Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021318 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 13, 2018 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. No Closed Session Next in Order: Ordinance: 18-05 Resolution: 18-09 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn Prelude Music: The Great Oak High School Jazz Trio "Soul Tree" Invocation: Pastor David Hinchey of Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship Flag Salute: Council Member Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Stewart, Rahn PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation for Reality Rally Event Presentation in Remembrance of Retired Fire Captain Gary Gunn PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. 1 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of January 23, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 23, 2018. 3 Approve the List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions RECOMMENDATION; 4.1 That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. 5 Approve Office Lease at the Old Town Parking Structure Between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau dba Visit Temecula Valley 2 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Approve an Office Lease at the Old Town Parking Structure between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau dba Visit Temecula Valley and authorize the Assistant City Manager to Execute the Lease; 5.2 Appropriate $200,000 from the 2007 Tax Allocation Bonds. 6 Approve Revisions to Various Agreements to Enable the City to Purchase Solar Generated Electricity from the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Solar Power Generating Facility RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENERGY AUTHORITY (SRCEA), AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 17-75 TO PROVIDE THAT ALL OF THE APPROVALS AND AUTHORIZATIONS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 17-75 SHALL INCLUDE A REVISED TERMINATION FEE TO THE PROPOSED POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT 7 Approve a Cooperative Agreement with Non-profit Temecula Valley Alano Club in Support of AA Workshop Group Meetings RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with non-profit Temecula Valley Alano Club, in the amount of $4,218 of in-kind facility services/costs annually, in support of the group's Temecula Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Workshop Group Meetings. 8 Approve Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, Rancho California Road, Project Number PW17-26 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the City Council approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, Rancho California Road (Old Town Front Street to the Western City Limits), Project Number PW17-26. 3 9 Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2018 Springfest Events RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following 2018 Springfest Events: ROD RUN OLD TOWN TEMECULA BLUES FESTIVAL TASTE OF TEMECULA REALITY RALLY ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: CSD 18-01 Resolution: CSD 18-01 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 10 Approve the Action Minutes of January 23, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of January 23, 2018. 11 Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with BAS Security, Inc. for Additional Security Services for City Events, Programs, and Facility Rentals RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with BAS Security, Inc. in the amount of $18,000, for additional security services for City Events, Programs, and Facility Rentals. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS 5 CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: SARDA 18-01 Resolution: SARDA 18-02 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Stewart, Rahn SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filled out and filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing Public Comments and the Consent Calendar. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Agency Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form may be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 12 Approve the Action Minutes of January 23, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of January 23, 2018. SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS SARDA ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — No Meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY — No Meeting RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Introduce Ordinance Amending Section 10.44.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code Relating to the Use of Golf Carts on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.44.010 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE OF GOLF CARTS ON ROYAL BIRKDALE DRIVE FROM MEADOWS PARKWAY TO TEMEKU DRIVE 14 Receive Presentation and Adopt a Joint Resolution for the Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership with the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONTINUATION OF THE TEMECULA AREA CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP AS IT RELATES TO SUPPORT FOR AREA FOSTER YOUTH, INCLUDING EMANCIPATING FORMER FOSTER YOUTH 15 Selection of 2018 City Council Committees RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 That the City Council consider and appoint members to serve on various City Council Committees for calendar year 2018. 8 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD 16 Conduct Annual Joint Meeting Between the City Council and the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 That the City Council conduct the annual joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission. 17 Conduct Annual Joint Meeting Between the City Council and the Old Town Local Review Board RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 That the City Council conduct the annual joint meeting between the City Council and the Old Town Local Review Board. ADJOURNMENT OF JOINT MEETING DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 18 City Council Travel/Conference Report COMMISSION REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 2018, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports and public Closed Session information) will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the agenda packet may also be accessed on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public viewing at the respective meeting. Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, after the posting of the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula, 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — TemeculaCA.gov — and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694-6444. 9 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT Item No. 1 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 23, 2018 – 7:00 PM 6:00 PM - The City Council convened in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to two matters of pending litigation: (1) Endangered Habitats League v. City of Temecula et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1800886; and (2) Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. City of Temecula, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1800858. At 7:01 PM Mayor Rahn called the City Council meeting to order to consider the matters described on the regular agenda. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn Prelude Music: Cindy, Ryan and Aaron Chu Invocation: Aaron Adams Flag Salute: Council Member Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Stewart (absent), Rahn PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation by Habitat for Humanity Regarding CDBG Funded Project PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council on non -agenda items: • Wayne Hall • Ms. Miller • Mark Katan Action Minutes 012318 1 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Rahn, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 2 Approve the Action Minutes of January 9, 2018 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Rahn, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 9, 2018. 3 Approve the List of Demands - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Rahn, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Adopt Ordinance 18-04 Adding Chapter 8.49, City Tree Care and Preservation, to Title 8, Health and Safety, of the Temecula Municipal Code (Second Reading) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Rahn, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: Action Minutes 012318 2 ORDINANCE NO. 18-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.49, CITY TREE CARE AND PRESERVATION, TO TITLE 8, HEALTH AND SAFETY, OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE 5 Award a Construction Contract to CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. for the Sidewalks — Citywide (Ridge Park West Segment 34 Prosect), PW17-27 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Edwards; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Rahn, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Award a Construction Contract to CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc., in the amount of $43,200, for Sidewalks — Citywide (Segment 34 of Sidewalks Study of Missing Links, located on Ridge Park Drive from Ridgegate Drive to approximately 420 feet south), PW17-27; 5.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $1,800, which is equal to 4.2% of the contract amount; 5.3 Make a finding that the Sidewalks — Citywide (Ridge Park West Segment 34 Project), PW17-27, is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. RECESS: At 7:29 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency Meeting. At 7:32 PM, the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 9 Consider the Roripaugh Ranch Project Including a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment (Planning Application Nos. PA17-0741 and PA17-1640) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Naggar, Second by Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, and Rahn, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and approve the Roripaugh Ranch Project including a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment (Planning Application Nos. PA17-0741 and PA17-1640) and adopt related resolutions: Action Minutes 012318 3 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 97121030) 9.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO REVISE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PARCELS OF PHASE II OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN TO A SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (SPI) LAND USE (PA17-1640) 9.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 11) (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA17-0741) The following individual addressed the City Council on this item: • Ms. Miller DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 10 Community Development Department Monthly Report 11 Police Department Monthly Report 12 Public Works Department Monthly Report COMMISSION REPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT CITY MANAGER REPORT Action Minutes 012318 4 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson stated there were no reportable actions in regards to the Closed Session items. ADJOURNMENT At 8:07 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 13, 2018, at 5:30 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Action Minutes 012318 5 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Fiscal Services Manager Jada Shafe, Accounting Technician II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $8,432,100.80. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13th day of February, 2018. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 01/11/2018 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 1,953,821.68 01/18/2018 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 2,808,657.55 01/25/2018 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 2,751,181.38 01/11/2018 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 469,152.90 01/25/2018 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 449,287.29 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 02/13/2018 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 8,432,100.80 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 170 MEASURE A FUND 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 300 INSURANCE FUND 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 $ 5,342,355.98 8,905.92 10,656.47 6,172.68 61,763.61 285,110.43 73,394.86 2,829.83 15,005.81 16,025.46 1,501,181.12 4,295.93 4,417.16 59,989.56 24,299.32 6,534.30 27,787.98 59.95 59.95 59.95 59.95 59.95 59.95 299.48 2,693.35 2,011.24 724.14 419.77 1,943.54 1,104.54 949.02 302.09 174.59 1,000.52 116.67 1,480.56 622.92 874.18 577.11 40.30 114.34 5,550.66 2,865.91 226.25 2,956.28 207.44 94.06 19,393.82 2,736.97 1.58 648.09 3,378.19 27.88 9,039.00 $ 7,513,660.61 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 545,669.67 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 834.74 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 6,067.18 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 211,006.19 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B STREET LIGHTS 671.54 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 4,730.97 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 728.35 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 3,127.70 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,001.04 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 3,900.31 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 60,444.62 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 8,674.32 340 FACILITIES 15,007.07 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 85.69 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 85.69 474 AD03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 85.69 475 CFD03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 85.69 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 85.69 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 85.69 478 CFD 16-01 RORIPAUGH PHASE II 428.62 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 55.27 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 89.90 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 75.74 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 11.18 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 127.00 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 19.81 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 22.57 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 425.35 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 3.99 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 18.40 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 6.61 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 244.60 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 52.30 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 19.01 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 15.58 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 61.21 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 2.21 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 226.99 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 121.20 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 338.87 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 556.54 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 8.35 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 14.56 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 313.09 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 100.61 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 2.93 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 14.56 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 480.85 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 5.39 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 51,199.06 918,440.19 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 8,432,100.80 apChkLst Final Check List 01/11/2018 8:49:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 3630 01/11/2018 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 1,008.45 1,008.45 SUPPORT 3631 01/11/2018 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC., DBA: REIMBURSEMENT FSA PAYMENT 13,092.46 13,092.46 FLEX ADVANTAGE 3632 01/11/2018 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN I C M A RETIREMENT TRUST 457 8,642.36 8,642.36 303355 PAYMENT 3633 01/11/2018 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) STATE TAXES PAYMENT 22,466.14 22,466.14 3634 01/11/2018 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) FEDERAL TAXES PAYMENT 84,787.96 84,787.96 3635 01/11/2018 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 2,229.36 2,229.36 SOLUTION PAYMENT 3636 01/11/2018 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 11,723.09 11,723.09 SOLUTION 3637 01/11/2018 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT 442.44 442.44 SOLUTION PAYMENT 3638 01/11/2018 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT 93,114.39 93,114.39 RETIREMENT) PAYMENT 3639 01/10/2018 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PERS HEALTH PAYMENT 0.00 PREMIUM PERS HEALTH PAYMENT 120,894.63 120,894.63 186812 01/11/2018 003552 AF LAC AFLAC ACCIDENT INDEMNITY 3,339.47 3,339.47 PAYMENT 186813 01/11/2018 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 245.00 245.00 186814 01/11/2018 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL DEC POLICE K-9 TRAINING 350.00 350.00 LLC 186815 01/11/2018 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES DEC PIANO TUNING & MAINT: LIBRARY 185.00 185.00 186816 01/11/2018 013332 ARMSTRONG GARDEN LDSCP DSGN SRVCS:SAM HICKS 575.00 575.00 CENTERS INC PARK 186817 01/11/2018 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING, INC. DEC RESTROOMS/SHELTERS MAINT: 7,329.74 7,329.74 VAR PARKS Pagel apChkLst 01/1112018 8:49:12AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186818 01/11/2018 020405 BLOCK, BARBARA 186819 01/11/2018 017115 BUREAU OF OFFICE SERVICES, INC 186820 01/11/2018 005321 CALIF ASSOC OF CODE 186821 01/11/2018 004462 CDW, LLC 186822 01/11/2018 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO BANK 186823 01/11/2018 020403 COOPER, SCOTT 186824 01/11/2018 014521 COSTAR GROUP INFORMATION, INC 186825 01/11/2018 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 186826 01/11/2018 016724 CRAFT, CHARLENE 186827 01/11/2018 008533 DAMKO, CHRISTINE 186828 01/11/2018 018247 DOKKEN ENGINEERING 186829 01/11/2018 018098 ELITE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC 186830 01/11/2018 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. 186831 01/11/2018 017432 EYEMED VISION CARE 186832 01/11/2018 019469 FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES 186833 01/11/2018 017135 FOX, STACY Description Amount Paid Check Total REFUND:TEM ROD RUN 7000.046 DEC TRANSCRIPTION SRVCS:POLICE MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: ROMINE, MARIA MOBILE DEVICE REPLACE:CODE ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS PAYMENT COMPUTER PURCHASE PROGRAM JAN '18 WEB SUBSCRIPTION:ECO DEV GRAND OPENING SUPPLIES: STA 95 REIMB:DEC EE QTRLY LUNCHEON REIMB:SUPPLIES:STN 95 GRAND OPENING OCT-NOV DSGN SRVCS:SIDEWALKS-YNEZ RD JAN '18 3RD PARTY CLAIM ADMIN: WRKRS COM DEC LDSCP MAINT SRVCS: LEVEL C SLOPES DEC LDSCP MAINT SRVCS: VAR FACILIT VISION PLAN PAYMENT DEC CONSTR MGMT SRVCS:ULT.INTRCHG PW04-0 COMPUTER PURCHASE PROGRAM 186834 01/11/2018 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 50.00 339.02 150.00 4,599.32 24.00 1,601.45 453.19 743.91 369.87 108.73 3,520.00 1,250.00 23, 074.18 11, 340.40 1,456.66 145, 319.06 766.24 50.00 339.02 150.00 4,599.32 24.00 1,601.45 453.19 743.91 369.87 108.73 3,520.00 1,250.00 34,414 58 1,45666 145,319.06 766.24 78.22 78.22 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 01/1112018 8:49:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186835 01/11/2018 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. JAN BUS LINE SVCS:EOC 135.80 JAN INTERNET SVCS:FIRE STN 95 122.18 JAN INTERNET SVCS:SKATE PARK 41.94 JAN INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY 7.42 JAN INTERNET SVCS:LIBRARY 7.42 314.76 186836 01/11/2018 013076 GAUDET, YVONNE M. