Kern County CPS AGENCY CULTURE

[Greegor]

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/pio/KERNCOFinalReport.pdf

4.6.8 KCDHS Culture and Leadership
The KCDHS culture is described as resulting from a combination of
external and internal
factors. A community partner states that Kern County has a child abuse
issue and race issue, and
that poverty and drugs are part of the problem. There is also a
perception that when a case hits
the media staff are afraid to act. KCDHS's reputation is that it is
very collaborative, but
communication internally is very fragmented. Many community partners
report that the average
worker wants to do well, but is not given the training, tools and
support to do so.
In terms of leadership, the reported lack of consistent leadership at
the top and the
changes at the Assistant Director level have caused a lack of
stability. The tension between the
Director and the staff is known to most community partners. Some
attribute it to reports that the
Director does not respect or support staff and bypasses the chain of
command in decision
making, while others say that the tension in the Department is all
related to resistance to change,
that the Director has had to make changes and that "some staff
don't like the move forward." It
is also reported that the frequent changes in leadership mean that no
one follows through with
recommended changes. Some of the leadership is less confident of
decision-making which may
be a function of being new to the position.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> http://www.co.kern.ca.us/pio/KERNCOFinalReport.pdf
>
> 4.6.8 KCDHS Culture and Leadership
> The KCDHS culture is described as resulting from a combination of
> external and internal
> factors. A community partner states that Kern County has a child abuse
> issue and race issue, and
> that poverty and drugs are part of the problem. There is also a
> perception that when a case hits
> the media staff are afraid to act. KCDHS's reputation is that it is
> very collaborative, but
> communication internally is very fragmented. Many community partners
> report that the average
> worker wants to do well, but is not given the training, tools and
> support to do so.
> In terms of leadership, the reported lack of consistent leadership at
> the top and the
> changes at the Assistant Director level have caused a lack of
> stability. The tension between the
> Director and the staff is known to most community partners. Some
> attribute it to reports that the
> Director does not respect or support staff and bypasses the chain of
> command in decision
> making, while others say that the tension in the Department is all
> related to resistance to change,
> that the Director has had to make changes and that "some staff
> don't like the move forward." It
> is also reported that the frequent changes in leadership mean that no
> one follows through with
> recommended changes. Some of the leadership is less confident of
> decision-making which may
> be a function of being new to the position.

Certainly looks like they have a lot of work to do.

I note this report is over a hundred pages long. And I note as well
that you chose to post only the most negatively critical poriton.

Is that fair, Greg?

Is it even rational? Reasonable? Useful?

Would you say they are obviously corrupt and that explains why they
would post this report on their own government website to arrogantly
prove they are corrupt?

I thought they were supposed to operate in secrecy and hide their
mistakes and problems Greg. What's up with them posting the issues
publicly, eh?

And why did you include no comment, Greg? Afraid to open a debate, or
just trolling?

Or could it be that you have no thoughts of your own to share with us
on this subject and were just space filling for diversion, having not
as yet responded fully to questions about your own curruptions?

My goodness you left a lot unsaid from this document:

CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS I
1. INTRODUCTION 20
2. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 20
3. PROJECT METHODOLOGY 21
3.1 Internal and External Advisory Committee 21
3.2 Document and Data Review 22
3.3 Policy Review 23
3.4 Interviews and Focus Groups 23
3.4.1 Focus Groups with KCDHS Staff 23
3.4.2 Interviews with KCDHS Director and Assistant Directors. 24
3.4.3 Interviews with Community Partners 24
3.4.4 Community Partner and KCDHS Staff Interviews in East Kern 25
3.5. Organizational Culture Survey 25
3.6 Case Review 26
3.6.1 Multiple Referral Sample 27
3.6.2 Relative/Foster Care Placement Sample 27
3.6.3 Case Review Administration 28
3.6.4 Comparison of Interview Data with Case Documentation 28
4. FINDINGS 29
4.1 Context - Child, Family and Case Characteristics for KCDHS Served
Families 29
4.1.1 Demographic and Case Characteristics of Children and Families
Served by KCDHS 29
4.1.1.1 Referrals to Child Protective Services 29
4.1.2 KCDHS Response to CPS Referrals and Use of SDM 32
4.1.3 KCDHS Court and Placement Activity 35
4.1.4 Summary of Demographic and Case Characteristics 37
4.2 Organizational Structure and Processes 39
4.2.1 Organizational Structure 39
4.2.2 Turnover Rate 40
4.2.3 Caseload Size 40
4.2.4 Ratio of Case-Carrying Staff to Non Case-Carrying Staff 41
4.2.5 Supervisor to Staff Ratio 41
4.2.6 Exit Data on Employee Terminations 42
4.2.7 Disciplinary Actions 43
4.2.8 Vacancy Rate 44
4.2.9 Classification and Pay 44
4.2.10 Employee Recognition 45
CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
C
4.2.11 Continuing Education 46
4.2.12 Summary of Organizational Structure and Processes 46
4.3 CWLA KCDHS Policy Review 48
4.3.1 KCDHS General Policy-Analysis 48
4.3.2 Comparison of Selected KCDHS Policy with Council on Accreditation
Standards of Practice 49
4.3.3 Summary of Policy Review Findings 50
4.4 CPSB and PCPB Operations - Staff Perceptions of the
Organizational Culture 51
4.4.1 Distributive Justice, Intent to Stay 52
4.4.2 Level of Supervision and Support 54
4.4.3 Perceptions of Agreement Regarding Overall Agency Mission 57
4.4.4 Summary of Organizational Culture Survey 59
4.5 Themes and Issues Identified by KCDHS Personnel during Interviews
and Focus Groups 61
4.5.1 Management Issues 61
4.5.1.1 Management Culture 61
4.5.1.2 Policies and Procedures 62
4.5.1.3 Accountability for Work Performance 63
4.5.1.4 Training 63
4.5.1.5 Staffing 64
4.5.1.6 Workload 64
4.5.2 Practice Issues 64
4.5.2.1 Assessment 64
4.5.2.2. Relationship between units 65
4.5.2.3 Licensing 66
4.5.2.4 Placement Process and Decision 66
4.5.2.5 Relative Placement 67
4.5.2.6 Lack of Resources/Services 67
4.5.3 Summary of Staff Focus Groups and Interviews 68
4.6 Themes and Issues identified by Community Partners 70
4.6.1 Clarity of Role and Decision-making 71
4.6.2 KCDHS Staffing 71
4.6.3 Training 72
4.6.4 KCDHS Staff Working Relationships with Community Partners 72
4.6.5 Staff Working Relationships with Foster Parents 73
4.6.6 Resource Needs 74
4.6.7 Practice Issues and Innovations 75
4.6.8 KCDHS Culture and Leadership 76
4.6.9 Summary of Interviews with Community Partners 76
5. FINDINGS FROM CASE REVIEW 79
5.1 Multiple Referral Case Review Findings 79
5.1.1 Child and Caregiver Demographics 80
5.1.2 Safety and Placement 87
5.2. Relative/Foster Case Review Findings 89
5.2.1 Child, Caregiver and Case Demographics 89
5.2.2 SDM 94
5.2.3 Prior Placements 94
5.2.4 Services 97
5.2.5 Licensing 97
5.2.5.1 Decisions Regarding Licensing 98
5.2.6 Safety 98
CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
D
5.2.7 Pride in Casework 101
5.2.8 Barriers to Child Safety 103
5.3 Comparison of Interview Data and Case Documentation 105
5.3.1 Overall Findings of Comparison 105
5.3.2 Comparison of Multiple Case Review Data and Case Documentation
106
5.3.3 Comparison of Foster Case Review Data and Case Documentation 108
5.4 Summary of Case Review - Multiple Referral and Kin/Foster Care
Placement Cases 110
6.0 Overall Summary and Conclusions 115
6.1 A Summary of the Findings Related to Practice Issues: 116
6.2 A Summary of Findings Related to Organizational Issues 125
LIST OF APPENDICES ...

Figure people will be too lazy to actually go and check up on what
there is, and will simply buy the little piece you cut and pasted?

Some might be. Not I.

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/pio/KERNCOFinalReport.pdf

But, Greg, since you seem to have an interest in Kern Co. and going
naively as I often do, on the assumption you offered this for some
reasoned debate, I suggest a few subjects we might look closely at and
consider possibly causes and solutions.

Cases in point:

1 ... Although a structured decision process was adopted to guide and
improve decision making regarding the safety of children, to provide a
formalized process for the assessment of risk and to guide service
planning, this process has not been fully implemented. pp III ...

