Santa Clara County Department of Social Services

2022 On-Site Review Findings

Introduction

As the single state agency responsible for the administration and supervision of the
Child Welfare Services (CWS) system, the California Department of Social Services
(CDSS) is charged with providing oversight to county child welfare agencies that
administer direct services to children and families. The CDSS performs various
oversight activities to ensure that services protect children, strengthen families, and are
focused on safety, permanency, and well-being.

Background

In March 2022, the CDSS learned of emergency response related concerns within
Santa Clara County, Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS). Concerns
reported to the CDSS were regarding county practices of not removing children from
unsafe homes as the county is now attempting to engage families with services to avoid
removal. The concerns further detailed that Structured Decision Making (SDM)
assessments are being overridden or entered incorrectly when the outcome is to
remove the child from an unsafe home for the purpose of keeping the child/children in
the home. It was further reported that County Counsel is heavily involved in the
determination of whether a case should be opened and / or a child/ren removed from
their home beginning at the initial assessment stage of a referral.

The Children’s Services, Inquiry and Response (CSIR) unit completed ten case reviews
on referrals at both the Intake and Emergency Response levels. The CSIR unit
identified multiple referrals in which the referral was Evaluated Out when it met the
criteria of an Emergency Response investigation. The CSIR unit also found
discrepancies on multiple SDM assessments in which incorrect information was input (in
comparison to information provided in the child abuse reports, Hotline documentation,
and other notes in CWS/CMS), or the outcome determination according to the
assessments done were to open a case and the outcome is not followed or overridden.
Multiple referrals that were reviewed were of children placed into protective custody by
law enforcement and DFCS immediately placed the children back in the care of the
unsafe parent. Upon the request of DFCS leadership, the CDSS will schedule a time at
a later date to review the specifics of these case reviews.

The Child Welfare Learning and Evaluation Bureau completed statistical analysis of
child welfare removals for Santa Clara County. The analysts compared removal data
from Santa Clara County with Tulare and San Joaquin counties as these counties have
similar referrals reported to intake. The findings show a significant reduction of child
removals in Santa Clara County.
 Referrals
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

2019/12

2020/05

2020/10

2021/03
2019/01
2019/02
2019/03
2019/04
2019/05
2019/06
2019/07
2019/08
2019/09
2019/10
2019/11

2020/01
2020/02
2020/03
2020/04

2020/06
2020/07
2020/08
2020/09

2020/11
2020/12
2021/01
2021/02

2021/04
2021/05
2021/06
2021/07
2021/08
2021/09
2021/10
2021/11
2021/12
2022/01
2022/02
Referral_Month

San Joaquin Santa Clara Tulare

Removals
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2019/01
2019/02
2019/03
2019/04
2019/05
2019/06
2019/07
2019/08
2019/09
2019/10
2019/11
2019/12
2020/01
2020/02
2020/03
2020/04
2020/05
2020/06
2020/07
2020/08
2020/09
2020/10
2020/11
2020/12
2021/01
2021/02
2021/03
2021/04
2021/05
2021/06
2021/07
2021/08
2021/09
2021/10
2021/11
2021/12
2022/01
2022/02
Removal Month

San Joaquin Santa Clara Tulare

On-Site Review and Findings

The CDSS obtained the Santa Clara DFCS organizational chart in September 2022 and
requested to interview twelve DFCS staff including Social Workers, Supervisors and
Program Managers. In-person interviews were conducted on September 29, 2022. The
interview questions were pertaining to specific program areas including hotline
practices, Emergency Response investigations, training, assessments and safety
planning.
Staff were requested to provide their understanding as to why the CDSS was
completing on-site interviews. Many staff responded their understanding of the CDSS
involvement is due to the County’s new practices of prevention and keeping children in
their homes and how this information will be useful for other counties in the state. Other
staff disclosed concerns of the county’s legal decisions and County Counsel
involvement in assessments often done at the social work practitioner level, and its
implications on the safety of children in the county. While there were themes of
concerns and possible practice and policy challenges identified through the interview
process, the CDSS also heard from many of the interviewees about the good work they
feel they have been doing in DFCS and many spoke of the pride they have in their
county agency.