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 465.50 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 201.60 667.10 186837 01/11/2018 005405 GILLILAND, ROBIN REIMB:PROJECT TOUCH 123.60 123.60 186838 01/11/2018 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE 3/1/18-2/28/19 MBRSHP PB/RG/JH/PH 840.00 840.00 OFFICERS 186839 01/11/2018 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE 3 BAY DOOR REMOTES: STA 92 59.67 59.67 186840 01/11/2018 012883 JACOB'S HOUSE INC EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 40.00 40.00 PAYMENT 186841 01/11/2018 017118 KRACH, BREE B. SISTER CITY PLAQUE 539.40 539.40 186842 01/11/2018 009923 L S AASSOCIATES INC OCT RORIPAUGH RANCH EIR: PLNG 1,560.00 1,560.00 186843 01/11/2018 010598 LEIGHTONANDASSOCIATES, GEOTECHNICAL 3,500.00 3,500.00 INC. SRVCS/PA17-1422:PLNG 186844 01/11/2018 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC GEOTECHNICAL 2,800.00 2,800.00 SRVCS/PA17-1508: P LNG 186845 01/11/2018 017427 MATCHETT, VIVIAN TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 364.00 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 182.00 546.00 186846 01/11/2018 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES, INC. NOV CDBG ADMINISTRATION SRVCS 4,713.75 4,713.75 186847 01/11/2018 015259 MERCURY DISPOSAL HOUSEHOLD BATTERY RECYCLING 216.60 SYSTEMS, INC. PRGM:LIBRARY HOUSEHOLD BATTERY RECYCLING PRC 160.36 376.96 186849 01/11/2018 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE DENTAL PAYMENT 10,504.20 10,504.20 COMPANY 186850 01/11/2018 013827 MIKO MOUNTAINLION, INC. ADD'L BMP MAINT:TEM PARK & RIDE 13,937.50 13,937.50 186851 01/11/2018 011649 MILLER, WENDY REIMB:STN 95 GRAND OPENING 220.31 220.31 SUPPLIES Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List 01/1112018 8:49:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186852 01/11/2018 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,470.00 1,470.00 186853 01/11/2018 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC JAN IT MONITORING SRVCS: TVE2 100.00 100.00 186854 01/11/2018 018171 NUNN, BROOKE LINDA RFRSHMNTS:GRAND OPENING STN 95 200.00 200.00 186855 01/11/2018 019839 O'CONNOR, DENISE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 140.00 140.00 186856 01/11/2018 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 215.31 DIV OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 155.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE 130.94 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 101.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 51.73 BUSINESS CARDS: HR 36.63 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 35.12 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 32.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES: HR 14.95 774.64 186857 01/11/2018 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:CODE ENF 738.42 738.42 186858 01/11/2018 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:FIRE PREV 490.90 490.90 186859 01/11/2018 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW LAND 413.23 DEV CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW STREET 352.86 766.09 186860 01/11/2018 019851 ORTIZ ENTERPRISES, INC. PRGS PMT # 7:I-15/SR 79S ULT 1,197,670.22 1,197,670.22 INTRCHG 186861 01/11/2018 019334 PARK CONSULTING GROUP, DEC CONSULTING & ENTERPRISE 520.00 520.00 INC SRVCS: I.T. 186862 01/11/2018 012948 PAVEMENT COATINGS REL. RET.: CITYWIDE SLURRY 37,987.96 COMPANY SEAL -ARTERIAL C/O #2/CITYWIDE SLURRY SEAL-ARTERI 23,775.65 61,763.61 186863 01/11/2018 003663 PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO NOV EXCAVATION MONITORING: ULT. 1,760.14 1,760.14 INTRCHG 186864 01/11/2018 005820 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES PAYMENT 342.85 342.85 INC 186865 01/11/2018 012904 PROACTIVE FIRE DESIGN DEC PLAN REVIEW SRVCS: 5,170.70 5,170.70 PREVENTION Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List 01/11/2018 8:49:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186866 01/11/2018 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE JUL-DEC '17 BANNER PGRM:ECON ADVERTISING DEV 186867 01/11/2018 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL TRASH & DEBRIS REMOVAL: MANAGEMENT HOMELESS CAMPS 186868 01/11/2018 020402 RIGHTIME HOME SERVICES REFUND:PERMIT CANCELLED:B18-0011 186869 01/11/2018 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & CEQA NOE:RIDGE PARK SIDEWALK RECORDER IMPRV 186870 01/11/2018 000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT OCT -DEC '17 K -RAT PAYMENT 186871 01/11/2018 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY NOV RTA HARVESTON SHUTTLE: ECON DEV 186872 01/11/2018 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL SOUND/LIGHTING SUPPLIES: LIGHTING THEATER 186873 01/11/2018 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES:STN 95 PRESTON 186874 01/11/2018 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV - SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 186875 01/11/2018 013695 SHRED -IT US JV, LLC 186876 01/11/2018 000537 SO CALIF EDISON DEC DOC SHRED SRVCS:CITY DEPARTMENTS DEC DOC SHRED SRVCS:TEMECULA PC DEC 2-28-629-0507 30600 PAUBA RD DEC 2-27-560-0625 32380 DEERHOLLOW DEC 2-31-536-3226 28690 MERCEDES ST DEC 2-31-404-6020 28771 OT FRONT ST DEC 2-30-220-8749 45850 N WOLF CREEI DEC 2-02-502-8077 43210 BUS PARK DR DEC 2-29-657-256342902 BUTTERFIELD DEC 2-31-936-3511 46488 PECHANGA PK DEC 2-29-657-2332 45538 REDWOOD RD DEC 2-29-953-8447 31738 WOLF VLY RD 186877 01/11/2018 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY REINSTATEMENT FEE: STN 84 2,892.50 2,892.50 3,475.00 3,475.00 260.80 260.80 50.00 50.00 500.00 500.00 1,660.00 1,660.00 821.28 821.28 150.00 150.00 50.00 50.00 105.74 36.48 142.22 4,963.79 2,398.74 1,357.24 836.45 397.84 342.35 186.87 46.96 23.48 23.33 10,577 05 68.67 68.67 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List 01/11/2018 8:49:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 186878 01/11/2018 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 186879 01/11/2018 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 186883 01/11/2018 007762 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 186884 01/11/2018 012723 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 186885 01/11/2018 015648 STEIN, ANDREW 186886 01/11/2018 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS 186887 01/11/2018 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total DEC PEST CONTROL SRVCS:CITY FACS PEST CONTROL SRVCS:PBSP 12/15 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:MRC 12/7 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:MRC 10/10 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:TES POOL 11/30 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:TES POOL 10/30 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:TES POOL 10/9 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:MARG PARK 10/ PEST CONTROL SRVCS:MARG PARK 10/ PEST CONTROL SRVCS:MARG PARK 11/: PEST CONTROL SRVCS:DUCK POND 9/2 PEST CONTROL SRVCS:DUCK POND 10/ PEST CONTROL SRVCS:DUCK POND 11/ PEST CONTROL SRVCS:DUCK POND 12/ PEST CONTROL SRVCS:WOLF CREEK t 859.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 59.00 59.00 59.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 49.00 1,638.00 JAN GEN USAGE:0141,0839,2593,9306 567.25 567.25 BASIC LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT 8,251.34 8,251.34 VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE 1,077.78 1,077.78 PAYMENT MISC SUPPLIES:TCSD VAR. SPECIAL 4,634.80 4,634.80 EVENTS GLASS REPLACEMENT: HISTORY 664.06 664.06 MUSEUM UNION DUES PAYMENT 4,981.00 4,981.00 186888 01/11/2018 014552 TEMECULA CARRIAGE HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGE: 11/24 O.T. COMPANY, LLC 800.00 800.00 186889 01/11/2018 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS VEH REPAIR & MAINT:TEMECULA 1,146.39 LLC POLICE VEH REPAIR & MAINT:TEMECULA POLICI 910.33 186890 01/11/2018 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:LIBRARY 593.32 186891 01/11/2018 019100 TNT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP DY & SOUND SRVCS:NYE GRAPE LLC DROP 2,056.72 593.32 4,994.00 4,994.00 186892 01/11/2018 017430 TRANSAMERICA LIFE TRANSAMERICAACCIDENT 3,066.68 3,066.68 INSURANCE CO ADVANTAGE PMT Pages apChkLst Final Check List 01/11/2018 8:49:12AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186893 01/11/2018 017579 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 354.00 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 100.00 454.00 186894 01/11/2018 012549 UPODIUM VEHICLE MAINTSUPPLIES: STA84 195.01 195.01 186895 01/11/2018 016094 VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & CO CITY FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT 9,036.00 9,036.00 LLP 186896 01/11/2018 007987 WALMART SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 141.14 141.14 186897 01/11/2018 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC 12/1-15/17 TREE MAINT:HARV. LAKE PARK 12/1-15/17 TREE MAINT:CITYWIDE R -O -V\ 12/1-15/17 TREE MAINT:VINTAGE HILLS 12/1-15/17 TREE MAINT:PARKS & MEDIAI• 12/1-15/17 EMERG TREE MAINT:VAR SLO 3,827.00 1,338.00 850.00 500.00 450.00 6,965.00 186898 01/11/2018 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL REPAIRS: CHILDRENS 1,920.00 1,920.00 MUSEUM 186899 01/11/2018 018871 WONDER SCIENCE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,417.50 1,417.50 1001950 01/05/2018 017532 BUILDERS OF FAITH REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001951 01/05/2018 017292 DELGADO, CLAUDIA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 1001952 01/05/2018 019455 HEMET/TEMECULA EMPLOYER REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001953 01/05/2018 020404 MONTALVO, LAURA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 1001954 01/05/2018 013991 PRIEBOY, JILL REFUND:SEC DEP:KITCHEN 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:CRC 1001955 01/05/2018 017446 ROSE AGAIN FOUNDATION REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF 200.00 200.00 CTR A/B 1001956 01/05/2018 018797 TEMECULA VALLEY CHURCH REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 1,953, 821.68 Page:7 apChkLst 01/11/2018 8:49:12AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 101 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 1, 953, 821.68 Page:8 apChkLst 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3610 12/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 017379 LULU PRESS, INC. 3616 12/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 020417 THE STUDIO 020416 DICK'S SPORTING GOODS 019829 NATOMOUNT.COM 005903 TERRYS CANVAS 003397 PENNWELL CORPORATION 3618 12/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS INC 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC 008668 WES FLOWERS 008668 WES FLOWERS 000733 ABBEY PARTY RENTS 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 011108 MONTE CARLO RESORT & CASINO 003392 AARON BROTHERS ART & FRAMING 005244 SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MGM 000484 CALIF ASSN FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS-CAREERTRAC 011108 MONTE CARLO RESORT & CASINO Description Amount Paid Check Total LW SELF PUBLISHING BOOK: TALK CITY CD RFRSHMNTS: EOC SUMMIT CD PATCHES FOR TCC CD WATER BOTTLES: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION CD MOUNTS FOR FIRE INSPECTORS CD CANVAS BAG REPAIR CD FIRE ENGINEERING IG GLASS AWARDS FOR EM SUMMIT IG RFSHMNTS: EM SUMMIT IG SUNSHINE FUND IG SUNSHINE FUND IG LINENS FOR EMS SUMMIT IG BANNER FOR EM SUMMIT IG LODGING: NEOGOV CONF: OBMANN, B. IG FRAMES FOR EOQAND EOY IG MEMBERSHIP: GARIBAY, I. IG ADVERTISING FOR JOB POSTING: HR IG CONF REGIST: GARIBAY, I. IG AIRFARE: NEOGOV CONFERENCE: OBMANN IG DELIVERY CHARGE: EM SUMMIT IG CANCELLATION REFUND: CAMERON, G. IG REFUND FOR CANCELLATION: CAMERON, G. 33.99 1,347.79 452.45 130.45 64.90 58.00 39.53 122.84 80.00 61.43 61.43 301.30 266.92 387.78 217.50 209.00 175.00 525.00 521.95 10.00 -24.00 -69.00 IG LODGING: NEOGOV CONF: -124.72 OBMANN, B. 33.99 2,093.12 Page:1 apChkLst 01118/2018 9:09:38AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 011108 MONTE CARLO RESORT & CASINO 3619 12/11/2017 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION SOC 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION SOC 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION SOC 006952 PAYPAL 019825 GETTY IMAGES 017201 STATEFOODSAFETY.COM 016883 MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT 011118 PALM SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS DIV 007148 MARIE CALLENDER RESTAURANT 25 020249 LAUND3R.COM LLC 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION SOC 3629 01/04/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 020401 CARLS JR 818 3640 01/11/2018 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF 3651 01/18/2018 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT) 186900 01/18/2018 016764 ABM BUILDING SERVICES, LLC 186901 01/18/2018 019307 ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE SMOG (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total IG LODGING: NEOGOV CONF: OBMANN, B. IG OVER THE LIMIT FEE KH REFUND MEMBERSHIP DUES: MARTINEZ, Y KH MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: MARTINEZ, Y. KH CONF REGIST: TURNER, CHARISS 10/24 KH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION KH DIGITAL IMAGES FOR PROMO FLYERS KH FOOD HANDLER CERTIFICATES FOR STAFF KH CONF REGIST: RUSSO, E. 10/25-27 KH SENIOR EXCURSION: MPSC KH OFFICE FURNITURE KH RFRSHMNTS:HUMANS SRVCS EVENTS KH TABLE DRAPES FOR CONFERENCE CTR KH RFSHMNTS: POOL TOURNAMENT EVENT: MPSC KH AWARD ENTRY FEE: MKTG & COMM AWARD CG RFSHMNTS: HOMELESS OUTREACH PRGM CG INTEREST CHARGE TO BE REVERSE DEC '17 TUMF PAYMENT PERS - REPLACEMENT BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION HVAC REPAIRS: TEMECULA LIBRARY HVAC REPAIRS: TEMECULA LIBRARY HVAC Repairs: Facilities Operations Ctr SMOG CHECK: CODE ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE SMOG CHECK: CODE ENFORCEMENT VI -124.72 35.00 -15.00 170.00 160.00 159.30 149.00 135.00 375.00 1,143.30 1,087.48 250.00 126.50 60.00 70.00 6.84 1.75 177,209.30 73,109.40 250.30 119.30 119.30 45.00 2,632.71 3,870.58 8.59 177,209.30 73,109.40 488.90 45.00 90.00 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186902 01/18/2018 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT ASPHALT PRODUCTS: CITYWIDE 604.46 ASPHALT PRODUCTS: CITYWIDE 591.86 ASPHALT PRODUCTS: CITYWIDE 551.36 ASPHALT PRODUCTS: CITYWIDE 269.72 2,017.40 186903 01/18/2018 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES PIANO TUNING & MAINT:THEATER 490.00 PIANO TUNING & MAINT: THEATER 185.00 675.00 186904 01/18/2018 006915 ALLIES PARTY EQUIPMENT RENTALS:RORIPAUGH FIRE STN 387.95 OPENING RENTALS:MPSC 338.92 726.87 186905 01/18/2018 017795 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, LANGUAGE TESTING: HR 120.00 120.00 INC 186906 01/18/2018 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW REPLACE WATER CONTRL PARTS: HARV LAKE BACKFLOW KIT INSTALLS: VAR FACILITII 186907 01/18/2018 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY CORPORATION 2,510.69 1,314.00 BATTERIES: CIVIC CENTER 227.80 BATTERIES: CIVIC CENTER 201.41 BATTERIES AND CORE: PUBLIC WORKS 27.15 186908 01/18/2018 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA 270.00 (AFN) POLICE FEB STAND BY FEE: POLICE DEPT 1,248.00 PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLIC 750.00 186909 01/18/2018 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO JAN DRINKING WATER SYS MAINT: 183.71 CIVIC CTR JAN DRINKING WATER SYSTEM: MPSC 34.75 JAN DRINKING WATER SYSTEM SVCS: P 28.28 JAN DRINKING WATER SYSTEM: JRC 28.28 JAN WATER SVCS: POLICE STOREFRON 28.28 JAN DRINKING WATER SVCS: INFO TECE 28.28 186910 01/18/2018 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 186911 01/18/2018 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL UNIFORM SHIRTS:INFO TECH PRODUCTS, INC 186912 01/18/2018 014284 BLAKELY'S TRUCK SERVICE VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW STREET MAINT VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW STREET MAI VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW STREET MAI VEH & EQUIP REPAIRS: PW STREET MAI 597.96 507.87 229.52 37.01 35.37 19.50 6.80 -19.36 36.61 40471 254.57 172.12 80.00 3,824.69 456.36 2,268.00 331.58 1,414.67 36.61 911.40 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List 01118/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186913 01/18/2018 018551 BMW MOTORCYCLES OF VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR: TEMECULA MURRIETA POLICE 186914 01/18/2018 020326 BROWN, PATRICE REFUND:RETURNED LOST MATERIALS:LIBRARY 186915 01/18/2018 001267 CALIF DEPT OF MOTOR PTI SVC FEE '08 CARSN CARRIER: PW VEHICLES MAINT 186916 01/18/2018 009847 CALIFORNIA PRESENTERS ANNUAL MEMB & CONF. BARNETT/TURNER 186917 01/18/2018 004462 CDW, LLC LICENSE FOR NVP SOFTWARE: HR 186918 01/18/2018 020201 CIRCLE OF SAFE -T, INC. SART EXAMS: TEM POLICE 186919 01/18/2018 017429 COBRAADVANTAGE INC., DBA: DEC FSA & COBRAADMINSTRATION: FLEX ADVANTAGE HR 186920 01/18/2018 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FOC DIST. 186921 01/18/2018 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 THEATER HOSPITALITY & OFFICE SUPPLIES 186922 01/18/2018 017038 CPS HR CONSULTING HR CONSULTANT: HR 186923 01/18/2018 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS:OLD HVAC INC TOWN 6TH ST 186924 01/18/2018 018491 CRONBERG PHOTOGRAPHY TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 264.35 264.35 19.93 19.93 10.00 10.00 790.00 790.00 180.31 180.31 4,400.00 4,400.00 539.50 539.50 601.39 601.39 98.86 98.86 450.00 450.00 7,200.00 7,200.00 224.00 224.00 186925 01/18/2018 000209 CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: STA 12 211.68 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: STA 12 186926 01/18/2018 004382 DEKRA LITE INC HOLIDAY LIGHTING:OLD TOWN 2017 SEASON 53.79 265.47 8,813.17 8,813.17 186927 01/18/2018 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL GREASE TRAP CLEANING: MPSC 408.00 SRVCS PORTABLE TOILET SVC: CITYWIDE CLEF 76.25 186928 01/18/2018 019720 DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES , DEC WATER QUALITY MAINT:DUCK 6,766.00 INC. POND:HARV 484.25 6,766.