2 ... The multiple referral case review revealed that many of the risk
factors identified in the index referral (the case selected for this
review) for an individual family were present in prior referrals to
child protective services for that family. Furthermore, while most
families are offered services associated with identified risk,
progressively fewer CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB

ppIV

families actually engage in services, and even fewer families have
resolved the risk issue
associated with referral at the time of case closure. It is unclear if
these findings are related to
engagement (the inability of staff or community providers to engage
families), workload (the
lack of time for KCDHS staff to develop relationships with families or
monitor services based on
the number of cases they must investigate and/or monitor for service
delivery), or the
relationship between services provided and the risk issue identified
(families are referred to
available service, not necessarily services that address the specific
identified risk factor, or
services that incorporate evidence-based principles in practice).
Regardless of the reason (and it is recommended that this issue be
explored in greater detail), these issues raise concern about the
safety of children in Kern County. ...

There's just couple of issues out of dozens presented. Would you like
to discuss what you think are the causes of the problems, and entertain
some solutions, or do you have other points of interest in the report
you'd prefer to discuss? I am at your service, sir.

An interesting point you might or might not care about.

I grew up, from age 10 to 16 in Kern Co. California.

A county of great wealth at the time, but accompanied by great poverty
as well. Farming, ranching, oil production, contributed to the wealth.
Yet there was a large impovished community as well...mostly hispanic
and black.

I returned a few years ago to Bakersfield (which I lived outside of in
a farm/ranch/oil producing area in the country) and was stunned at the
changes. Vast tracts of high end homes, walled communities, and not far
off, ghettos as well.

Seems things haven't changed much even though they have changed a great
deal.

The same names are connected to political and financial power in Kern
Co. that were there when I was a kid. And the same problems continue.

And guess what I think the problem is for Kern County child protection,
Greg?

0:->

[0:->]

I point out in my narrative below this is a report of over a hundred
pages. That's misleading.

It's so comprehensive, even including the instruments used for survey,
that it runs to 265 pages.

To anyone really interested in the issues of child welfare reform it's
a telling document.

It has much bull**** in it, (the reseachers have to do something to
earn their high pay contract fees after all....R R R R R) but much
worthy of contemplation and consideration.

And knowing Kern Co. personally, I see it has not changed much from a
very wealthy community, with a sizable disavantaged population as well,
and still, after all these years, trying to get by "on the cheap" when
it comes to social services.

Ah well.