Hotline Practices and Investigations

Regarding the DFCS messaging/practice/directives of not removing children from their
families, the following themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site
interviews:
• The county is moving away from traditional social work to keep children in the home
with a safety plan and pathways.
• No direct messaging has been shared; however, staff are having challenges working
with County Counsel regarding removing children from unsafe homes.
• Social Worker assessments are not being heard or valued when shared with
Supervisors and County Counsel. County Counsel determines if there is legal
justification to remove a child, even if the Social Worker’s assessment indicates
safety concerns.
• Management is messaging to keep children at home, as it is a violation of the
parent’s rights to remove the children and past interpretation of the law that resulted
in a higher number of removals when assessing reports of child abuse and neglect
was incorrect.
• Management working with Social Workers to identify if there is imminent danger to
remove.
• Social Workers are at risk of being held liable when they are directed to leave
children in unsafe homes.
Regarding the DFCS practice of Social Workers reporting newly identified allegations of
child abuse during an investigation, the following themes were identified when coding
the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Social Workers will address the new allegations and add the new information to the
referral after consulting with a supervisor without contacting the hotline.
• If new allegations are identified prior to the initial contact, the Social Workers can
request an addendum to add the new information to the existing referral.
Regarding the DFCS practice of staffing referrals, who is involved in the staffing process
and how the staffing is documented, the following themes were identified when coding
the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Referrals are staffed with the Social Worker, Social Worker Supervisor and
County Counsel to determine if the allegations meet the “threshold.” The
“threshold” is not clearly defined and appears to supersede the Welfare and
Institutions Code (WIC) and SDM definitions. If there is a disagreement or a
difference in assessment and staffing suggested determinations, the executive
team makes the recommendation.
o County Counsel takes notes during the staffing. Social Workers are
provided with a copy of the notes in a confidential envelope to include in
the referral hard file. Notes are not uploaded to CWS/CMS due to
attorney-client privilege.
o County Counsel determines if the Social Worker needs to obtain additional
information regarding the investigation, and specifies what information is
needed. Once this additional information is obtained, the Social Worker
can request another staffing.
• The Hotline SDM tool determines if a referral is an IR or 10 Day investigation, no
staffing required. Intake Social Workers can request to staff the report with their
supervisors if necessary. IR referrals are assigned directly to ER Social Workers
by the Intake Social Worker. Clerical staff assign 10 Day referrals to ER Social
Workers.
Regarding the DFCS process if a Social Worker does not agree with the determined
outcome of a referral, the following themes were identified when coding the notes from
the on-site interviews:
• Social Workers can re-staff a referral only when there is new information.
o Social Workers are instructed to continue engaging the families while
gathering additional information when the referral is still open
• The Executive Team makes the final determination.
• Disagreements must go through the “chain of command” for a determination and
the Executive Team makes the final decision when there is disagreement or
conflicting opinions/assessments.
o Staff reported that there is not official guidance on how to navigate when
they disagree with a determination made by County Counsel and/or the
Executive Team.

Hotline Practices and Investigations Findings

Staff have not received clear messaging on the new practices regarding placing
children into protective custody. County Counsel now makes the determination on
when a child can be placed into protective custody, not the Social Workers or Social
Worker Supervisors. County Counsel determines if a referral meets a threshold for
 removal: however, Social Workers do not have a clear understanding of the
definition of the threshold. The County’s protocol for reporting, investigating, and
documenting newly identified allegations of child abuse and /or neglect during an
investigation does not seem to be clear amongst County staff. Some social workers
identified practices of adding newly identified allegations into the current
investigation while some others identified addressing newly reported allegations
within the open referral without contacting the hotline.