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186929 01/18/2018 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL & LUBRICANTS Description Amount Paid Check Total FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD 304.19 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOR FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEP' FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI 186930 01/18/2018 019293 E&F PET SUPPLIES, INC. k-9 food & supplies: tem police 186931 01/18/2018 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST DEC WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD LDSC DEC WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD B DEC WATER METER:32131 S LOOP RD D 186932 01/18/2018 013367 ELECTRO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: PW TRAFFIC 171.75 130.52 91.21 46.09 35.66 779.42 84.70 84.70 617.96 13626 45.08 799.30 908.02 908.02 186933 01/18/2018 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY JAN STATE LOBBYING SERVICES 3,500.00 3,500.00 LLC 186934 01/18/2018 011292 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE NOV EIR:ALTAIR SPECIFIC PLAN 10,849.25 10,849.25 ASSOC. 186935 01/18/2018 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. IRRIGATION REPAIRS:HARVESTON 123.44 123.44 PARK 186936 01/18/2018 005901 EXHIBIT ENVOY EXHIBIT:TVM 1/21/18-4/1/18 1,125.00 1,125.00 186937 01/18/2018 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING JAN JANITORIAL SRVCS:POLICE MALL CONTRACTORS OFC 186938 01/18/2018 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 12/29-1/3/18 EXP MAIL SVCS: HR & CLERK 186939 01/18/2018 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC. 186940 01/18/2018 016184 FUN EXPRESS, LLC 186941 01/18/2018 001937 GALLS, LLC JAN INTERNET SVCS:TCC JAN INTERNET SVCS:C. MUSEUM, GIFT. JAN INTERNET SVCS:EXT DMV INET LINI SUPPLIES & MISC ITEMS:HUMAN SVCS SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES equip: police volunteers equip: police volunteers 922.50 922.50 99.81 99.81 146.98 126.98 107.84 381.80 208.58 92.77 301.35 31.51 19.56 51.07 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186942 01/18/2018 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS office chairs:CRC 1,029.86 INC MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA 73 Office Supplies: Planning OFFICE SUPPLIES: FOC OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA12 186943 01/18/2018 003792 GRAINGER SAFETY SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT DIV 186944 01/18/2018 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: LIBRARY HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA73 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA 92 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: LIBRARY HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STA73 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS HARDWARE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR HARDWARE SUPPLIES - FIRE DEPT. 228.30 215.29 184.86 177.70 118.97 29.40 1,984.38 184.12 184.12 150.01 137.37 132.95 88.98 23.93 17.39 10,85 5.97 4.11 2.16 -5.97 567.75 186945 01/18/2018 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS 61.79 61.79 186946 01/18/2018 009135 IMPACT MARKETING & DESIGN THEATER PROMOTIONAL ITEMS 992.60 992.60 INC 186947 01/18/2018 016564 IMPACT TELECOM DEC 800 SERVICES:CIVIC CENTER 57.26 57.26 186948 01/18/2018 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT PLOTTER/COPIER SUPPLIES:CENTRAL 295.69 SOLUTIONS SVCS PLOTTER/COPIER SUPPLIES:CENTRAL f 288.19 186949 01/18/2018 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAR 476.00 INC POOLS 186950 01/18/2018 019085 INTERPRETERS UNLIMITED, TRANSLATION SERVICE: TEMECULA INC. POLICE 186951 01/18/2018 017118 KRACH, BREE B. RECOGNITION AWARDS & TROPHIES:MPSC 186952 01/18/2018 020415 KUHN, STUART REIMB:QSD CERT RENEWAL:NPDES 186953 01/18/2018 019618 LA FITNESS MEMBERSHIP: FIRE STA. 73 583.88 476.00 478.00 478.00 8.16 8.16 95.00 95.00 858.88 858.88 Pages apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186954 01/18/2018 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR CITY 100.00 100.00 186955 01/18/2018 004141 MAINTEX INC CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARK 1,376.24 SITES CLEANING SUPPLIES: VARIOUS FACILITI 237.12 186956 01/18/2018 014392 MC COLLOUGH, JILL DENISE JAN INTERIOR PLANTSCAPE - CIVIC 500.00 CTR JAN INTERIOR PLANTSCAPE - LIBRARY 200.00 186957 01/18/2018 020407 MCGLAUGHLIN, HELEN REFUND:SEC 400.00 DEP:SNACKBAR:SPORTS 186958 01/18/2018 015259 MERCURY DISPOSAL Household Battery Recycling Program. SYSTEMS, INC. 186959 01/18/2018 016297 MID -AMERICA ARTS ALLIANCE EXHIBIT RENTAL:TVM 186960 01/18/2018 016297 MID-AMERICAARTS ALLIANCE EXHIBIT RENTAL:TVM 186961 01/18/2018 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 1,613.36 700.00 400.00 215.84 215.84 975.00 975.00 787.50 787.50 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 93.70 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 90.56 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 50.12 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 39.25 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 23.91 186962 01/18/2018 013827 MIKO MOUNTAINLION, INC. REMOVAL OF DEBRIS: VIA LOBO 29,000.00 CHANNEL CITY CHANNEL CONCRETE WORK: VARI 13,450.00 186963 01/18/2018 009835 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES SHADE STRUCTURES: MARG SPLASH 10,521.56 INC PAD 186964 01/18/2018 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION NICOLAS PRK PLAYGROUND EQUIP: EQUIPMENT PW17-10 297.54 42,450.00 10,521 56 61,595.14 61,595.14 186965 01/18/2018 016445 MKB PRINTING & BUSINESS CARDS: PUBLIC WORKS 298.45 PROMOTIONAL INC BUSINESS CARDS:TEMECULA POLICE 235.20 186966 01/18/2018 004490 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC PARTS:LIGHTING CONTROL BOX PBSP 2,093.44 186967 01/18/2018 019019 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC SETTLEMENT:SPEAKEASY...MERC 1/13/18 186968 01/18/2018 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES: TCC 533.65 2,093.44 422.10 422.10 120.19 120.19 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186969 01/18/2018 001323 NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA Description Amount Paid Check Total 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: FOC 160.21 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: CRC 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: LIBRAF 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: PBSP 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: OTTT 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: MRC 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: IWTCM 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: TVE2 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: TVM 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: CITY M 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: TCC 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: SKATE 11/23-12/22 WATER DLVRY SVCS: AQUAT 89.30 80.03 55.78 50.53 47.11 43.70 35.40 27.52 27.32 22.31 8.61 6.51 654.33 186970 01/18/2018 002292 OASIS VENDING KITCHEN SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER 465.94 KITCHEN SUPPLIES: FOC 162.92 628.86 186971 01/18/2018 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW 2,030.51 2,030.51 TRAFFIC 186972 01/18/2018 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS 'RAT PACK: 102 YRS OF SINATRA" 8,239.00 8,239.00 1/7/18 186973 01/18/2018 020409 PARROTT, SCOTT REFUND:SEC DEP:GYMNASIUM:CRC 200.00 200.00 186974 01/18/2018 015923 PCMG ADOBE ACROBAT 2017:INFO TECH 19,700.00 19,700.00 186975 01/18/2018 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES: VAR 282.84 282.84 PRODUCTS INC POOLS 186976 01/18/2018 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR: POLICE MOTORS VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR: POLICE MOTs VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR: POLICE MOTS 186977 01/18/2018 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL DEC UNIFORMS/FLR SUPPLY MATS:PARKS/CIVIC CNTR 186978 01/18/2018 020127 QUINN COMPANY GENERATOR MAINT: STA84 GENERATOR MAINT: STA92 GENERATOR MAINT: STA95 GENERATOR MAINT: STA73 840.92 776.62 273.10 1,890.64 783.33 783.33 607.19 504.08 500.79 493.54 2,105.60 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186979 01/18/2018 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 186980 01/18/2018 011853 RANCON COMMERCE CNTR PH2,3&4 Description Amount Paid Check Total JAN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LEV C JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW FAC JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW OLD TOW JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW VAR SITE: JAN VAR WATER METERS:FIRE STNS JAN VAR WATER METERS:PWCIP JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW MAINT JAN VAR WATER METERS:PWJRC JAN VAR WATER METERS:PW CIP DEC COMM WATER METER:28640 PUJOI 23, 891.60 4,410.10 752.61 748.81 728.33 482.34 238.81 178.71 174.85 61.32 10.81 JAN -MAR BUS.PRKASSN DUES:STA73 536.25 JAN -MAR BUS.PRKASSN DUES:OVRLNC JAN -MAR BUS.PRKASSN DUES:OVRLNC JAN -MAR BUS.PRKASSN DUES:OVRLNC 261.48 208.30 186.13 31, 678.29 1,192.16 186981 01/18/2018 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW DEC SART EXAM:POLICE 1,100.00 1,100.00 STN 186982 01/18/2018 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 11/9/17-12/6/17 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2,115,625.99 2,115,625.99 DEPT 186983 01/18/2018 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETH A. COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 1/6/18 292.50 292.50 186984 01/18/2018 017699 SARNOWSKI, SHAWNA, M PHOTOGRAPHER:NYE 150.00 150.00 PRESTON 186985 01/18/2018 020020 SCHECHTER, CRAIG REFUND:SEC DEP/TCC ROOM RENTAL 200.00 200.00 186986 01/18/2018 015873 SESAC 1/1/18-12/31/18 MUSIC LICENSE 1,976.00 1,976.00 FEE:CSD 186987 01/18/2018 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 1/11/18 520.00 JAZZ @ THE MERC 1/4/18 451.50 971.50 186988 01/18/2018 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 186989 01/18/2018 000645 SMART & FINAL INC SIGNS: CIVIC CENTER PARKING 550.70 GARAGE SIGN POSTING SRVCS PA16-1532:PLNG 212.75 763.45 SUPPLIES:HIGH HOPES PROGRAMS 380.83 REFRESHMENTS:CULTURALARTS 1/3 154.28 535.11 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 186990 01/18/2018 000537 SO CALIF EDISON DEC 2-01-202-7330: VARIOUS LS -1-E 72,983.25 DEC 2-36-171-5626:BUTTERFIELD/LASEI 24,295.25 DEC 2-05-791-8807:31587 TEM PKWY LS; 8,730.46 DEC 2-02-351-5281:30875 RANCHO VIST/ 3,934.75 DEC 2-27-805-3194:42051 MAIN ST 2,979.22 DEC 2-20-798-3248:42081 MAIN ST 1,091.06 DEC 2-10-331-2153:28816 PUJOL ST 688.29 DEC 2-29-458-7548 VARIOUS METERS 242.79 DEC 2-29-974-7899:26953 YNEZ RD LS3 171.02 DEC 2-36-531-7916: 44205 MAIN ST PED 125.97 DEC 2-29-479-2981:31454 TEM PKWY TC 106.05 DEC 2-39-737-1063:42061 MAIN ST 59.70 DEC 2-25-350-5119 REDHAWK PKWY PE[ 26.49 DEC 2-39-043-8521:29028 OT FRONT ST 25.17 DEC 2-30-066-2889 RANCHO VISTA PED 24.35 DEC 2-36-122-7820 DE PORTOLA RD 24.17 DEC 2-31-031-2590:28301 RANCHO CAL 19.66 DEC 2-35-421-1260:41955 4TH ST LS3 15.61 115,543.26 186991 01/18/2018 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST PEST CONTROL SRVCS: SAM HICKS 1,175.00 CONTROL INC PARK PEST CONTROL SRVCS: SIXTH ST. RSTF 975.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: VINTAGE HILLS 470.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: CAMPOS VERD 188.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: AVONDALE SLC 94.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: HARVESTON 94.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: VAIL RANCH 94.00 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: MARGARITA RE 94.00 DEC PEST CONTROL SRVCS: MARG PAF 49.00 3,233.00 186992 01/18/2018 019168 SOUTHWEST AREA SERVICE REFUND:SEC DEP:KITCHEN 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:CRC 186993 01/18/2018 005786 SPRINT NOV 26 - DEC 25 CELLULAR 3,591.08 3,591.08 USAGE/EQUIP 186994 01/18/2018 000293 STADIUM PIZZA INC REFRESHMENTS:HUMAN SERVICES 84.91 84.91 12/27 186995 01/18/2018 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS OFFICE SUPPLIES:T. MUSEUM 76.97 76.97 ADVANTAGE 186996 01/18/2018 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CARPET CLEANING: MARGARITA REC 200.00 200.00 CLEANING CENTER 186997 01/18/2018 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC DEC SWEEPING SRVCS: PARKING GARAGE 540.00 540.00 Page:10 apChkLst 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 186998 01/18/2018 017415 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP 186999 01/18/2018 016311 TIERCE, NICHOLAS 187000 01/18/2018 019464 TRIAD CONSULTING & SYSTEM 187001 01/18/2018 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 187002 01/18/2018 008977 VALLEY EVENTS, INC. 187003 01/18/2018 009101 VISION ONE, INC. 187004 01/18/2018 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 187005 01/18/2018 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC 187006 01/18/2018 013286 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC. 187007 01/18/2018 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC 187008 01/18/2018 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC Description Amount Paid Check Total JAN -MAR ELEVATOR MAINT SRVCS: VAR FACS GRAPHIC DESIGN SRVCS:THEATER PROJECT MGMT SRVCS SURVEILLANCE SYS DEC UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATOR ALERTS:P MISC RENTALS:SANTA IN OLD TOWN 11/24 MISC RENTALS:NYE GRAPE DROP DEC SHOWARE TICKETING SRVCS:THEATER CLEANING SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER CLEANING SUPPLIES: CIVIC CENTER 12/1-15/17 TREE MAINT: SERENA HILLS SLOP JAN ENTERPRISE 911 SVC: IT APR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION STUDY: PW TRAFFI NOV ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENG SRVCS: PW ELECTRICAL SRVCS: STA 95 5,049.00 1,710.00 11, 077.50 179.95 4,900.00 850.00 4,401.60 203.74 22.63 450.00 300.00 9,928.60 520.00 2,070.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 5,049 00 1,710.00 11,077 50 179.95 5,750.00 4,401.60 226.37 450.00 300.00 10,448.60 2,070.00 2,808,657.55 Page:11 apChkLst 01/18/2018 9:09:38AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 116 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 2,808,657.55 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 3642 01/09/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000154 C S M F O 006952 PAYPAL 3643 01/09/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 014777 SARKIS CONCEPTS, INC. 008956 PANERA BREAD 018925 FIREHOUSE SUBS 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 3644 01/09/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 016412 BED BATH & BEYOND, INC. 003198 HOME DEPOT, THE 005903 TERRYS CANVAS 3646 01/09/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 019592 URBAN CAFE 015354 FACEBOOK.COM 014885 TEMECULA CATERING Description Amount Paid Check Total JH MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: BROWN, P. JH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANSACTION LW RFRSHMNTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MTG LW RFRSHMNTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MTG LW RFRSHMNTS: CITY COUNCIL MTG 12/12 LW RFRSHMNTS: CITY COUNCIL MTG 12/12 CD LINENS: FIRE STA. 95 CD WASHING MACHINE: FIRE STA. 84 CD LADDER GUIDES: FIRE STA. 73 AA RFRSHMNTS: CITYATTY MTG: 11/14 AA ADVERTISING FEE AA RFRSHMNTS: PECHANGE PUESKA MNT DAY 110.00 10560 406.45 44.95 166.36 54.15 434.84 476.05 56.18 112.56 0.02 1,150.20 015354 FACEBOOK.COM AA ADVERTISING FEE 30.00 008669 VONS AA RFRSHMNTS: TRANSP. SUMMIT 10.00 MTG 11/30 018452 STARBUCKS AA RFRSHMNTS: TRANSP. SUMMIT 31.90 MTG 11/30 3648 01/09/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000501 INTL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL RO ANNUAL CONF REGIST. FEES: 710.00 014583 PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL CLSD 144.53 SESSION 008669 VONS RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL CLSD 10.00 SESSION 014115 GAMBLING COWBOY RO RFRSHMTNS: CITY CNCL CLSD 261.00 CHOPHOUSE, THE SESSION 000501 INTL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL RO MEMBERSHIP DUES: JOHL-OLSON, 200.00 R. 012915 LUCILLE'S BBQ RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL & EXEC 565.48 STAFF MTG 004432 ALBERTSONS GROCERY RO RFRSHMNTS: CITY CNCL MTG 37.96 STORE 12/12 215.60 671.91 967.07 1,334.68 1,92897 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 3649 01/09/2018 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Description Amount Paid Check Total 019825 GETTY IMAGES KH IMAGES FOR PROMOTIONAL 149.00 FLYERS & 007987 WALMART THEATER HOSPITALITY & MISC 129.08 SUPPLIES 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF KH HEALTH PERMIT: WINTERFEST 15.17 VENDORS 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF KH HEALTH PERMIT: WINTERFEST 640.00 VENDORS 020249 LAUND3R.COM LLC KH TABLE CLOTHES FOR CIVIC CTR 92.00 017201 STATEFOODSAFETY.COM KH FOOD HANDLER CARDS 135.00 017736 FEAST CALIFORNIA CAFE, LLC KH RFSHMNTS: LIGHT PARADE VIP 449.04 TENT 006952 PAYPAL KH VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO 289.70 TRANSACTION 020419 CHIPOTLE KH RFRSHMNTS: LIGHTS BEFORE 71.83 CHRSTIMAS 020250 GARDENSALIVE.COM KH HORTICULTURE PROGRAM: MPSC 34.94 GARDEN 007051 RALPHS KH RFRSHMNTS: BREAKFAST WITH 429.89 SANTA 007208 VINCES SPAGHETTI EXPRESS KH RFRSHMNTS: :SKIP HOLIDAY 315.22 EVENT 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION KH AWARD ENTRY FEE: AWARD OF 70.00 SOC EXCELLENCE 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION KH AWARD ENTRY FEE: AQUATICS 70.00 SOC AWARD 013812 DFIT SUBS, LLC KH RFRSHMNTS: POOL TOURNAMENT 60.00 2,950.87 3652 01/25/2018 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 1,008.45 1,008.45 SUPPORT 3653 01/25/2018 000194 ICMA RETIREMENT -PLAN ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 8,479.76 8,479.76 303355 PAYMENT 3654 01/25/2018 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 3655 01/25/2018 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 3656 01/25/2018 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3657 01/25/2018 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION STATE TAXES PAYMENT 22,090.99 22,090.99 FEDERAL TAXES PAYMENT 72,554.70 72,554.70 OBRA- PROJECT RETIREMENT 2,884.52 2,884.52 PAYMENT NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT PAYMENT 9,179.54 9,179.54 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 3658 01/25/2018 019088 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT NATIONWIDE LOAN REPAYMENT SOLUTION PAYMENT 3660 01/25/2018 007282 AMAZON. COM, INC 442.44 442.44 EVENT SUPPLIES:ARTS, CULTURE & 59.05 ENTERTAIN SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 10.69 Phone cases:building & safety dept 102.24 Phone cases:code enforcement 62.55 EQUIPMENT: STATION 95 175.47 EQUIPMENT: STATION 95 -32.36 MISC SUPPLIES AND TOOLS - PREVENT 37.94 MISC SUPPLIES AND TOOLS - PREVENT 64.45 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 31.54 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 14.99 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 64.32 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 34.80 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 18.99 MUSEUM SUPPLIES:TVM 62.29 MISC SUPPLIES AND TOOLS - PREVENTION 77.04 MISC SUPPLIES AND TOOLS - PREVENTION -64.45 MISC SUPPLIES AND TOOLS - PREVENTION 166.05 SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT:SPECIAL EVENTS 652.66 OFFICE SUPPLIES:CRC 125.13 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 194.92 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 37.96 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 265.72 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 38.49 REC SUPPLIES:CRC 218.76 SUPPLIES:SKATE PARK 33.56 MISC. SUPPLIES: ECON DEV 53.95 3661 01/30/2018 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 4TH QTR 2017 STATE UI & ETT PAYMENT 2,506.75 5,970.60 5,970.60 