0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > http://www.co.kern.ca.us/pio/KERNCOFinalReport.pdf
> >
> > 4.6.8 KCDHS Culture and Leadership
> > The KCDHS culture is described as resulting from a combination of
> > external and internal
> > factors. A community partner states that Kern County has a child abuse
> > issue and race issue, and
> > that poverty and drugs are part of the problem. There is also a
> > perception that when a case hits
> > the media staff are afraid to act. KCDHS's reputation is that it is
> > very collaborative, but
> > communication internally is very fragmented. Many community partners
> > report that the average
> > worker wants to do well, but is not given the training, tools and
> > support to do so.
> > In terms of leadership, the reported lack of consistent leadership at
> > the top and the
> > changes at the Assistant Director level have caused a lack of
> > stability. The tension between the
> > Director and the staff is known to most community partners. Some
> > attribute it to reports that the
> > Director does not respect or support staff and bypasses the chain of
> > command in decision
> > making, while others say that the tension in the Department is all
> > related to resistance to change,
> > that the Director has had to make changes and that "some staff
> > don't like the move forward." It
> > is also reported that the frequent changes in leadership mean that no
> > one follows through with
> > recommended changes. Some of the leadership is less confident of
> > decision-making which may
> > be a function of being new to the position.
>
> Certainly looks like they have a lot of work to do.
>
> I note this report is over a hundred pages long. And I note as well
> that you chose to post only the most negatively critical poriton.
>
> Is that fair, Greg?
>
> Is it even rational? Reasonable? Useful?
>
> Would you say they are obviously corrupt and that explains why they
> would post this report on their own government website to arrogantly
> prove they are corrupt?
>
> I thought they were supposed to operate in secrecy and hide their
> mistakes and problems Greg. What's up with them posting the issues
> publicly, eh?
>
> And why did you include no comment, Greg? Afraid to open a debate, or
> just trolling?
>
> Or could it be that you have no thoughts of your own to share with us
> on this subject and were just space filling for diversion, having not
> as yet responded fully to questions about your own curruptions?
>
> My goodness you left a lot unsaid from this document:
>
> CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
> B
> TABLE OF CONTENTS
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS I
> 1. INTRODUCTION 20
> 2. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 20
> 3. PROJECT METHODOLOGY 21
> 3.1 Internal and External Advisory Committee 21
> 3.2 Document and Data Review 22
> 3.3 Policy Review 23
> 3.4 Interviews and Focus Groups 23
> 3.4.1 Focus Groups with KCDHS Staff 23
> 3.4.2 Interviews with KCDHS Director and Assistant Directors. 24
> 3.4.3 Interviews with Community Partners 24
> 3.4.4 Community Partner and KCDHS Staff Interviews in East Kern 25
> 3.5. Organizational Culture Survey 25
> 3.6 Case Review 26
> 3.6.1 Multiple Referral Sample 27
> 3.6.2 Relative/Foster Care Placement Sample 27
> 3.6.3 Case Review Administration 28
> 3.6.4 Comparison of Interview Data with Case Documentation 28
> 4. FINDINGS 29
> 4.1 Context - Child, Family and Case Characteristics for KCDHS Served
> Families 29
> 4.1.1 Demographic and Case Characteristics of Children and Families
> Served by KCDHS 29
> 4.1.1.1 Referrals to Child Protective Services 29
> 4.1.2 KCDHS Response to CPS Referrals and Use of SDM 32
> 4.1.3 KCDHS Court and Placement Activity 35
> 4.1.4 Summary of Demographic and Case Characteristics 37
> 4.2 Organizational Structure and Processes 39
> 4.2.1 Organizational Structure 39
> 4.2.2 Turnover Rate 40
> 4.2.3 Caseload Size 40
> 4.2.4 Ratio of Case-Carrying Staff to Non Case-Carrying Staff 41
> 4.2.5 Supervisor to Staff Ratio 41
> 4.2.6 Exit Data on Employee Terminations 42
> 4.2.7 Disciplinary Actions 43
> 4.2.8 Vacancy Rate 44
> 4.2.9 Classification and Pay 44
> 4.2.10 Employee Recognition 45
> CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
> C
> 4.2.11 Continuing Education 46
> 4.2.12 Summary of Organizational Structure and Processes 46
> 4.3 CWLA KCDHS Policy Review 48
> 4.3.1 KCDHS General Policy-Analysis 48
> 4.3.2 Comparison of Selected KCDHS Policy with Council on Accreditation
> Standards of Practice 49
> 4.3.3 Summary of Policy Review Findings 50
> 4.4 CPSB and PCPB Operations - Staff Perceptions of the
> Organizational Culture 51
> 4.4.1 Distributive Justice, Intent to Stay 52
> 4.4.2 Level of Supervision and Support 54
> 4.4.3 Perceptions of Agreement Regarding Overall Agency Mission 57
> 4.4.4 Summary of Organizational Culture Survey 59
> 4.5 Themes and Issues Identified by KCDHS Personnel during Interviews
> and Focus Groups 61
> 4.5.1 Management Issues 61
> 4.5.1.1 Management Culture 61
> 4.5.1.2 Policies and Procedures 62
> 4.5.1.3 Accountability for Work Performance 63
> 4.5.1.4 Training 63
> 4.5.1.5 Staffing 64
> 4.5.1.6 Workload 64
> 4.5.2 Practice Issues 64