Training and County-Wide Messaging

Regarding the DFCS process of making staff aware of county practice changes, the
following themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Weekly huddles, monthly All Staff Meetings, monthly Leadership Meetings, and
monthly supervision with Social Workers are being utilized to communicate
changes.
• Social Workers received no county wide messaging regarding the change in
practice to no longer remove children from their home.
o Staff reported not receiving any training on what appears to be new
guidance regarding the legalities of removing children or when a protective
custody (PC) warrant can and should be followed.
• Often when changes occur, the changes are put into practice prior to staff being
properly trained or educated on the impact on families. The trickle down of
information to Social Workers is slow.
Regarding the DFCS process to evaluate the effectiveness or increase of knowledge
following trainings, the following themes were identified when coding the notes from the
on-site interviews:
• No process is in place to evaluate long term practice changes.
• Evaluations provided at the end of the training to evaluate trainings themselves.
Regarding the DFCS process of training staff specifically on SDM completion, the
following themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• SDM trainings occur during Induction Training, annual refreshers (which are
offered but not mandatory) and supervisors can request the training unit to
provide additional training when needed.
• Social Workers transferred from another area do not receive SDM specific
training. Supervisors provide “on-the-job” training in which they instruct Social
Workers on how to utilize SDM properly.
• Limited SDM trainings since the pandemic began.

Training and County-Wide Messaging Findings

Staff have not received consistent messaging, training or guidance regarding the new
practices to not remove children. There are no processes in place to evaluate the
effectiveness of practice changes or trainings. SDM assessment trainings are
inconsistent.

Assessments
Regarding the DFCS process to obtain information and complete the SDM assessment,
the following themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Staff report that assessments are performed timely beginning with Hotline
assessment completion during intake while Safety assessment completion
occurs within 24 hours of initial contact with the family. Staff also report that
Safety, and Risk re-assessments are completed upon referral closure and prior
to the transfer to Voluntary Family Maintenance (VFM) cases from investigation.
• SDM assessments may also be completed during Child & Family Team (CFT)
meetings and Family Strengths and Needs assessments are completed prior to
case closure.
Regarding the DFCS process for determining referral closure or promoting to a case,
the following themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Although Emergency Response (ER) Social Workers utilize a litany of resources
(global assessments, family history, family engagement & CFTs) to determine
natural family supports, if and when safety issues remain, ER Social Workers are
encouraged to continue to engage the family until the family is ready to identify
behavior that may be causing the safety concern. Referrals can be upgraded or
moved to a higher level of intervention if additional information is received.
• When VFM cases are open, they are often closed within 6 months if progress is
being made. If a family continues to struggle, the Social Worker can request an
additional 3 months of services or request to staff the family’s case for potential
escalation of services.
• Both ER Supervisors & Intake Supervisors seem to be heavily involved in
determining responses within the Hotline assessment approval and request that
daily reports by staff be submitted by the end of the day.
Regarding the DFCS process regarding how the SDM assessments are utilized to
confirm or otherwise impact assessment and intervention, the following themes were
identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Although SDM assessments should be regular practice to help guide Social
Workers and assist in negating biases, and their definitions help provide
consistency, they are not the only influence for decision making and are not the
final word to determine outcomes, which is why they can be overridden.
 • SDM assessments are utilized on all cases and are required to reassess new
information but can also be challenging since assessments focus on family
history and not current family situations.
• Social Workers use assessments to involve the family and other individuals to
create a safety net for the family especially when CFTs are utilized in
conjunction. Parents are allowed the autonomy of identifying safe family & friends
to provide support and create accountability.
Regarding the DFCS process and training to override SDM assessments, the following
themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• SDM overrides occur based upon desired outcomes, but staff state there have
been no formal trainings or policies regarding when and why assessments
should be overridden; Supervisors have the discretion to override assessments if
needed.
• SDM assessment outcomes are not always in line with the Social Workers
determinations, leading to the assessment being altered.
o Social Workers consult with their supervisors about SDM assessments if
there is a disagreement in the outcome, and if the family’s history or
current situation criteria does not meet the threshold to promote a referral
to a case.
o There is currently some grey area regarding when an SDM assessment
outcome result is "safe with a plan” but it does not meet the legal threshold
to open a case. The ER Social Worker is instructed to continue monitoring
the referral and find ways to support families around the safety concerns.
Additional resources are needed for families in these situations.