187009 01/25/2018 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL VOID 0.00 0.00 LLC 187010 01/25/2018 019307 ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE VOID 0.00 SMOG VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187011 01/25/2018 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, VOID 0.00 0.00 LLC 187012 01/25/2018 001916 ALBERTAWEBBASSOCIATES VOID 0.00 0.00 187013 01/25/2018 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT VOID 0.00 0.00 187014 01/25/2018 006915 ALLIES PARTY EQUIPMENT VOID 0.00 0.00 187015 01/25/2018 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW VOID 0.00 0.00 187016 01/25/2018 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES VOID 0.00 (AFN) VOID 0.00 0.00 187017 01/25/2018 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VOID 0.00 0.00 VALLEYS 187018 01/25/2018 001445 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF VOID 0.00 0.00 TEMECULA 187019 01/25/2018 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 187020 01/25/2018 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, VOID 0.00 THE VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 187021 01/25/2018 020423 BEAZER HOMES VOID 0.00 0.00 187022 01/25/2018 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES VOID VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 187023 01/25/2018 018551 BMW MOTORCYCLES OF VOID 0.00 0.00 MURRIETA VOID 187024 01/25/2018 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL 0.00 SERVICE VOID 0.00 0.00 187025 01/25/2018 003138 CAL MAT VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List 01/2512018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187026 01/25/2018 005321 CALIFASSOC OF CODE VOID 0.00 0.00 187027 01/25/2018 005321 CALIFASSOC OF CODE VOID 0.00 0.00 187028 01/25/2018 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY VOID 0.00 0.00 INC 187029 01/25/2018 020014 CASSON, G. AUSTIN VOID 0.00 0.00 187030 01/25/2018 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO VOID 0.00 0.00 187031 01/25/2018 018719 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY INC 187032 01/25/2018 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO BANK VOID 0.00 VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 187033 01/25/2018 020422 CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN VOID 0.00 0.00 CORP 187034 01/25/2018 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING VOID 0.00 0.00 187035 01/25/2018 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 187036 01/25/2018 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187037 01/25/2018 008810 CROSSTOWN ELECTRICAL & VOID 0.00 0.00 DATA 187038 01/25/2018 014580 DANCE THEATRE COLLECTIVE VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187039 01/25/2018 012600 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES VOID 0.00 0.00 INC Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187040 01/25/2018 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL & LUBRICANTS 187041 01/25/2018 019293 E&F PET SUPPLIES, INC. Description Amount Paid Check Total VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 187042 01/25/2018 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER VOID 0.00 DIST VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 187043 01/25/2018 018098 ELITE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, VOID 0.00 INC 187044 01/25/2018 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 187045 01/25/2018 003281 FOREMOST PROMOTIONS VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187046 01/25/2018 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD VOID 0.00 0.00 187047 01/25/2018 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187048 01/25/2018 020426 GERI FIT CO LTD VOID 0.00 0.00 Page 6 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187049 01/25/2018 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS VOID 0.00 INC 187050 01/25/2018 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY 187051 01/25/2018 014405 GORM INCORPORATED VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187052 01/25/2018 019721 GOVCONNECTION, INC. VOID 0.00 0.00 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187053 01/25/2018 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC 187054 01/25/2018 020424 HOOPER, LAWRENCE 187055 01/25/2018 020420 HOWE, HUNTER Description Amount Paid Check Total VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187056 01/25/2018 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY VOID 0.00 0.00 INC 187057 01/25/2018 015673 JDS VIDEO & MEDIA VOID 0.00 0.00 PRODUCTIONS 187058 01/25/2018 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC VOID 0.00 VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 187059 01/25/2018 004813 M & J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC VOID 0.00 0.00 187060 01/25/2018 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 187061 01/25/2018 004141 MAINTEX INC VOID 0.00 VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 187062 01/25/2018 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. VOID 0.00 0.00 187063 01/25/2018 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. VOID 0.00 0.00 187064 01/25/2018 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. VOID 0.00 0.00 187065 01/25/2018 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC VOID 0.00 0.00 187066 01/25/2018 019913 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND VOID 0.00 0.00 SALES, INC 187067 01/25/2018 019913 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND VOID 0.00 0.00 SALES, INC 187068 01/25/2018 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, VOID 0.00 INC VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187069 01/25/2018 016445 MKB PRINTING & VOID 0.00 0.00 PROMOTIONAL INC 187070 01/25/2018 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. VOID 0.00 VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 187071 01/25/2018 019440 NEOPOST USA, INC. VOID 0.00 0.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187072 01/25/2018 018402 NEWSMINDED, INC VOID 0.00 0.00 187073 01/25/2018 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS VOID 0.00 0.00 DIV 187074 01/25/2018 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE VOID 0.00 187075 01/25/2018 002344 OSVOLD, HEIDA VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 187076 01/25/2018 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187077 01/25/2018 017888 PACIFIC HYDROBLASTING INC VOID 0.00 0.00 187078 01/25/2018 000249 PETTY CASH VOID 0.00 0.00 187079 01/25/2018 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED VOID 0.00 VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 187080 01/25/2018 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS VOID 0.00 0.00 187081 01/25/2018 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE VOID 0.00 0.00 ADVERTISING 187082 01/25/2018 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL VOID 0.00 0.00 SUPPLY 187083 01/25/2018 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187084 01/25/2018 012525 RCGIA VOID 0.00 0.00 187085 01/25/2018 010777 RIVERSIDE CO EXECUTIVE VOID 0.00 0.00 OFFICE 187086 01/25/2018 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS VOID 0.00 0.00 DEPT Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List 01125/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187087 01/25/2018 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY VOID 0.00 0.00 187088 01/25/2018 012251 ROTH, DONALD J VOID 0.00 0.00 187089 01/25/2018 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH 187090 01/25/2018 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETH A 187091 01/25/2018 015364 SEASIDE ICE LLC VOID 0.00 VOID VOID VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 187092 01/25/2018 015894 SEHI COMPUTER PRODUCTS VOID 0.00 0.00 INC 187093 01/25/2018 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - VOID 0.00 0.00 CENTRAL 187094 01/25/2018 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC VOID 0.00 0.00 187095 01/25/2018 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 187096 01/25/2018 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 187097 01/25/2018 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY VOID 0.00 VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID VOID 187098 01/25/2018 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY VOID VOID VOID 187099 01/25/2018 020010 SOUTH COAST DANCE ARTS VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 12 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total 187100 01/25/2018 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST VOID 0.00 CONTROL INC VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187101 01/25/2018 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS VOID 0.00 ADVANTAGE VOID VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187102 01/25/2018 012789 STUART, JENNIFER SARAH VOID 0.00 0.00 187103 01/25/2018 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS VOID 0.00 LLC VOID 0.00 0.00 187104 01/25/2018 020425 TEMECULAVALLEY VOID 0.00 0.00 CONSERVATORY 187105 01/25/2018 010046 TEMECULAVALLEY VOID 0.00 0.00 CONVENTION AND 187106 01/25/2018 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 VOID 0.00 0.00 187107 01/25/2018 000278 TRONC INC VOID 0.00 0.00 187108 01/25/2018 014848 VALUTEC CARD SOLUTIONS VOID 0.00 0.00 LLC 187109 01/25/2018 000319 VARSITY BRANDS HOLDING VOID 0.00 0.00 CO INC 187110 01/25/2018 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS VOID 0.00 0.00 187111 01/25/2018 007208 VINCES SPAGHETTI EXPRESS VOID 0.00 0.00 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 13 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187112 01/25/2018 007208 VINCES SPAGHETTI EXPRESS VOID 0.00 0.00 187113 01/25/2018 013556 WESTERN AV VOID 0.00 0.00 187114 01/25/2018 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE VOID 0.00 0.00 COUNTY 187115 01/25/2018 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC VOID 0.00 0.00 0.00 1001957 01/18/2018 020414 BAUTISTA, JOSEFINA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 125.45 125.45 1001958 01/18/2018 020408 MILLER, KRIS REFUND:CREDIT:COMM RM 70.00 70.00 RENTAL:LIBRARY 1001959 01/18/2018 020410 PASILLAS, CHRISTINA REFUND:SEC DEP:PICNIC 200.00 200.00 RENTAL:HARVESTON 1001960 01/18/2018 020413 SASO, MICHAEL REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CRC 200.00 200.00 1001961 01/18/2018 020411 VALERA, DEBORAH REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR NB 1001962 01/18/2018 020412 VERDEFLOR, LINDA REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 134,182.30 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 10:24:35AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 14 128 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 134,182.30 Page:14 apChkLst Final Check List 01/2512018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank : union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187116 01/25/2018 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL JAN POLICE K-9 TRAINING LLC 187117 01/25/2018 019307 ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE SMOG 350.00 350.00 SMOG PROGRAM: PW PARKS 45.00 SMOG PROGRAM: VARIOUS VEHICLES 45.00 SMOG PROGRAM: VARIOUS VEHICLES 45.00 SMOG PROGRAM: VARIOUS VEHICLES 45.00 SMOG PROGRAM: VARIOUS VEHICLES 45.00 SMOG PROGRAM: VARIOUS VEHICLES 45.00 SMOG PROGRAM: VARIOUS VEHICLES 45.00 SMOGS: VARIOUS VEHICLES PARKS/FA( 45.00 SMOGS: VARIOUS VEHICLES PARKS/FA( 45.00 SMOGS: VARIOUS VEHICLES PARKS/FA( 45.00 450.00 187118 01/25/2018 001517 AETNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, FEB '18 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 668.80 668.80 LLC PRGM 187119 01/25/2018 001916 ALBERTAWEBBASSOCIATES CFD ADMINISTRATION 434.55 434.55 187120 01/25/2018 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT ASPHALT PRODUCTS: CITYWIDE 189.54 189.54 187121 01/25/2018 006915 ALLIE'S PARTY EQUIPMENT RENTALS:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS 1,189.50 1,189.50 187122 01/25/2018 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE BACKFLOW BACKFLOW TESTS: CRC 1,026.00 1,026.00 187123 01/25/2018 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA 495.00 (AFN) POLICE PHLEBOTOMY SRVCS:TEMECULA POLIC 225.00 720.00 187124 01/25/2018 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE NOV ANIMAL CONTROL SRVCS:CITY 10,000.00 10,000.00 VALLEYS OF TEMECUL 187125 01/25/2018 001445 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF 7/1-9/30 CDBG RECIPIENT OPS 5,345.00 5,345.00 TEMECULA SCHOOL BELL 187126 01/25/2018 011954 BAKER & TAYLOR INC BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 2,503.60 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 952.45 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 101.95 BOOK COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY 19.92 RECORDS ON TAPE: LIBRARY 3.20 3,581.12 187127 01/25/2018 018101 BARN STAGE COMPANY INC, STTLMNT: LITTLE WOMEN 1/11-1/21/18 19,634.00 THE STTLMNT:CABARETAT THE MERC: 01/17 1,575.00 21,209.00 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 2 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187128 01/25/2018 020423 BEAZER HOMES REFUND:ENG GRAD DEP:LD14-3521 187129 01/25/2018 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES 50,000.00 50,000.00 DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:POLICE 824.00 DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:POLICE 686.10 DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS:POLICE 545.00 187130 01/25/2018 018551 BMW MOTORCYCLES OF VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR: TEMECULA MURRIETA POLICE 2,055.10 456.20 456.20 187131 01/25/2018 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL DEC POOL SVC MAINT: CRC 1,050.00 SERVICE DEC POOLS & FOUNTAINS MAINT:VAR Fi 925.00 1,975.00 187132 01/25/2018 003138 CAL MAT ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT 264.86 ASPHALT PURCH: PW STREET MAINT 164.49 429.35 187133 01/25/2018 005321 CALIFASSOC OF CODE MEMBERSHIP DUES: BAGDASARIAN, 95.00 95.00 N. 187134 01/25/2018 005321 CALIFASSOC OF CODE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: COLE, TOM 95.00 95.00 187135 01/25/2018 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY LIABILITY INSURANCE: RISK MGMT 3,556.00 3,556.00 INC 187136 01/25/2018 020014 CASSON, G. AUSTIN ARTWORK PURCH:FALLEN HEROES 3,600.00 3,600.00 MEMORIAL 187137 01/25/2018 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO DEC '17 CITY VEHICLES FUEL: POLICE 331.52 331.52 DEPT 187138 01/25/2018 018719 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES:PPW 122.78 SUPPLIES:PPW 50.88 173.66 187139 01/25/2018 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS 24.00 24.00 CHARITIES, C/O WELLS FARGO PAYMENT BANK 187140 01/25/2018 020422 CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN REFUND:ENG GRAD DEP:LD16-3234 15,000.00 15,000.00 CORP 187141 01/25/2018 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING INSP SVCS FOR MARGARITA RD: 4,416.00 4,416.00 PW12-11 187142 01/25/2018 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA #491 SUPPLIES:VARIOUS SPECIAL EVENTS 1,340.27 building/recreation supplies:MRC 576.12 SUPPLIES,REFRESHMENTS & MISC. ITE 190.99 2,107.38 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187143 01/25/2018 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC Description Amount Paid Check Total PLUMBING REPAIRS: PARKING GARAGE HVAC REPAIRS: MRC PLUMBING REPAIRS: LIBRARY Repair Pool cantilever: Temecula PLUMBING REPAIRS: MPSC PLUMBING REPAIRS: MPSC SINK DRAIN REPAIR: THEATER 187144 01/25/2018 008810 CROSSTOWN ELECTRICAL & Traffic equip maint & repair srvcs: pw DATA 187145 01/25/2018 014580 DANCE THEATRE COLLECTIVE Theater Performance: June 2-3, 2018 STTLMNT:"DANCEXCHANGE" PERF 01/1E 187146 01/25/2018 012600 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES DSGN SVCS FALLEN HEROES: INC PW17-07 187147 01/25/2018 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL & LUBRICANTS FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WORKS FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PUBLIC WOF FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPEI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC DIV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES:PUBLIC WOR FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFOI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEP' 187148 01/25/2018 019293 E&F PET SUPPLIES, INC. k-9 food & supplies: tem police 187149 01/25/2018 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST DEC WATER METER:39569 SERAPHINA RD DEC WATER METER:39656 DIEGO DR DEC WATER METER:MURR HOT SPRING DEC WATER METER:MURR HOT SPRING 187150 01/25/2018 018098 ELITE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, FEB 18 3RD PARTY CLAIM ADMIN: INC WRKRS COM 187151 01/25/2018 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE, INC. PLANT REPLACEMENTS - HARVESTON LANDSCAPE IMPROVE: VAIL RANCH PAF REPLACE CNTRL VALVE: PALOMA DEL S LANDSCAPE PLANTING: BUTTFLD STG F LANDSCAPE IMPROVMT: MARTINQUE 195 00 172.84 687.12 680.00 425.00 287.74 284.00 2,731.70 3,705.00 3,705.00 11, 000.00 84.00 1,535.00 953.80 838.60 432.71 318.82 195.73 190.16 116.53 68.59 33.64 121.41 94.50 229.80 136.64 47.12 42.68 1,250.00 11, 384.00 2,612.00 1,664.00 1,506.00 520.00 187152 01/25/2018 003281 FOREMOST PROMOTIONS crayons and clear custom pencil 426.42 crayons and clear custom pencil 202.05 11, 084.00 1,535.00 3,269.99 94.50 456.24 1,250.00 17,686.00 628.47 Page:3 apChkLst 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187153 01/25/2018 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 187154 01/25/2018 018858 FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC 187155 01/25/2018 020426 GERI FIT CO LTD 187156 01/25/2018 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 187157 01/25/2018 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY 187158 01/25/2018 014405 GORM INCORPORATED 187159 01/25/2018 019721 GOVCONNECTION, INC. Description Amount Paid Check Total SUPPORT PAYMENT JAN INTERNET SVCS:41000 MAIN ST JAN INTERNET SVCS:41000 MAIN ST JAN INTERNET SVCS:CITY HALL JAN INTERNET SVCS:SR CTR, SKATE PA JAN INTERNET SVCS:SENIOR CENTER REFUND:CREDIT:MTG RM A/B:MPSC OFFICE FURNITURE: STA 95 OFFICE FURNITURE: STA 95 OFFICE FURNITURE: STA 95 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FOC OFFICE SUPPLIES: PWCIP MISC OFC SUPPLIES: LAND DEV/NPDES MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: STATION 95 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - STA12 OFFICE SUPPLIES: BLDG & SAFETY MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: STATION 95 MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: STATION 95 MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: STATION 95 Office Supplies: Planning MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: STATION 95 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FOC MISC. OFC SUPPLIES: STATION 95 ENTERTAINMENT THEATER Janitorial Supplies: Various Locations Janitorial Supplies: Various Locations 72.84 4,875.02 2,483.18 291.98 204.10 146.98 147.00 3,414.15 1,449.64 423.04 200.56 168.69 95.94 63.94 48.38 45.04 26.09 23.48 21.84 12.81 9.62 5.63 1.62 7,000.00 1,710.86 1,710.86 72.84 8,001.26 147.00 6,010.47 7,000.00 3,421.72 wireless access points:Fire Station 95 2,114.03 2,114.03 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187160 01/25/2018 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Description Amount Paid Check Total MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT. SUPPLIES: PW STREET DIV HARDWARE SUPPLIES: STA 95 MAINT. SUPPLIES: PW STREET DIV MAINT. SUPPLIES: HARVESTON HARDWARE SUPPLIES - TCC MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STN 73 BC MAINT. SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR. PARKS HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STATION 95 MAINT. SUPPLIES: IWTCM MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: AQUATICS MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: HARVESTON MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: MAINT. FACILITY MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STN 73 BC MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: TCC HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STATION 95 MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STATION 95 MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR. PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT SUPPLIES: TVM MAINT. SUPPLIES: VAR PARKS MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STATION 95 MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR MAINT. SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR HARDWARE SUPPLIES : STA 84 HARDWARE SUPPLIES - STATION 95 187161 01/25/2018 020424 HOOPER, LAWRENCE REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:TCC 187162 01/25/2018 020420 HOWE, HUNTER REIMB: LASERFICHE CONF 1/9-1/12/18 130.17 129.61 120.38 108.89 90.53 90.21 -19.54 13.03 13.03 11.51 8.69 7.99 7.16 4.67 41.83 78.80 0.86 41.29 39.11 35.83 26.28 26.07 22.95 21.28 17.91 16.27 14.64 14.12 13.35 73.91 64.95 64.09 63.05 58.37 57.21 56.53 54.10 52.19 47.84 43.42 42.21 1,804.79 200.00 200.00 636.02 636.02 Page:5 apChkLst 01/25/2018 11:44:07A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 6 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187163 01/25/2018 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY INC 187164 01/25/2018 015673 JDS VIDEO & MEDIA PRODUCTIONS 187165 01/25/2018 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES INC 187166 01/25/2018 004813 M & J PAUL ENTERPRISES INC 187167 01/25/2018 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 187168 01/25/2018 004141 MAINTEX INC 187169 01/25/2018 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. 