit report's recommendation regarding distribution of information pamphlets to recipients of services, the Grand Jury is aware of an informative guide produced by the Agency that is easy to read and answers basic questions. The department says it gives the guide to recipients of services; however, the Grand Jury could not find one parent who acknowledged receiving the guide. The Grand Jury questions the wisdom of hiring an ombudsman on a part-time basis. Further, in later conversation with administrative staff it was learned that it was the intention to utilize the ombudsman for the entire Agency, not just the Department of Family and Children's Services. The ombudsman was hired by and reports to the very agency that he is charged to monitor objectively. The Harvey Rose audit report recommended that the ombudsman report directly to the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court. The Grand Jury supports this recommendation. Role of Evaluators At the time of the 1990 Harvey Rose audit, department policy allowed the social worker, who provided child welfare services to a dependent child and family, to select an evaluator to conduct court-ordered psychological evaluations. There is continuing concern that there is bias in the selection of evaluators. Court-ordered psychological evaluations can have a significant impact on dependency matters. Evaluators are asked to address such issues as: 1. Should the child be declared a dependent of the Juvenile Court? 2. Would the child be adversely affected by removal from the home? 3. Are the parents capable of meeting the needs of the child? 4. In cases where the father is accused of sexual abuse, can the mother protect the child? In addressing these and other important issues, evaluators have to be qualified, independent and objective in performing their work. The Harvey Rose audit pointed to the economic leverage the department has over the court-appointed evaluators and to the fact that because of the interest of both county counsel and the social worker in the juvenile court proceedings, a potential exists that county counsel and the social worker will select evaluators who have a history of supporting the position of the department in dependency hearings. It was the recommendation of the Harvey Rose audit that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors authorize funding for 30 hours per week for the position of evaluator- coordinator within the office of the Superior Court. It was further recommended that the Santa Clara County Juvenile Division of the Superior Court assume responsibility for selecting all court-appointed evaluators and for mediating differences among attorneys regarding the selection of such evaluators. The department is to be commended for implementing some of the recommendations of the Harvey Rose audit. However, the Grand Jury does not believe the issue of independent and unbiased referrals has been resolved. There still remain, today, allegations of evaluators being "black-listed" or slotted as pro- or anti-parent or child. Equally important, the Grand Jury questions the wisdom of housing the evaluator-coordinator at the SSA which does not give the appearance of independence or impartiality. In discussions with the evaluator-coordinator there were many references both to the district attorney and the public defender not wanting certain evaluators. The Grand Jury heard comments about certain evaluators lacking competence; yet they are still on the list. When asked why, the jurors were advised that less competent evaluators were used to evaluate "less important" matters. The Grand Jury sees no valid reason for an incompetent evaluator remaining on the list. One of the primary responsibilities of an evaluator- coordinator is to develop and administer a system for follow-up and review of evaluations to ensure quality and consistency of services. There is no evidence that this requirement has been met. The evaluator-coordinator acknowledges this fact and attributes it to a lack of time. Large Numbers of Ethnic "Out-of-Home" Placements Statistics show that minority children make up a large percentage of "out-of-home" placements. However, few agree on the reason for this phenomenon. Some argue that the reason is poverty while others argue that the reason is simply one of racism and the inability of minorities to gain access to a very complicated and secretive system. While the reasons are varied, the fact remains that there is a disproportionate number of minority children removed from their homes. Legislation passed in 1990 (AB 548, Moore) requires: With full consideration for the proximity of the natural parents to the placement so as to facilitate visitation and family reunification, whenever a child is being considered for placement in foster care, the following order of placement preference regarding racial or ethnic background shall be used, except where application of these priorities would not be in the best interests of the child: (A) . . .In the home of a relative . (B) . . .With a foster parent with the same racial background or ethnic identification as the child. . . (C) . . .With a family of a different racial background or ethnic identification where there is evidence of sensitivity to the child's race, ethnicity, and culture. The child's religious background shall also be considered. . . Department personnel explained that one reason for over-all high out-of-home placements stems from the fact that a larger percent of minorities receive medical and other services from county agencies which are more apt to report child abuse. Since minority children in many cases do not have private physicians and must seek assistance from county medical facilities, they are easier to identify and thus account for a greater number of reports of child abuse. The Grand Jury was told that the perception among Santa Clara County minority groups is that they have the least clout, both economically and politically, and thus are more vulnerable, given the fact that they often cannot fight back. Reporting agencies are more inclined to report suspected cases of child abuse when minorities are involved. Once the reports are made, because of preconceived ideas about minorities, the reports are believed and the process becomes one of substantiating the belief rather than completing an impartial assessment. Another reason given is racial bias. The Grand Jury was told of a systematic bias on the part of the very individuals charged with protecting the best interests of children. It was explained that the bias touched those in the department as well as others involved in the dependency process and that the bias was at times on a conscious level but at other times was automatic and ingrained. For example, an Hispanic father was told that he and "his kind" are known for sexually abusing their children. The department acknowledges that out-of-home-minority placement is of great concern to the minority community and is beginning to address this issue. The department has three specialized units, Hispanic, Asian and African-American, to heighten the level of cultural sensitivity within the department. The department has also begun to meet with the minority community to assist and to seek assistance in meeting the needs of minority children. The Grand Jury applauds these recent efforts and encourages the department to be more aggressive in this critical area. Regardless of the reason for the disproportionate