Regarding the DFCS process for closing VFM cases when parents choose not to
engage in services and safety concerns remain in the home, staff disclosed the
following:
• Referrals are staffed with County Counsel to determine if they can be promoted
to a VFM case.
o Families are offered 6 months of VFM and if progress is not made, the
case is staffed with the Social Worker, Supervisor, Program Manager &
County Counsel to determine if a petition can be filed.
o ER Social Workers discuss what type of services are offered through
VFM; parents can decline services at any time, so their cases are staffed
with a supervisor. The VFM Social Workers then take over the
engagement with the families and conduct CFTs.
• VFM and Informal Supervision are offered to families following a staffing,
however the staffings are not held consistently. Families can have an open VFM
case, and the County will continue to receive similarly reported concerns through
the Hotline.
 o An evaluation of the families in the VFM program could help to determine
if families truly are engaged in VFM or if they are in need of a higher
service level. Situations can stabilize but the safety concerns remain.
o Communication regarding how to engage a family within VFM could be
better improved.
• VFM cases are evaluated for family participation & engagement after 30 days
and CFTs allow family input to determine next steps. VFM cases will transition to
DR 2 services if no safety concerns remain but if safety concerns continue,
Social Workers will staff the case to determine whether or not to elevate the
case.

Assessments Findings
Staff identified that SDM Assessments are performed timely at Hotline, during
investigation and prior to case promotion or closure although Supervisors have
discretion to override SDM assessment outcomes to reflect a desired outcome. Social
Workers continue to monitor referrals in which there are safety concerns present once
County Counsel makes the determination the referral does not meet the legal threshold
to remove the children. County Counsel makes the determination if and when a referral
will become a VFM case. Staff acknowledged the need to improve communication and
training on engagement techniques for Social Workers when working with VFM families
where safety concerns remain.

Safety Planning
Regarding the DFCS process for developing and documenting Safety Plans, the
following themes were identified when coding the notes from the on-site interviews:
• Social Workers utilize a form (SCC184) with specific criteria. The form is
uploaded into CWS/CMS. Safety Plans are completed during CFT meetings with
the family, support network and DFCS staff present.
o SDM Safety assessments are utilized to help identify the safety concerns.
• A recent Safety Plan training was held to standardize the process of utilizing the
Safety Plan form.
• Safety Plans created in ER are redone when the case moves to VFM.
• Verbal Safety Plans are utilized upon approval by a supervisor and documented
in CWS/CMS.
• There is not a formal procedure in place for what to do if a parent violates or fails
to follow through on elements of a voluntary safety plan.
Regarding the DFCS process for assessing Safety Plan participants to be safe and
protective individuals for children, the following themes were identified when coding the
notes from the on-site interviews:
 • County practice is centered around the idea that parents are making the
decisions for their children at their discretion and therefore parents have the right
to release their child/ren to a relative or individual of their choosing. Social
Workers rely on the parents and children to identify individuals to assist the
family. No formal assessment is required of the identified individual(s).
• Social Workers utilize their own discretion to determine if a support person is
deemed appropriate.
• Social Workers complete interviews and home assessments prior to placing the
child in a support persons home; however, this practice is not completed by all
Social Workers.
• Social Workers feel they need additional training regarding Safety Planning.

Safety Planning Findings

Staff identified that the County has an official County form for the development of Safety
Plans but does not provide consistent training or understanding of the processes
regarding creating and monitoring Safety Plans. There is not a formal protocol in place
for Social Workers to follow when a Safety Plan is not adhered to by the family. There is
not a formal process in place to assess the appropriateness of a support person or
temporary caretaker.