187170 01/25/2018 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. 187171 01/25/2018 018314 MICHAEL BAKER INT'L INC. 187172 01/25/2018 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 187173 01/25/2018 019913 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES, INC 187174 01/25/2018 019913 MIRACLE PLAYGROUND SALES, INC 187175 01/25/2018 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC 187176 01/25/2018 016445 MKB PRINTING & PROMOTIONAL INC 187177 01/25/2018 004040 MORAMARCO, ANTHONY J. Description Amount Paid Check Total POOL CHEMICAL SUPPLIES: VAR POOLS VIDEO PRODUCTION: GOOD DAY TEM SEP PROPSED ALTAIR SP FISCAL IMPACT ANAL OCT PROPSED ALTAIR SP FISCAL IMPAC JOLLY JUMP RENTAL: 12/31/17 SIGNS: VARIOUS PARKS SIGNS AND SUPPLIES: RIGHT-OF-WAYS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARK SITES CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES: VAR PARK SITES ENG. SUPPORT SVCS: PW04-08 DESIGN SERVICES: PW17-04 DSGN & ENVIRON SVCS: PW17-05 BOOKS/COLLECTIONS:LIBRARY SPLASH PAD IMPROVMNTS: MARG PARK PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENT: CUSTOM PANEL ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKING GARAGE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKING GARA Electrical Supplies: Children's Museum Printing srvcs: finance dept business PROMO ITEMS/DEISGN WORK:VARIOUS EVENTS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 187178 01/25/2018 019440 NEOPOST USA, INC. POSTAGE METER:CENTRAL SVCS 384.29 850.00 885.63 534.37 5,765.00 1,180.94 373.58 730.24 61.47 10,675.00 1,644.00 1,290.00 60.97 3,673.61 1,848.75 877.78 299.14 121.43 151.35 14,000.00 28.00 24.89 384.29 850.00 1,420.00 5,765.00 1,554.52 791.71 10,675.00 1,64400 1,290.00 60.97 3,673.61 1,848.75 1,298.35 151.35 14,028.00 24.89 Pages apChkLst 01/25/2018 11:44:07A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 7 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187179 01/25/2018 018402 NEWSMINDED, INC 187180 01/25/2018 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS DIV 187181 01/25/2018 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE 187182 01/25/2018 002344 OSVOLD, HEIDA 187183 01/25/2018 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC 187184 01/25/2018 017888 PACIFIC HYDROBLASTING INC 187185 01/25/2018 000249 PETTY CASH 187186 01/25/2018 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED 187187 01/25/2018 014957 PRN PRODUCTIONS 187188 01/25/2018 014379 PROFESSIONAL IMAGE ADVERTISING 187189 01/25/2018 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 187190 01/25/2018 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 187191 01/25/2018 012525 RCGIA 187192 01/25/2018 010777 RIVERSIDE CO EXECUTIVE OFFICE Description Amount Paid Check Total 12/3-12/30NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION:MPSC OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW PARKS MAINT REIMB:UNIFORM SHIRTS PURCH POLICE MOTOR HELMET TEMECULA POLICE MOTOR HELMET REPRGM MOTOR KIT MODULE TROUBLESHOOT/REPAIR MOTOR KIT REPAIR MIC/REPLACE SPEAKER:POLICE RESTORATION/PAINTING: STA 95 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT VEH REPAIR & MAINT:TEMECULA POLICE VEHICLE MAINT & REPAIR:POLICE MOT( "FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE" 1/19/18 BANNER PROGRAM: ECON DEV DEC UNIFORM/FLR MTS/TWL RENTALS:CITY FAC JAN VAR WATER METERS:TCSD SVC LEV C DEC LNDSCP WATER METER:41951 MOI JAN VAR WATER METERS:PWYMCA DEC LDSCP WATER METERS:CALLE ELE '18 GANG CONF. S.GONZALEZ 3/6-8/18 JAN -MAR '18 ANIMAL SHELTER OPERATIONS 187193 01/25/2018 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 10/12/17-11/08/17 LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPT 118.75 72.08 323.20 66.94 1,611.68 1,123.83 95.00 95.00 33.99 324.25 372.81 686.20 328.28 347.45 40.02 833.90 12,234.31 406.64 358.89 30.55 190.00 40,471.41 2,099,202.18 118.75 72.08 323.20 66.94 2,959.50 324.25 372.81 1,014.48 347.45 40.02 833.90 13, 030.39 190.00 40, 471.41 2,099,202.18 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 8 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187194 01/25/2018 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY DEC '17 HARVESTON SHUTTLE: ECON DEV 187195 01/25/2018 012251 ROTH, DONALD J TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,660.00 1,660.00 315.00 315.00 187196 01/25/2018 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH SRVCS:CIVIC CENTER 18.86 LOCKSMITH LOCKSMITH SRVCS:JRC 17.24 36.10 187197 01/25/2018 009980 SANBORN, GWYNETH A COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 1/20/18 371.25 371.25 187198 01/25/2018 015364 SEASIDE ICE LLC ICE RINK BALANCE DUE:'17 WNTR 10,506.25 10,506.25 SEASON 187199 01/25/2018 015894 SEHI COMPUTER PRODUCTS COMPUTER FOR AV EDIT INC WORKSTATION:PEG 187200 01/25/2018 008529 SHERIFF'S CIVIL DIV - SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 187201 01/25/2018 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 1/18/18 187202 01/25/2018 009746 SIGNS BY TOMORROW 187203 01/25/2018 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 187204 01/25/2018 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 7,243.88 7,243.88 50.00 50.00 499.80 499.80 SIGN POSTING SRVCS 425.50 PA17-0741:PLNG SIGN POSTING SRVCS PA16-1427:PLNG 212.75 DEC 2-00-397-5059:33340 CAMINO 5,921.28 PIEDRA DEC 2-28-171-2620:40820 WINCHESTER 352.08 JAN 2-31-693-9784:26036 YNEZ RD TC1 350.77 DEC 2-30-608-9384:28582 HARVESTON D 329.96 DEC 2-29-974-7568:26953 YNEZ RD TC1 115.56 DEC 2-33-237-4818:30499 RANCHO CAL 108.25 DEC 2-29-223-9571:30395 MURR HOT SP 52.04 DEC 2-31-419-2659:26706 YNEZ RD TC1 141.34 DEC 091-085-1632-0:41951 MORAGA/POOL DEC 015-575-0195-2:32211 WOLF VLY RD DEC 055-475-6169-5:32380 DEERHOLLO% 998.89 362.75 638.25 7,371 28 112.57 1,474.21 187205 01/25/2018 002503 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY FY 17/18 ANN'L OPERATING 378.28 FEES:TVE2 FY 17/18 FLAT FEE LAST YR EMISSIONS 127.46 505.74 187206 01/25/2018 020010 SOUTH COAST DANCE ARTS THEATER PERFORMANCE: FEB 2, 2018 8,000.00 8,000.00 Page:8 apChkLst 01/25/2018 11:44: 07A M Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 9 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 187207 01/25/2018 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 187208 01/25/2018 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 187209 01/25/2018 012789 STUART, JENNIFER SARAH 187210 01/25/2018 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LLC 187211 01/25/2018 020425 TEMECULA VALLEY CONSERVATORY 187212 01/25/2018 010046 TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION AND 187213 01/25/2018 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE 187214 01/25/2018 000278 TRONC INC 187215 01/25/2018 014848 VALUTEC CARD SOLUTIONS LLC 187216 01/25/2018 000319 VARSITY BRANDS HOLDING CO INC 187217 01/25/2018 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 187218 01/25/2018 007208 VINCES SPAGHETTI EXPRESS Description Amount Paid Check Total PEST CONTROL SRVCS: MARG SPLASH PARK PEST CONTROL SRVCS: STA 95 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: STA 84 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: PBSP PEST CONTROL SRVCS: STA 73 PEST CONTROL SRVCS: WOLF CREEK F OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCC OFFICE SUPPLIES:LIBRARY OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSD ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES:THEATER OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSDADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW LAND DEV/NPDE OFFICE SUPPLIES:T. MUSEUM OFFICE SUPPLIES:TCSD ADMIN OFFICE SUPPLIES:THEATER TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS VEH REPAIR & MAINT:TEMECULA POLICE VEH REPAIR & MAINT:TEMECULA POLICI REFUND:SEC DEP:RM RENTAL:CONF CTR A/B NOV '17 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICT ASMNTS JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:41000 MAIN ST JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:29119 MARC JAN HIGH SPEED INTERNET:32364 OVEF DEC PUBLIC NTCS:CITY CLERK/PLNG DEC TICKETING SERVICES:THEATER TENNIS NETS: VAR. LOCATIONS 12/11-1/10 TASK FORCE TABLETS:POLICE REFRESHMENTS:HIGH HOPES 2/16/18 260.00 80.00 80.00 70.00 68.00 49.00 250.08 233.62 229.84 182.79 145.82 45.36 40.44 31.74 26.63 20.64 4,811.04 141.70 126.70 200.00 133,160.58 2,079.00 348.13 54.99 1,129.06 66.13 1,626.80 432.79 607.00 1,206.96 4,811.04 268.40 200.00 133,160.58 2,482.12 1,129.06 66.13 1,626.80 432.79 359.85 359.85 Page apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 10 Bank : union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 187219 01/25/2018 007208 VINCES SPAGHETTI EXPRESS REFRESHMENTS:SKIP 2/14/18 300.00 300.00 187220 01/25/2018 013556 WESTERN AV PROJECTOR BULB:CHAMBERS 1,662.04 1,662.04 187221 01/25/2018 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE DEC '17 MSHCP PAYMENT 20,310.00 20,310.00 COUNTY 187222 01/25/2018 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL REPAIRS: C. MUSEUM 1,890.00 INSTALL EXHAUST BLOWERS:C.MUSEUr 1,660.00 3,550.00 Grand total for UNION BANK: 2,616,999.08 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List 01/25/2018 11:44:07AM CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 11 107 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 2,616,999.08 Page:11 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, City Clerk DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Receive Report Regarding Status of Upcoming Vacancies on Boards and Commissions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive the report regarding the status of upcoming vacancies on Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND: In an effort to ensure notification of current and upcoming vacancies on the City's various Boards and Commissions, staff has implemented a process to notify the City Council and the public of vacancies in advance of publication. On January 20, 2018, a vacancy was created on the Old Town Local Review Board when staff received a notice of resignation from Board Member Laurie Malmstrom. Also, on June 15, 2018, there will be two additional vacancies on the Old Town Local Review Board and two vacancies on the Planning Commission. The vacancies will be advertised pursuant to previous practice through the newspaper, website, and social media. The application for these vacancies will be available on March 1, 2018 and the application period will be open from March 1, 2018 — March 31, 2018. It is anticipated that the City Council will make appointments to fill all five vacancies for full terms at the May 8, 2018 regularly scheduled meeting, ensuring continuity of service prior to the expiration of existing terms. Additional information is available through the City Clerk's office. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve Office Lease at the Old Town Parking Structure Between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau dba Visit Temecula Valley PREPARED BY: Betsy Lowrey. Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council 1. Approve an Office Lease at the Old Town Parking Structure between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau dba Visit Temecula Valley and authorize the Assistant City Manager to Execute the Lease; 2. Appropriate $200,000 from the 2007 Tax Allocation Bonds. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to a lease entered into on November 24, 2009, the City of Temecula has leased office space on the ground floor of the Old Town Parking Structure (28690 Mercedes Street) to Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau dba Visit Temecula Valley, a nonprofit organization (Visit Temecula Valley) that has a contract with the City for the promotion of tourism and marketing of the City. The commencement date of this lease was March 1, 2011. The term was extended for two years from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018. The original lease consists of approximately 1,735 square feet of office space on the ground floor of the building within the parking structure adjacent to City Hall and the right to use the Conference Center and a conference room within City Hall. The monthly rent began at $2,832 and is currently $3,230 per month. Since commencement of the original lease, Visit Temecula Valley has paid approximately $286,000 in rent payments for the office space, of which the City invested $175,000 for tenant improvements. Visit Temecula Valley would like to expand the leased space to include space on the second floor, directly above its current offices. The second floor area is currently an unimproved shell accessed through the public parking garage. Visit Temecula Valley has agreed to vacate approximately 521 square feet of existing office space on the ground floor and to reconfigure the floor plan to allow the Temecula Police Department, which shares a common wall, to expand into this area to allow for more police presence in Old Town. Under the terms of the attached lease, Visit Temecula Valley would continue to occupy the current space under the terms of the original lease until June 30, 2019 or the date on which Visit Temecula Valley completes the tenant improvements described in the lease and obtains a certificate of occupancy for the space on the second floor, whichever is sooner. The total expanded lease area is approximately 5,001 square feet of space, consisting of 1,214 square feet of existing office space on the ground floor, plus 3,787 square feet on the second floor. The initial term of the lease for the expanded lease space will be five years and would provide more than $405,000 in revenue to the City. The lease terms include up to $200,000 City contribution toward tenant improvements. Upon certificate of occupancy, the monthly rent will be $6,751.35, with increases based on the Consumer Price Index. Upon expiration of the initial five-year lease, the lease will renew automatically unless terminated by either party with a 30 -day notice. The City recognizes the value of Visit Temecula Valley's operations to the City of Temecula and its residents and the value of having the Visit Temecula Valley offices located adjacent to City Hall within the tourism district of Old Town. Visit Temecula Valley proactively markets, promotes and supports Temecula's continually growing $712 Million annual tourism economy that welcomes approximately 3 million visitors each year. Temecula's vibrant tourism economy provides value to the City of Temecula by fueling job creation, economic growth, tourism development and strengthening the City's brand. Currently, the Tourism industry generates local tax revenue of $6.9 Million annually for the City of Temecula from tourists driving more than 50 miles away, which does not include local or regional visitors. In addition, City Hall front desk staff directs many walk-in tourists (anticipated to grow significantly with several approved hotel developments in Old Town) to the "Visitors Center" at Visit Temecula Valley for tourist and promotional information. The Old Town Civic Center Ad -Hoc Subcommittee, Mayor Pro -Tem Mike Naggar & Council Member Jeff Comerchero, reviewed the terms of the proposed lease and are supportive of the recommended actions. Kimberly Adams, President and CEO of Visit Temecula Valley, is the spouse of City Manager Aaron Adams, therefore Mr. Adams has not participated in any discussion/negotiations related to this lease. Assistant City Manager Greg Butler has overseen the negotiations and is recommended to execute the lease on behalf of the City. FISCAL IMPACT: Office space rental revenue generated over the term of the 5 -year lease will total more than $405,000, less the cost of up to $200,000 for tenant improvements using non -housing RDA bond proceeds pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 06-85 and RDA Resolution No. 06-09. ATTACHMENT: Office Lease Between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, a California non-profit corporation, dba Visit Temecula Valley. OFFICE LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU DBA VISIT TEMECULA VALLEY This Office Lease ("Lease") Between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City" or "Landlord") and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, a California non-profit corporation, dba Visit Temecula Valley ("Tenant") is entered into as of the date the Lease is fully executed by the parties. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. RECITALS. This Lease is made with respect to the following purposes and facts that the parties agree are true and correct: A. On November 24, 2009, the parties entered into that certain "Office Lease" for the rental of certain premises located in the building at 28690 Mercedes Street, Temecula, California ("Building"), and outlined on Exhibit "A" to said Office Lease. B. On July 27, 2010, the parties entered into that certain "Memorandum of Lease; First Amendment of Lease." C. The Commencement Date of the Lease dated as of November 24, 2009 was March 1, 2011, that being the date on which City completed the Tenant Improvements as defined in said Office Lease and notified Tenant in writing that the Premises were ready for occupancy. The term of said Lease dated as of November 24, 2009 expired on February 29, 2016. D. Pursuant to Paragraph 3.C. of the Office Lease dated as of November 24, 2009, Tenant provided City with irrevocable written notice of its desire to exercise its option to extend the term of said Office Lease for a period of two years from March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018. E. On February 9, 2016, the parties entered into that certain Second Amendment to Office Lease dated as of November 24, 2009 between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau to provide for the use by Tenant of the "Vail Ranch" conference room at City Hall pursuant to the terms of the Second Amendment. F. On June 6, 2014, "Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau" began doing business as "Visit Temecula Valley" without any other change to its articles of incorporation or purposes of the non-profit corporation. G. The Office Lease dated as of November 24, 2009, as amended by the Memorandum of Lease; First Amendment of Lease and Second Amendment to Office Lease Dated November 24, 2009 are referred to below collectively as the "2009 Office Lease". H. The term of the 2009 Office Lease terminates on February 28, 2018. The parties wish to extend the term of the 2009 Office Lease of the Premises described in Exhibit "A" to the 2009 Office Lease ("2009 Premises") as provided in Paragraph 2. Tenant has informed City that it needs a space larger than the 2009 Premises for its operations. Tenant wishes to lease from City and City wishes to lease to Tenant a portion of the space comprising the 2009 Premises and additional space on the second floor of the Building. Further, in consideration for the lease of the additional space on the second floor of the Building, Tenant and City agree that Tenant will vacate some of the space from the 2009 Premises in the Building for use by the City Police Department. The -1- 11086-0111 \2151551 1- 11086-0111\2151551 v2.doc parties recognize the value of Lessee's operations to the City of Temecula and its residents and the value of the offices of Tenant being located in the Building, adjacent to the City Hall of the City of Temecula. J. Both the City and Tenant recognize the value of Visit Temecula Valley's operations to the City of Temecula and its residents and the value of having the Visit Temecula Valley offices located adjacent to City Hall within the tourism district of Old Town. Visit Temecula Valley proactively markets, promotes and supports Temecula's continually growing $712 Million Dollar annual tourism economy that welcomes approximately 3 million visitors each year to the Valley. Temecula's vibrant tourism economy provides value to the City of Temecula by fueling job creation, economic growth, tourism development and strengthening the City's brand. Currently, the Tourism industry generates local tax revenue of $6.9 Million annually for the City of Temecula from tourists driving more than 50 miles away, which does not include local or regional visitors. In addition, City Hall front desk staff directs many walk-in tourists (anticipated to grow significantly with several approved hotel developments in Old Town) to the "Visitors Center" at Visit Temecula Valley for tourist and promotional information. K. The above Recitals are incorporated in this Lease by this reference. 2. EXTENSION OF 2009 OFFICE LEASE. Pursuant to the terms of the 2009 Office Lease, City hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases from City, the Premises outlined on Exhibit "A" to the 2009 Office Lease ("2009 Original Premises"), which are located in the Building, until June 30, 2019 or the date on which Tenant completes the Tenant Improvements described in Paragraph 4.B. and obtains a certificate of occupancy for the portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises described in Paragraph 3.A. located on the second floor of the Building, whichever is sooner. The extension of the Lease of the 2009 Original Premises, including the right by Tenant to use the "Vail Ranch" conference room at City Hall, is subject to the terms of the 2009 Office Lease, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office and is incorporated herein by this reference. Tenant's right to use the "Vail Ranch" conference room at City Hall expires on the commencement of the term of the 2019 Expansion Premises described in Section 3.A. 3. 2019 EXPANSION PREMISES; CONFERENCE CENTER; PARKING; COMMON AREAS. A. 2019 Expansion Premises. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease, the City hereby leases to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases from City, the Premises, which are approximately 5,001 square feet in size ("2019 Expansion Premises"), and are comprised of (i) 1,214 square feet located on the ground floor of the Building, and (ii) 3,787 square feet located on the second floor of the Building. The Expansion Premises are illustrated on Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Use of Conference Center. Upon 14 days prior written notice to City given no more often than once a month, Tenant will have the right to use the so-called "Conference Center" in the Building for a monthly meeting of Tenant's board of directors. C. Parking. Tenant's customers will have the right to use the parking spaces on the ground floor of the parking facility in the Building, including the two reserved parking spaces outlined on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Subject to City's approval of the signs and the means of attaching the signs, Tenant may install two signs on the wall at the head of the two reserved parking spaces indicating that they are reserved for Tenant's customers. Tenant acknowledges that City will not be obligated to monitor the use of the two reserved spaces. -2- 11086-0111 \2151551 v2.doc Tenant's employees, contractors, officer and agents will only park on levels 3 and 4 of the parking facility that is part of the Building. D. Common Areas. Tenant will also have the non-exclusive right to use Common Areas (as hereinafter defined) for ingress and egress to and from the 2019 Expansion Premises. As used herein, the term "Common Areas" will mean all areas within the exterior boundaries of the parcel of land on which the Building is located that is now or later made available for the general, nonexclusive use of City, other persons entitled to occupy the Building and the exterior boundaries and the term "Project" will mean the Building together with the parcel of land on which the Building is located. Tenant understands and acknowledges that, although included within the definition of "Common Area" herein, the parking facility and related facilities for the Project may, at City's sole and absolute option and in accordance with applicable laws and governmental requirements, be available and open to the general public for parking. City will have the right to (i) utilize from time to time any portion of the Common Area for promotional, entertainment and related matters; (ii) place permanent or temporary kiosks, displays, carts and stands in the Common Area and to lease same to tenants; (iii) restrain the use of the Common Area by unauthorized persons; (iv) temporarily close any portion of the Common Area for repairs, improvements or alterations, to discourage non -customer use, to prevent dedication or an easement by prescription or for any other reason deemed sufficient in City's judgment; and (v) renovate, upgrade or change the shape and size of the Common Area or add, eliminate or change the location of improvements to the Common Area including, without limitation, buildings, parking areas, roadways and curb cuts, and to construct buildings on the Common Area. E. As -is Condition. City makes no warranties or representations, express or implied, regarding the condition of the 2019 Expansion Premises or Building and Tenant will take possession of the 2019 Expansion Premises in "as is" condition, subject to each party's respective obligations regarding the 2019 Tenant Improvements (as defined in Paragraph 4.B. below). 4. TERM; TENANT IMPROVEMENTS; RENEGOTIATION OPTION. A. Term. The Term of the Lease of the 2019 Expansion Premises will be (i) five years commencing on July 1, 2019, or (ii) on the date on which Tenant completes the Tenant Improvements described in Paragraph 4.B. and receives a certificate of occupancy from the City for the approximate 3,787 square foot portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises located on the second floor of the Building (the "Expansion Premises Commencement Date"), whichever is sooner. Tenant agrees and acknowledges that any certificate of occupancy for the approximate 3,787 square foot portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises is conditioned on Tenant's completion of the Tenant Improvements on the first floor of the 2019 Expansion Premises. The Lease of the 2019 Expansion Premises will terminate five years from the Expansion Premises Commencement Date; provided, however, that the initial five-year term will automatically extend, on an annual basis, for one year, and such annual extensions ("Annual Extension Periods") will continue in perpetuity unless City or Tenant give 30 days prior written notice to the other (at any time during any one year annual extension) that it elects to terminate this Lease, and this Lease will terminate at the end of said 30 -day period. The initial five-year term of the 2019 Expansion Area, as so extended by the Annual Extension Periods, is hereinafter referred to as the "2019 Expansion Premises Term". B. Tenant Improvements. As used herein, the term "Tenant Improvements" will mean the improvements described on Exhibit "C", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Tenant will have the right to enter the approximate 3,787 square foot portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises located on the second floor of the Building 31 days -3- 11086-0111\2151551v2.doc after the date this Lease is fully executed by the parties to construct the Tenant Improvements. City agrees to remove any property or equipment stored by the City in the approximate 3,787 square foot portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises within 30 days of the date this Lease is fully executed by the parties to allow Tenant to complete said Tenant Improvements. City agrees to reimburse Tenant up to $200,000 towards the costs of the Tenant Improvements ("City reimbursement"). City will issue a warrant(s) payable to Tenant at the address identified in Paragraph 26.0 below for the costs of the Tenant Improvements within 20 calendar days of receiving from Tenant an invoice from Visit Temecula Valley with copies of the contractor invoices and/or receipts identifying the specific Tenant Improvements completed, up to the $200,000 City reimbursement. Tenant agrees that it may submit said invoices to City for reimbursement up to twice per month. As described in the Recitals herein, the parties recognize the value of Lessee's operations to the City of Temecula and its residents and the value of the offices of Tenant being located in the Building, adjacent to City Hall. Pursuant to Government Code Section 37110, the legislative body of the City is authorized to spend City funds on promotion of the City. The $200,000 City reimbursement is the parties' estimate of Tenant's cost to complete the Tenant Improvements. The up to $200,000 City reimbursement will be used by Tenant to construct the 2019 Tenant Improvements in the order of priority identified on Exhibit "C" hereto. Tenant is solely responsible for any costs in excess of said $200,000 City reimbursement for the Tenant Improvements. The Tenant Improvements include, but are not limited to, the reconfiguration by Tenant of the first floor walls, HVAC, and potential removal of a closet for a door at the portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises located in the Building and reconfiguration of the portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises located on the second floor of the Building, including signs. Tenant will cause the construction of the Tenant Improvements in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and in substantial conformance with the description and in the order of priority identified on Exhibit "C" hereto. Any changes to the Tenant Improvements that are not in substantial conformance with the description attached at Exhibit "C" hereto require the approval of the Assistant City Manager. Tenant is solely responsible for tasks relating to the construction of the Tenant Improvements, including, but not limited to bidding, hiring, managing and overseeing all contractors, and obtaining all applicable building permits and inspections. Tenant must comply with California's prevailing wage laws, Government Code Section 1720 et seq. and applicable regulations (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 16001 et seq.) in connection with the Tenant Improvements. C. Renegotiation Option. Prior to the commencement of any of the Annual Extension Periods, the City has the option to renegotiate the terms of the Lease by providing written notice to Tenant 30 days prior to the commencement of any such one-year extension. 5. RENT; ADJUSTMENTS; SECURITY DEPOSIT. A. Monthly Rent. 1) Commencing on July 1, 2019 or on the date that Tenant completes the Tenant Improvements described in Paragraph 4.B. and receives a certificate of occupancy from City for the approximate 3,787 square foot portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises located on the second floor of the Building, whichever is sooner, Tenant will pay to City for Tenant's lease of the 2019 Expansion Premises, as monthly rent, without deduction, setoff, notice or demand, in advance, on or before the first business day of each calendar month the sum of $6,751.35 per month (5001 square feet @ $1.35 per square foot), which will be adjusted in accordance with Paragraph S.B. of the Lease. All rental payments hereunder will be paid by Tenant to City of Temecula, Attention: Finance Department, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, or at such other address or to such other persons as the City may from time to time designate in writing. If Tenant has not received a certificate of occupancy for the 2019 Expansion Premises by July 1, 2019, the Assistant City Manager or City Manager's -4- 11086-0111\2151551v2 doc 4- 11086-0111\2151551v2.doc designee has sole discretion to extend the above date for commencement of the monthly rent for the 2019 Expansion Premises if necessary to allow additional time for completion of the Tenant Improvements, for delays in construction due to the City's processing of building permits, or if the Assistant City Manager or City Manager's designee finds other good cause exists for such extension. B. Rent Adjustments. 1) On the first-year anniversary of the Expansion Premises Commencement Date and each subsequent anniversary of said Commencement Date including during the Automatic Annual Extension Periods under Paragraph 4.A., if any (each, an "Adjustment Date"), the then -current monthly rent will be increased by the lesser of: (i) 50% percent of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor ("Bureau") for the Los Angeles - Anaheim -Riverside Metropolitan Area or successor thereto ("CPI") during the year ending on the applicable Adjustment Date, as determined by City by dividing the CPI published 3 months prior to the applicable Adjustment Date by the CPI published 15 months prior to the applicable Adjustment Date; or (ii) five percent (5%) whichever is lower. City will notify Tenant in writing of the adjusted monthly rent. C. Security Deposit. Pursuant to the terms of the 2009 Office Lease, Tenant deposited with City a security deposit in the amount of $2,832.00 as security for Tenant's faithful performance of its obligations under the 2009 Office Lease. Within 30 days of the date this Lease is fully executed by the parties, Tenant agrees to deposit with the City an additional security deposit of $3,919.00 for a total security deposit of $6,751.00 ("Security Deposit") as security for Tenant's faithful performance of its obligations under this Lease. If Tenant fails to pay rent, or otherwise defaults under this Lease, City may use, apply or retain all or any portion of said Security Deposit for the payment of any amount already due City for rent which will be due in the future, and/or to reimburse or compensate City for any liability, expense, loss or damage which City may suffer or incur by reason thereof. If City uses or applies all or any portion of the Security Deposit, Tenant will within ten days after written request thereof, deposit monies with City sufficient to restore said Security Deposit to the full amount required by this Lease. When the rent increases during the term of this Lease, Tenant will, upon written request from City, deposit additional monies with City so that the total amount of the Security Deposit will at all times bear the same proportion to the increased rent as the initial Security Deposit bore to the initial rent. City will not be required to keep the Security Deposit separate from its general accounts. Within 90 days after the expiration or termination of this Lease (or such earlier date as required by law), City will return that portion of the Security Deposit not used or applied. No part of the Security Deposit will be considered to be held in trust, to bear interest or to be prepayment for any monies to be paid by Tenant under this Lease. 6. USE. Tenant will use said 2019 Expansion Premises solely for office purposes. Tenant will not use or permit the 2019 Expansion Premises to be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of City, which may be withheld in the City's sole and absolute discretion. 7. ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Except for the Tenant Improvements discussed in Paragraph 4.B. and described on Exhibit "C" hereto, Tenant must obtain City's written approval with respect to any changes, alterations or additions to the 2019 Expansion Premises. City's approval process will be in addition to any municipal code, regulatory and legal requirements. All alterations, additions, or changes to be made to the structure or -5- 11086-0111 \2151551 v2.doc improvements on the 2019 Expansion Premises will be under the supervision of a competent architect or competent licensed structural engineer and made in accordance with the plans and specifications with respect thereto, and all work must be done in a good and workmanlike manner and diligently prosecuted to completion. 8. MAINTENANCE. City will, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Building (including plumbing, heating, HVAC and electrical systems) in operable, condition, and repair. City will provide janitorial services for the Common Areas of the Building in accordance with the City's janitorial service contract for the Building, as amended from time to time. City will not provide janitorial services for the 2019 Expansion Premises. Tenant will maintain the 2019 Expansion Premises in good condition and repair. 9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Tenant will not either voluntarily, or by operation of law, assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or encumber this Lease or any interest herein, or any right or privilege appurtenant hereto, or allow any other person (the employees, agents, servants and invitees of Tenant excepted) to occupy or use the 2019 Expansion Premises, or any portion thereof, without first obtaining the written consent of City, which consent may be withheld in the City's sole and absolute discretion. A consent to one assignment, subletting, occupation or use by any other person will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another person. Consent to any such assignment or subletting will in no way relieve Tenant of any liability under this Lease, whether or not the term of the Lease is extended by the assignee or sublessee. Any such assignment or subletting without such consent will be void, and will, at the option of the City, constitute a default under this Lease. 