number of minority out-of-home placements, the future of the children of this county depends upon the efforts of all involved to correct the problem expeditiously. CONCLUSION Each year, the number of children entering foster care in Santa Clara County increases. Child care providers and others mandated to report suspected child abuse may report because of fear of prosecution rather than a real belief that a child is in real danger. Yet, they have little confidence that once the call is made the child will be better off. As stated in the Little Hoover Commission report: When government intervenes and takes over the responsibility of parenting children, it should be held to the same standards as the children's parents. That is to say, it is not enough for the state and counties administering the foster care system to be responsible only for the immediate safety and well-being of the children under their charge; rather, these governmental bodies are accountable for the growth and development of these children into productive, well-adjusted adult members of society. It does not matter that these victims of abuse and neglect came to the government at a disadvantage; the success or failure of these children's lives are the measurements by which the government should be judged. Many parents and professionals whom the Grand Jurors interviewed believe that the foster care system operates as if it is accountable to no one. The fact that it does not have a comprehensive written policy in place for addressing complaints and other service-related inquiries from child welfare recipients supports this belief. The Grand Jury did not see clear and convincing evidence that the foster care system operates with the best interest of the child in mind. It did find that the interest of the child often took a back seat to the interest of others. The only answer to this sad commentary is that every effort must be made to assist families in securing the skills necessary to keep families intact. Additional funds must be allocated to family maintenance or to what are called "front-end" services. Failure to do less will assure that children and parents will continue to be traumatized to a point where it is doubtful that they will ever recover. Some of the foregoing deficiencies are the result of the inadequacies of Federal and State laws. Dishonest and inaccurate reporting must be made punitive so that families will not be destroyed under the cloak of confidentiality. If there is but one "alleged sexual abuser" who has been wrongfully accused, and the inadequacies of the system and incompetence of assigned staff have compounded the problem, then the law must be scrutinized and changed. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends: 1. Audit The Grand Jury requests that the DFCS report to the Grand Jury the status of its compliance with the recommendations of the Harvey Rose report. This reply should be by specific recommendation number and should be furnished no later than January 1, 1994. 2. Family Preservation A. Increase allocation of funds for front-end services for family preservation efforts. B. Increase the use of mediation in order to assure that the focus is always on the interest of the child rather than the interest of the participants and in order to minimize the adversarial nature of the dependency hearing process and the sparring of the attorneys. 3. Public Complaints A. Make the ombudsman a full-time position, responsible to the Juvenile Division of the Court. B. Establish formal, written-procedures to review and respond to complaints consistently and in a timely manner. 4. Evaluators In view of the critical role of the evaluator A. Increase the evaluator-coordinator from part-time to full-time basis and assure the independence of the coordinator in order to obtain objectivity and impartiality. B. Allocate a greater portion of the evaluator-coordinator's time to reviewing evaluation reports and addressing deficiencies, one-on-one, with the evaluators. C. Assemble a new list of evaluators and classify them by level of education, experience, and expertise. Aggressively seek qualified minority evaluators. Remove unqualified evaluators from the list. 5. Procedures A. Make personnel responsible for and hold them accountable for providing timely notice of hearings to parents and attorneys. The same applies to notification of child's and parents' counsel of a proposed change in placement, condition of child, or change in evaluator. B. Eliminate fost-adopt program or, at least, make it departmental policy to restrict participants to children whose parent's parental rights have been terminated. C. Give the highest preference for out-of-home placements to responsible relatives when it becomes necessary to move a child from the home. D. Take appropriate steps to protect the integrity of departmental files. 6. Cultural Issues A. Train workers to differentiate between class issues and cultural issues, and train social workers to be culturally sensitive. B. Undertake training of all employees for cultural sensitivity. 7. Leadership A. Have the Child Abuse and Neglect Center assume its role as the primary administrator and coordinator of the CA/N System. Work more closely with all agencies: Police Department, Juvenile Probation Department, health facilities, Children's Shelter, educational facilities. Assure that every effort is made to make accurate, proper and timely decisions about the welfare of children brought to its attention. B. Direct the Social Services Agency to take an advocacy role to eliminate the shortcomings of State and Federal laws. REFERENCES 1. Bloom, Barbara and David Steinhart. Why Punish the Children? San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1993. 87 pp. 2. Barthel, Joan. For Children's Sake. New York: Office of Communications, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1992. 79 pp. 3. California. Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. Mending Our Broken Children: Restructuring Foster Care in California. Sacramento: Little Hoover Commission, 1992. 111 pp. 4. Clark, L. Michael (Office of County Counsel). A Brief Overview of the Juvenile Court Dependency Process. Prepared for the Santa Clara County Grand Jury, April 1993. 5. Gardner, Richard A. "Modern Witch Hunt--Child Abuse Charges," The Wall Street Journal, February 22, 1993. 6. Lange, Linda, Ed. Making Reasonable Efforts: Steps for Keeping Families Together. Consortium of Agencies: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; Child Welfare League of America; Youth Law Center of San Francisco; National Center for Youth Law. New York: Office of Communications, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, n.d. 1 20 pp. 7. Norman Abigail. Keeping Families Together: The Case for Family Preservation. New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1 985. 41 pp. 8. Rose, Harvey M. Accountancy Corporation, C.P.A. Review of the County's System of Services for the Protection of Abused and Neglected Children. Report to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara. San Francisco, January, 1990. 9. Samantrai, Krishna. "To Prevent Unnecessary Separation of Children and Families: Public Law 96-272--Policy and Practice," Social Work, 37 (July, 1992), 295-302. 10. County of Santa Clara. Social Services Agency. "Fact Sheet," January, 1992. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Grand Jury of Santa Clara County this fourteenth day of June, 1993.