Concerns Identified By Staff

During the interviews, CDSS asked staff if they wanted to share any concerns they had,
and the following observations were shared:
• Social Workers are no longer able to interview children at school without a
parent’s permission.
o When parents allow the interviews to proceed, the policy is that parents
should be present. This was reported as a concern because interviews at
school are often the only time social workers report being able to interview
a child without concerns of coaching or being altered due to a parent’s
presence.
• County Counsel states the county has been violating parent’s rights by removing
children from their care, and they are now “fixing” that practice.
• All allegations of physical or sexual abuse require Social Workers to have law
enforcement respond with them which can cause delays and can change the
dynamics of the information gathering processes.
• Supervisors within the same department have very different perspectives which
impacts the outcomes.
• Laws and practice need to be consistent. There is no clear definition of the
“threshold” utilized by County Counsel regarding removals. SDM assessments
are completed correctly with the outcome to promote, but County Counsel
 disagrees, and the referral is not promoted. SDM assessments are not changed
to reflect County Counsels determination.
• Placement for high needs youth is challenging as there are very few Short Term
Residential Therapeutic Programs available. There are no placements available
for individuals with mental health or alcohol and other drug needs.
• There is a lack of available services for families through Wraparound and the
community. Families are often placed on wait lists for services.

Concerns Identified by Staff Findings

Staff identified investigations are often hindered by the county processes that include
not interviewing children at school and joint responses with law enforcement. Staff also
acknowledged the need for consistency amongst Social Worker practice when County
Counsel makes final determinations to place a child/ren into protective custody, when
SDM assessment determination outcome is to remove the child due to safety concerns.
Staff also recognized they often lack the necessary services to meet the needs of
children and families in the community.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on the findings from the case reviews and
interviews conducted by CDSS over the past several months. The CDSS can work in
partnership with DFCS to further explore these recommendations and find ways that
CDSS can support DFCS in strengthening their practice through technical assistance
and policy guidance.
1. DFCS should create a policy and procedure on how to document in CWS/CMS
when a determination regarding referrals is different than what SDM and other
assessments conducted evaluates as the proper determination. The CDSS has
learned that Santa Clara County Counsel is often involved in evaluating referrals
and may be using a different evidentiary threshold when making the
determination of removal, and that documentation or a “blue form” that is used
during this assessment is protected by attorney-client privilege. The CDSS
recommends that policy guidance be disseminated to front line staff and
supervisors on how to capture these discussions and consequent determinations
through documentation in CWS/CMS in a way that does not violate privilege, as it
is important to have accessible records on every decision-making step of a child
welfare case.
2. DFCS leadership should disseminate system wide messaging providing insight
into the reasons and goals of system wide practice changes and refinements,
specifically around Santa Clara County’s Child and Family Centered Practice.
3. DFCS should immediately create a training schedule where all social workers
and social worker supervisors who work with SDM tools will complete training
 within 30 days of being hired, and for all staff who are already in current positions
within six months.
4. DFCS should create policies and procedures on how social workers should
respond if a family fails to meet components of the safety plan, including but not
limited to: failing to agree to and signing the safety plan, failing to complete
suggested or required drug testing, failing to keep the children from parties
deemed as unsafe, etc. These policies and procedures should include guidance
that failure to follow the safety plan could result in further child welfare and/or
court involvement.
5. Social Work Supervisors should implement a system of monthly reviews of open
referrals and utilize supervision time with the social workers to review the status
of any referrals open longer than 30 days.
6. DFCS should immediately create a training schedule to train all Social Workers
and Social Worker Supervisors on the standard for child removal, the legal basis
for removal, the process of Protective Custody Warrants, the process of
promoting referrals to Voluntary Family Maintenance cases and the county
process for disagreements and how to proceed with a referral.

Issues Requiring Further Discussion

1. The CDSS would like to understand more about county leadership’s inclusion
of County Counsel throughout the decision-making process when assessing
referrals for determinations for removal. In order to do this, we are requesting
the following:
a. Any written policies and procedures regarding the inclusion of the legal
support in the advisement process of open referrals and cases.
b. Any written trainings on the new process to include legal support
during referral staffing and determining referral outcomes.
c. A description from county leadership of County Counsel’s role in
determining referral outcomes.
d. A description from County Counsel of their role in providing
determinations for removal.
2. The CDSS would like to learn more about DFCS’s policy guidance changes
regarding the practice of not interviewing children in schools. The CDSS
would like to learn more about what alternatives are provided to social
workers when they need to interview children alone to properly investigate
allegations of abuse and neglect.