> 4.5.2.1 Assessment 64
> 4.5.2.2. Relationship between units 65
> 4.5.2.3 Licensing 66
> 4.5.2.4 Placement Process and Decision 66
> 4.5.2.5 Relative Placement 67
> 4.5.2.6 Lack of Resources/Services 67
> 4.5.3 Summary of Staff Focus Groups and Interviews 68
> 4.6 Themes and Issues identified by Community Partners 70
> 4.6.1 Clarity of Role and Decision-making 71
> 4.6.2 KCDHS Staffing 71
> 4.6.3 Training 72
> 4.6.4 KCDHS Staff Working Relationships with Community Partners 72
> 4.6.5 Staff Working Relationships with Foster Parents 73
> 4.6.6 Resource Needs 74
> 4.6.7 Practice Issues and Innovations 75
> 4.6.8 KCDHS Culture and Leadership 76
> 4.6.9 Summary of Interviews with Community Partners 76
> 5. FINDINGS FROM CASE REVIEW 79
> 5.1 Multiple Referral Case Review Findings 79
> 5.1.1 Child and Caregiver Demographics 80
> 5.1.2 Safety and Placement 87
> 5.2. Relative/Foster Case Review Findings 89
> 5.2.1 Child, Caregiver and Case Demographics 89
> 5.2.2 SDM 94
> 5.2.3 Prior Placements 94
> 5.2.4 Services 97
> 5.2.5 Licensing 97
> 5.2.5.1 Decisions Regarding Licensing 98
> 5.2.6 Safety 98
> CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
> D
> 5.2.7 Pride in Casework 101
> 5.2.8 Barriers to Child Safety 103
> 5.3 Comparison of Interview Data and Case Documentation 105
> 5.3.1 Overall Findings of Comparison 105
> 5.3.2 Comparison of Multiple Case Review Data and Case Documentation
> 106
> 5.3.3 Comparison of Foster Case Review Data and Case Documentation 108
> 5.4 Summary of Case Review - Multiple Referral and Kin/Foster Care
> Placement Cases 110
> 6.0 Overall Summary and Conclusions 115
> 6.1 A Summary of the Findings Related to Practice Issues: 116
> 6.2 A Summary of Findings Related to Organizational Issues 125
> LIST OF APPENDICES ...
>
> Figure people will be too lazy to actually go and check up on what
> there is, and will simply buy the little piece you cut and pasted?
>
> Some might be. Not I.
>
> http://www.co.kern.ca.us/pio/KERNCOFinalReport.pdf
>
> But, Greg, since you seem to have an interest in Kern Co. and going
> naively as I often do, on the assumption you offered this for some
> reasoned debate, I suggest a few subjects we might look closely at and
> consider possibly causes and solutions.
>
> Cases in point:
>
> 1 ... Although a structured decision process was adopted to guide and
> improve decision making regarding the safety of children, to provide a
> formalized process for the assessment of risk and to guide service
> planning, this process has not been fully implemented. pp III ...
>
> 2 ... The multiple referral case review revealed that many of the risk
> factors identified in the index referral (the case selected for this
> review) for an individual family were present in prior referrals to
> child protective services for that family. Furthermore, while most
> families are offered services associated with identified risk,
> progressively fewer CWLA System Review of DHS - CPSB and PCPB
>
> ppIV
>
> families actually engage in services, and even fewer families have
> resolved the risk issue
> associated with referral at the time of case closure. It is unclear if
> these findings are related to
> engagement (the inability of staff or community providers to engage
> families), workload (the
> lack of time for KCDHS staff to develop relationships with families or
> monitor services based on
> the number of cases they must investigate and/or monitor for service
> delivery), or the
> relationship between services provided and the risk issue identified
> (families are referred to
> available service, not necessarily services that address the specific
> identified risk factor, or
> services that incorporate evidence-based principles in practice).
> Regardless of the reason (and it is recommended that this issue be
> explored in greater detail), these issues raise concern about the
> safety of children in Kern County. ...
>
> There's just couple of issues out of dozens presented. Would you like
> to discuss what you think are the causes of the problems, and entertain
> some solutions, or do you have other points of interest in the report
> you'd prefer to discuss? I am at your service, sir.
>
> An interesting point you might or might not care about.
>
> I grew up, from age 10 to 16 in Kern Co. California.
>
> A county of great wealth at the time, but accompanied by great poverty
> as well. Farming, ranching, oil production, contributed to the wealth.
> Yet there was a large impovished community as well...mostly hispanic
> and black.
>
> I returned a few years ago to Bakersfield (which I lived outside of in
> a farm/ranch/oil producing area in the country) and was stunned at the
> changes. Vast tracts of high end homes, walled communities, and not far
> off, ghettos as well.
>
> Seems things haven't changed much even though they have changed a great
> deal.
>
> The same names are connected to political and financial power in Kern
> Co. that were there when I was a kid. And the same problems continue.
>
> And guess what I think the problem is for Kern County child protection,
> Greg?
>
> 0:->

[Greegor]

Kane wrote
> And guess what I think the problem is for
> Kern County child protection, Greg?

All the huge out of court settlements?