10. INDEMNIFICATION. Tenant will indemnify and hold harmless City, the City Council and each member thereof, and City's officers, employees and agents (all collectively referred to as "Indemnitee") against and from any and all claims, liens, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs) to the extent arising from Tenant's use of the 2019 Expansion Premises, Tenant's construction of the Tenant Improvements, or from the conduct of its business or from any activity, work performed, or other things done, suffered by the Tenant in or about the 2019 Expansion Premises (excluding acts and omissions by City or City's contractors). If any action or proceeding is brought against any Indemnitee by reason of any such claim, Tenant, upon notice from any Indemnitee, will defend the Indemnitees at Tenant's expense, by counsel reasonably satisfactory to said Indemnitee. Tenant will give prompt notice to City in case of casualty or accidents in the 2019 Expansion Premises. 11. INSURANCE. A. Tenant's Liability Insurance. Tenant will, at Tenant's own cost and expense, during the entire Term and the Extension Period, if any, provide a broad form comprehensive coverage policy of public liability insurance issued by an insurance company acceptable to City and authorized to issue liability insurance in the State of California and having a rating of not less than "A-13" as set forth in the then current Best's Insurance Guide, insuring Tenant and City against loss or liability caused by or connected with Tenant's occupation, use, disuse, or condition of the 2019 Expansion Premises under this Lease in amounts not Tess that: -6- 11086-0111\2151551 v2.doc 1) $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one person and, subject to such limitation for the injury or death of one person, of not less than $2,000,000 for injury or death to two or more persons as a result of any one accident or incident; and 2) $1,000,000 for damage to or destruction of any property of others. All public liability insurance and property damage insurance will insure performance by Tenant of the indemnity provisions of this Lease. City will be named as additional insured on each insurance policy required by this Paragraph, and such policies will contain cross liability endorsements. B. Increase in Insurance Coverage. If, in the good faith opinion of City, the amount of public liability and property insurance coverage at that time is not comparable to the insurance typically required by landlords of property similar to the Building, Tenant will increase the insurance coverage as required by City. C. Insurance Certificate. Tenant will deliver to City a certificate of insurance, and if requested by City complete and correct copy of each insurance policy, for all insurance required by this Paragraph 11. All insurance policies required by express provisions of this Lease will be non -assessable and will contain language to the effect that (i) any loss will be payable notwithstanding any act or negligence of City that might otherwise result in the forfeiture of the insurance, (ii) that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against City, and (iii) the policies are primary and non-contributing with any insurance that may be carried by City. D. Notice of Cancellation of Insurance. Each insurance policy required by this Paragraph 11 will contain a provision that it cannot be cancelled or materially changed for any reason unless 30 days prior written notice of such cancellation or change is given to City in the manner required by this Lease for service of notices on City by Tenant. 12. UTILITIES; HVAC. City will provide and pay for water and trash pick-up. Tenant will obtain and pay for all other utilities, including gas, electricity, Internet service, and phone service. Tenant will pay Tenant's reasonable prorated share of utilities contracted for by City (including electricity and gas), as determined by City, on a monthly basis within ten days after City gives written notice to Tenant of the amount due. 13. SIGNS. Tenant will not, without City's prior written approval, install or affix any lighting or plumbing fixtures, shades, awnings, or decorations (including exterior painting), signs, lettering, placards, or the like on the exterior of 2019 Expansion Premises; display or sell merchandise on, or otherwise obstruct, any area outside the exterior walls of the 2019 Expansion Premises; or cause or permit to be used any advertising, loudspeakers, unusually bright or flashing lights, and similar devices which may be seen or heard outside the 2019 Expansion Premises. Tenant may use a portion of the up to $200,000 City reimbursement for the Tenant Improvements discussed in Paragraph 4.B. to install exterior signage at the portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises located in the Building at a location approved by City provided that such signage complies with the Old Town Specific Plan and all applicable laws and provided, further that City will have approved the contractor installing the signage and the means of affixing or installing such sign. 14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Tenant, at its expense, will comply promptly with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders of any governmental authority pertaining to the 2019 Expansion Premises or Tenant's use or occupancy of the 2019 Expansion Premises or improvement of said Premises (including laws, ordinances, regulations and orders pertaining to -7- 11086-011112151551v2.doc non-structural improvements required by law, the location and maintenance of trade fixtures, equipment, and other personal property; the conduct of Tenant's employees; preparation, storage, and service of food and drink, and the like, but excluding new laws or changes in laws that require improvements to the structural components of the 2019 Expansion Premises). 15. RIGHT OF ACCESS. The City and City's officers, employees, and agents will at all reasonable times have the right to enter the 2019 Expansion Premises for the purpose of inspecting the same, posting notices of non -responsibility or any other notices required by law for the protection of the City, doing any work that City is permitted or required to perform under this Lease, and making any reasonable repairs which the City determines may be required. Tenant will furnish City with a pass key to the 2019 Expansion Premises, which the City will use only in case of emergency to prevent or investigate a crime, or in such cases where access is necessary to prevent damage to the Building or to any portion of the 2019 Expansion Premises or to make repairs necessary to ensure continuous operation of the Building. City will have the right to enter the 2019 Expansion Premises and post "For Lease" or "For Rent" signs in any windows of the 2019 Expansion Premises: (i) during any period while Tenant is in default, and (ii) after delivery of any notice of termination. In conducting its activities on the 2019 Expansion Premises as allowed in this Paragraph 15, City will use good faith efforts to attempt to minimize the inconvenience, annoyance, or disturbance to Tenant. 16. TAXES. Tenant will pay or cause to be paid, before delinquency, any and all taxes levied and assessed which become payable during the 2019 Expansion Premises Term hereof against its interest in the 2019 Expansion Premises, upon improvements made by Tenant, or any equipment, furniture, fixtures, and any other personal property located in or on the 2019 Expansion Premises, or which become a lien against the 2019 Expansion Premises or Tenant's interest therein. TENANT RECOGNIZES AND UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS LEASE MAY CREATE A POSSESSORY INTEREST SUBJECT TO PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED UPON SUCH INTEREST, AND THAT IN SUCH EVENT TENANT WILL BE OBLIGATED TO PAY SUCH TAX OR PURSUE AN EXEMPTION. CITY IS IN NO WAY LIABLE FOR ANY SUCH TAXES ON THE POSSESSORY INTEREST, IF ANY. 17. RULES AND REGULATIONS. Tenant will faithfully observe and comply with the rules and regulations that City may from time to time promulgate and/or modify. The rules and regulations will be binding upon the Tenant upon delivery of a copy of them to Tenant. City will not be responsible to Tenant for the nonperformance of any said rules and regulations by any other lessees or occupants of the Building. 18. TENANT'S DEFAULT. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will constitute a default and breach of this Lease by Tenant the failure by Tenant to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by the Tenant, other than described where such failure will continue for a period of 30 days after written notice thereof by City to Tenant; provided, however, that if the nature of Tenant's default is such that more than 30 days are reasonably required for its cure, then Tenant will not be deemed to be in default if Tenant commences such cure within said 30 -day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. 19. REMEDIES UPON TENANT DEFAULT. In the event of any such default or breach by Tenant, City may at any time thereafter, in its sole discretion, with or without notice or demand and without limiting City in the exercise of a right or remedy which City may have by reason of such default or breach terminate Tenant's right to possession of the 2019 Expansion Premises by written notice to Tenant, in which case this Lease will terminate and Tenant will immediately surrender possession of the 2019 Expansion Premises to City. City may also -8- 11086-0111 \2151551 v2.doc pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to City under the laws or judicial decisions of the State of California. 20. DEFAULT BY CITY. City will not be in default unless City fails to perform obligations required of City within 30 days after written notice by Tenant to City specifying wherein City has failed to perform such obligation; provided, however, that if the nature of City's obligation is such that more than 30 days are required for performance then City will not be in default if City commences performance within such 30 -day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. 21. DAMAGE; RECONSTRUCTION. In the event the 2019 Expansion Premises or parking areas are damaged by fire or other perils, City may terminate this Lease by written notice to Tenant. 22. EMINENT DOMAIN. If any portion of the Building or the 2019 Expansion Premises is taken or appropriated by any authority under the power of eminent domain, City may terminate this Lease by written notice to Tenant. In any such case, the Tenant Improvements are considered real property and owned by the City. 23. SUCCESSORS. Each and every one of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease will inure to the benefit of and will bind, as the case may be, not only the parties hereto but each and every one of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, and legal representatives of the parties hereto; provided, however, that any subletting or assignment by Tenant of the whole or any part of the 2019 Expansion Premises or any interest therein will be subject to the provisions of Paragraph 9 of this Lease. 24. HOLDING OVER. If Tenant, with City's prior written consent, remains in possession of the 2019 Expansion Premises after expiration or termination of the 2019 Expansion Premises Term, or after the date in any notice given by City to Tenant terminating this Lease, such possession by Tenant will be deemed to be tenancy at will (or as otherwise expressly agreed by City in its written consent), terminable upon notice given at any time by either Party, at a monthly rental equal to the fair rental value of the 2019 Expansion Premises, as determined by City in its good faith discretion. All provisions of this Lease except those pertaining to rent and term will apply to the tenancy. 25. SURRENDER. At the expiration or termination of the 2019 Expansion Premises Term of this Lease, Tenant will surrender the 2019 Expansion Premises to the City in the same condition as improved with the tenant improvements described on Exhibit C, reasonable wear and tear excepted; provided, however, that: (i) all of Tenant's machinery, equipment and other trade fixtures will remain Tenant's property and Tenant may remove the Personal Property, provided Tenant removes such machinery, equipment, trade fixtures and Personal Property at Tenant's cost prior to the expiration of the Term or within 30 days after any earlier termination of said 2019 Expansion Premises Term; (ii) City may require Tenant to remove all fixtures, personal property and alterations installed by Tenant and/or the Personal Property by written notice given at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the Term or concurrently with City's termination notice, as applicable; and (iii) Tenant will remove Tenant's exterior sign and will repair all damage caused by the removal. Unless otherwise provided in writing by City to Tenant, at the expiration or termination of the 2019 Expansion Premises Term, all Tenant Improvements will be considered real property and owned by the City. 26. GENERAL PROVISIONS. -9- 11086-0111 \2151551 v2.doc A. Waiver. The waiver by City of any term, covenant or condition herein contained will not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The acceptance of rent hereunder by City will not be deemed to be a waiver of any default by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition herein contained, regardless of City's knowledge of such default at the time of the acceptance of such rent. B. Time. Time is of the essence of this Lease and each and all of its provisions. C. Prior Agreements. This Lease contains all of the agreements of the parties hereto with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Lease, and no prior agreements or understanding pertaining to any such matters will be effective for any purpose except that the 2009 Office Lease, which is incorporated in this Lease by reference, apply to the extension of the Lease for the 2009 Original Premises as set forth in Paragraph 2 hereto. D. Inability to Perform. This Lease and the obligations of the Tenant hereunder will not be affected or impaired because the City is unable to fulfill any of its obligations hereunder or is delayed in doing so, if such inability or delay is caused by reason of strike, labor troubles, acts of nature, or any cause beyond the reasonable control of the City. E. Construction; Captions. The parties agree that this Lease is the project of joint draftsmanship and that should any of the terms be determined by a court, or in any type of quasi-judicial or other proceeding, to be vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible, that the same sentences, phrases, clauses or other wording or language of any kind will not be construed against the drafting party in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1654, and that each party to this Lease waives the effect of such statute. The captions and section titles to the sections of this Lease are not a part of the Lease and will have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part of this Lease. Unless provided otherwise, any term referencing time, days, or period for performance will be deemed calendar days and not work days. F. Partial Invalidity. Any provision of this Lease that is proved to be invalid, void, or illegal will in no way affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provision will remain in full force and effect. G. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Lease will be of no force and effect unless it is in writing and signed by the Parties or their respective successors in interest. H. Counterparts. This Lease may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, will be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, will be deemed to be one and the same instrument. Governing Law and Venue. This Lease will be interpreted and enforced according to, and the parties' rights and obligations, including any non -contractual claims, will be governed by the domestic law of the State of California, without regard to its laws regarding choice of applicable law. Any proceeding or action to enforce this Lease will occur in the federal court with jurisdiction over Riverside County and the state courts located in Riverside County, California. J. City's Approvals. Neither City's execution of this Lease nor any consent or approval given by City hereunder in its capacity as City will waive, abridge, impair or otherwise affect City's powers and duties as a governmental body. Any requirements under this -10- 11086-0111 \2151551 v2.doc Lease that Tenant obtain consents or approvals of City are in addition to and not in lieu of any requirements of law that Tenant obtain approvals or permits. K. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The parties will not be obligated or liable under this Lease to any party other than each other. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the parties. L. Brokers. Tenant represents and warrants that it has not had any dealings with realtors, brokers or agents in connection with the negotiation of this Lease. M. Recorded Memorandum of Lease. Concurrently with its execution and delivery of this Lease, Tenant will execute, acknowledge and deliver to City, for recordation, a Memorandum of Lease in a form prescribed by the City. N. Exhibits. All Exhibits referenced in this Lease are incorporated as though set forth in full in this Lease. O. Notices. All notices and demands will be given in writing by certified mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, by personal delivery, or by Federal Express or other overnight carrier. Notices will be considered given upon the earlier of (i) personal delivery, (ii) two business days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or (iii) one business day following deposit with Federal Express or other overnight carrier. If notice is received on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, it will be deemed received on the next business day. The parties will address such notices as provided below or as may be amended by written notice: City: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Assistant City Manager Tenant: Temecula Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau dba Visit Temecula Valley 28690 Mercedes Street, Suite A Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Chairman of the Board and Director of Operations & Finance IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of the date set forth below: City/Landlord: Lessee: CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal TEMECULA VALLEY CONVENTION & corporation VISITORS BUREAU, a California nonprofit corporation, dba Visit Temecula Valley Dated: , 2018 By: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager 11086-0111 \2151551 v2.doc Dated: car / I , 2018 -11- ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 11086-011 112 1 51 5 51 v2.doc Print Nar is► r -i- V \cwt—t►��'�� Daed• , 2018 :;.'t!J, . Print Name:eigti -12- G .6445 R v1 Ct Exhibit "A" 5,001 SQUARE FOOT LEASED 2019 EXPANSION PREMISES LOCATED IN GARAGE BUILDING AT 28690 MERCEDES STREET, TEMECULA 1ST FLOOR COMMON AREAS Visit Temecula Valley (yellow) Police Dept. (blue) 41 Police Expansion Area (light blue) (formerly VTV) Police (for,4 cr.I x��nsion T' 'FTK MIA 7.0 Ole pt. (blue) Temecula Vali 1 1086-0 1 1 1\2151551 v2.doc Exhibit "B" DESCRIPTION OF TWO GROUND FLOOR "RESERVED" PARKING SPACES Two Reserved Parking Spaces on 1st Floor of garage for Visit Temecula Valley 11086-011 I\2151551v2.doc Exhibit "C" DESCRIPTION OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND PRIORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS 151 floor Tenant Improvements: Priority Construction of Tenant Improvements: Visit Temecula Valley has agreed to vacate approximately 521 square feet of existing office space on the ground floor and to reconfigure the floor plan to allow the Temecula Police Department, which shares a common wall, to expand into this office area. Visit Temecula Valley will ensure that the reconfiguration of office space on the first floor will allow the 521 square feet area be a part of the Temecula Police Department office area and not accessible by Visit Temecula Valley. These tenant improvements shall be completed, with all inspections final and approved for occupancy by the City of Temecula prior to expending $180,000 of the $200,000 tenant improvement funds allocated by the City to Visit Temecula Valley (the Assistant City Manager has the authority to revise this threshold). This includes completion of construction of all walls, doors, doorways, hallways, HVAC, alarm, fire protection/sprinklers, paint, patchwork, locks, floors, ceiling, electrical, plumbing (if any) alarms and any and all associated tenant improvements to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula and the Temecula Police Department. Tenant will not be permitted to occupy the second floor until all tenant improvements are completed on the first floor. Tenant is responsible for all architectural and engineering services, construction, construction management and any required permits or fees. Visit Temecula Valley agrees to leave all white cabinet and white desks in the vacated area for the Temecula Police Department. Upon completion of construction, Visit Temecula Valley office space on the first floor will comprise of approximately 1,214 square feet. 2nd floor Tenant Improvements: Visit Temecula Valley will expand their leased space to include the second floor, directly above its first floor offices. The second floor area is currently an unimproved shell used as City storage and accessed through the public parking garage. Visit Temecula Valley will be responsible for tenant improvements suitable for office space needs. Tenant is responsible for all architectural and engineering services, construction, construction management and any required permits or fees. Tenant improvements may include customized alterations to the leased space for office use including, but not limited to, meeting room(s), office(s), cubical(s), walls, low walls, partitions, finished ceilings, paint, HVAC, insulation, flooring, doors, electrical, plumbing, bathroom(s), kitchen, cabinets, counters, lighting fixtures, wall coverings, window covering and any and all associated tenant improvements to the satisfaction of the City of Temecula. Tenant shall make no exterior modifications to the building without permission by the Landlord. Upon completion of construction, Visit Temecula Valley office space on the second floor will comprise of approximately 3,787 square feet. 11086-0111\215155Iv2.doc A`QRO CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MMIDDIYYYY) 5/19/2017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on thls certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER California Southwestern Insurance License Number 0443354 21 Orchard Lake Forest CA 92630 INSURED Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau 28690 Mercedes St. 1tA Temecula CA 92590 CNAME:NTACT Jennifer McCloskey CIC, CISR PHONE (949) 472-6560 __. (A/C, Not (SNP 500-0340 AOORE58;� ---- myCCloskC Icsia-ins.00m DR INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A :Philadelphia Indemnity Ins Co INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : NAIC i :2017/2018 REVISION NUMBER: v --- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE INSO W DR POLICY MASER EFF (MMt oretYYY) (T&ICY P mmtrx JYYVXYY) LIMITS X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 A l CIAIMS-MADE OCCUR PRTSl cou rrettEO cej $ 100, 000 $ 5,000 1 1 X PBPK1627518 3/20/2017 3/201201/ Mk Eap(mycne Pyrson) /PERSONAL El ADV INJJRY $ 2,000, 000 GEHL AGGREGATE L MIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000, 000.0 X POLICY TL I LOC PRODUCTS-COMPIOPAGG $ 4,000, 000 1 OTHER $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBIPTMO SINGLE EMIT (Eat aCOdent $ ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ `J ALL OWNED — SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per occident) $ AUTOS HIRED AUTOS —_ SEED PROPERTY DAMAGE Pet needed $ AAUUT $ UMBRELLA LIAR OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ J EXCESS LIAR _ CLAIMS -WADE AGGREGATF $ DE0 I RF.TFNT ON $�� $ WORKERS COMPENSATION I STATUTE I I ERH AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y IN MN I,ROFRIETORPARTFERIE CUTIVE E L EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICFWMEMUER EXCLUDED? I J ri (Mandatory In NH) N!A E L DISEASE - FA EMPLOYEE`$ 11 o0, de5Cttbe vtdOr DESCRIPTION of OPERATpNS bebw E ISEASE POLICY LIMIT $ A Host Liquor Liability P5051627510 3/20/2017 3/22/2018 Each Occurance 82,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS! LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, The City of Temecula, Successor Agency to the Temecula Services District, their officers, officials, employees with respect to general liability may be Redevelopment an attached If mo e space Is requl ed) Agency, and the Temecula Community volunteers are named as additional insured ) b (6 t ('' CERTIFICATE HOLDER City of Temecula Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Community Services District 4100 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 i4 1EAk,ATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE J McCloskey CIC, CISR (-Slk'�""� '� k04/4f� { 3r @1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD INS025 (2C14C1 ) Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager J14, - CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Assistant City Manager DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve Revisions to Various Agreements to Enable the City to Purchase Solar Generated Electricity from the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Solar Power Generating Facility RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENERGY AUTHORITY (SRCEA), AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 17-75 TO PROVIDE THAT ALL OF THE APPROVALS AND AUTHORIZATIONS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 17-75 SHALL INCLUDE A REVISED TERMINATION FEE TO THE PROPOSED POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT ANALYSIS MAY 2016 APPROVAL OF SOLAR POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS On May 10, 2016, the City Council approved several agreements that would enable the City to purchase electrical power for various City facilities from the solar power generating facility to be constructed on land in the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve ("SMER"). The cost of the electricity from this solar power generating facility to the City will initially be approximately 10% less that the cost of electricity available to the City from Southern California Edison Company. As electricity rates increase over time the saving to the City will increase correspondingly. The solar power generating facility will be constructed by SMER Research 1, LLC, under a ground lease with San Diego State University, the owner of the SMER, for the land known as the "Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SOLAR Initiative Research Site." Electricity will be generated by the collection of sunlight onto an array of photovoltaic cells on the ground. Sufficient electricity will be generated to serve the City of Temecula's facilities as well as facilities for another governmental entity. In addition to the public benefits of lower electricity rates and obtaining electricity from a renewable source of power, SMER Research 1 and San Diego State University have agreed to conduct substantial academic research projects at the solar power generating facility site that will study solar radiation, solar energy, soils, and other meteorological and geotechnical data as well as habitat and habitat restoration. The City's role in this Project is only is only as a purchaser of electricity. SMER Research 1 will design the Project, obtain all required permits through the California Public Utilities Commission and construct the Project at its sole cost and expense. CHANGES TO THE PROJECT APPROVED IN OCTOBER 2017 The "Local Government Renewable Energy Self -Generation Program" under Public Utilities Code Section 2830 is the State law that authorizes the City's purchase of electricity generated at Santa Margarita facility. At the time the original agreements were approved in May 2016, this law only allowed the city or other governmental agencies located within the boundaries of the city in which the solar generating facility was located to purchase electricity from the solar generating facility. The law was amended, effective January 2017, to allow cities and other governmental agencies to form a joint powers authority to take advantage of the lower electrical rates from a solar generating facility so long as the members of the joint powers authority are located in the same county and are served by the same electric utility. As a result of this change in law, the City of Lake Elsinore proposed to enter into a joint powers agreement with the City of Temecula that will allow both cities to take advantage of the electrical rate savings from the purchase of electricity generated by the solar power generating facility to be constructed on the "Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve SOLAR Initiative Research Site." On October 17, 2017, the City of Temecula and City of Lake Elsinore entered into a joint powers agreement forming the "Southwest Riverside County Energy Authority" ("SRCEA"). SRCEA will have four directors, two council members from the City of Lake Elsinore and two from the City of Temecula. Alternate directors will be the City Managers of each city. Temecula's representatives are Council Member Edwards and Council Member Stewart. SCREA will have the authority to enter into the necessary power purchase agreements and sublease agreements necessary to enable the cities to purchase electricity from the Facility. REVISIONS TO THE OCTOBER 2017 POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE CALCULATION OF THE TERMINATION FEE In the October 17, 2017 Agenda Report, the Staff stated: "The Power Purchase Agreements that SCREA will enter into with SMER Research I on behalf of each city will be the same as the Power Purchase Agreement the City of Temecula entered into with SMER Research I in May 2016 with one exception. The termination fee for the City of Temecula if it decides to cancel the Power Purchase Agreement or defaults will be reduced from a year 1 payment of $6,764,024 in the May 2016 agreement to $4,193,694.88 in year 1 of the proposed new Power Purchase Agreement. This reduction is due to the addition of power sales to City of Lake Elsinore and a proportional sharing of the risk of default. The amount is reduced each year during the term of the agreement. Lake Elsinore will also have a termination fee to pay in the event of cancellation for default." On January 23, 2018, the City was informed by the attorney for SMER Research 1 that SMER made a significant error in calculating the Termination Fee in the proposed Power Purchase Agreements for Temecula and Lake Elsinore. The correct Termination Fee for Temecula is $6,764,024 in year 1 diminishing over the 20 year term of the Power Purchase Agreement. The amount of the proposed new Termination Fee is the same amount of the Termination Fee in the original Power Purchase Agreement approved by Temecula in May 2016. Staff noted the differences in the Termination Fee described in the May 2016 Power Purchase Agreement and the Termination Fee described in the October 2017 proposed Power Purchase Agreement and brought this to the attention of SMER Research 1. Its representatives assured Temecula that the Termination Fee in the new Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula) was correct and the Staff then presented the Agreement to the City Council on October 17, 2018. The Council adopted Resolution 17-75 authorizing the City's representatives to the SCREA to approve the Power Purchase Agreement, the Sublease, and the License Use Agreement between SMER Research I and SCREA and the Interconnection Agreement between SCREA and Southern California Edison Company. The Resolution also approved the financial guarantee by the City of Temecula that it will purchase the electricity as provided in the Power Purchase Agreement. Lake Elsinore will also be required to approve an identical financial guarantee. Additionally, the Resolution also provides that the approval of these new Agreements are conditioned upon the termination of the Agreements approved on May 10, 2016 and certifications issued in connection with these agreements. Staff Recommends adopting the proposed Resolution that will reauthorize the approval of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula) and Financial Guaranty with the corrected Termination Tee of $6,764,024 in year 1 diminishing over the 20 year term of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula). While the Staff was pleased to see the reduced early termination fee schedule in the October 2017 version of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula), it is important to understand we are entering into this Agreement for long term electrical energy savings, and have no plans to terminate the Agreement without cause prior to the initial 20 -year term. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to the City to enter into the new Agreements other than Staff time. The City will realize a savings in electrical energy costs by purchasing electricity generated by the Solar Generating Facility. All costs related to the design and construction of the Solar Generating Facility and the interconnection facilities to get the electricity from the Solar Generating Facility to the various Temecula and Lake Elsinore facilities will be paid by SMER Research 1. The increased Termination Fee would only be applicable should the City decide to terminate its power purchases prior to the expiration of the 20 year term of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula). ATTACHMENTS: Resolution amending Resolution No. 17-75 reauthorizing approvals of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula) with the corrected Termination Fee of $6,764,024 in year 1 diminishing over the 20 year term of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula) RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENERGY AUTHORITY (SRCEA), AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 17-75 TO PROVIDE THAT ALL OF THE APPROVALS AND AUTHORIZATIONS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 17-75 SHALL INCLUDE A REVISED TERMINATION FEE TO THE PROPOSED POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Temecula ("City Council") does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. On October 17, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-75 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENERGY AUTHORITY (SRCEA), APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS OF THE SRCEA OF THE SOLAR POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE SUBLEASE AGREEMENT, THE LICENSE USE AGREEMENT, AND THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE GUARANTEE OF THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT" B. SMER Research 1 notified the City that the termination fee as described in Exhibit C to the proposed Solar Power Purchase Agreement (Sublease Area 1, Temecula) is not correct and has requested that the City approve the revised Termination Fee. SECTION 2. Amendment to Resolution No. 17-75. Resolution No. 17-75 is hereby amended to provide that all of the approvals and authorizations set forth in Resolution No. 17-75 shall include the revised Termination Fee of $6,764,024 in year 1 diminishing over the 20 year term of the Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula) as described on a revised Exhibit C to the proposed Power Purchase Agreement (Subarea 1, Temecula), which Exhibit C is attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. SECTION 3. No Other Changes to Resolution. Except as specifically provided in this Resolution, all other terms and provisions of Resolution No. 17-75 shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. upon its adoption. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13th day of February, 2018. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 13th day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk ATTACHMENT A Exhibit C Termination Values Year of Contract Total Sublease Area 1 (Temecula) Sublease Area 2 (Lake Elsinore) 1 $10,972,750.04 $6,764,024.00 $4,208,726.04 2 $10,508,111.53 $6,477,603.00 $4,030,508.53 3 510,035,889.13 $6,186,507.00 $3,849,382.13 4 $9,555,893.04 $5,890,619.00 $3,665,274.04 5 $9,068,541.80 $5,590,197.00 $3,478,344.80 6 $8,572,424.07 $5,284,371.00 $3,288,053.07 7 $8,067,935.67 $4,973,385.00 $3,094,550.67 8 $7,554,865.71 $4,657,109.00 $2,897,756.71 9 $7,033,477.00 $4,335,705.00 $2.697,772.00 10 $6,502,609.64 $4,008,458.00 $2,494,151.64 11 $5,962,500.49 $3,675,514.00 $2,286,986.49 12 $5,412,922.42 $3,336,733.00 $2,076,189.42 13 $4,853,963.04 $2,992,169.00 $1,861,794.04 14 $4,284,733.38 $2,641,274.00 $1,643,459.38 15 53,705,304.80 $2,284,092.00 $1,421,212.80 16 $3,115,421.00 $1,920,465.00 $1,194,956.00 17 $2,514,992.76 $1,550,338.00 $964,654.76 18 $1,903,414.98 $1,173,338.00 $730,076.98 19 $1,280,578.98 $789,398.00 $491,180.98 20 $646,202.49 $398,344.00 $247,858.49 Thereafter $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Termination Value reflects the amount required as payment due to a PPA Event of Default (Section 13(a)). The respective termination values for the Lease Area 1 (City of Temecula) and Lease Area 2 (City of Lake Elsinore) are proportionate to the amount of energy purchased by the JPA to benefit each City at the initiation of the Agreement. Should the proportionate energy purchased by the Purchaser JPA participants change during the term of agreement, the relative termination values would also change proportionately. Exhibit C - 1 Solar Power Purchase Agreement (Sublease Area 1 (City of Temecula)) DOCS 124394-000004/3049604.4 Item No. 7 City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Community Services Director DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve a Cooperative Agreement with Non-profit Temecula Valley Alano Club in Support of AA Workshop Group Meetings PREPARED BY: Yvette Martinez, Community Services Supervisor I RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with non-profit Temecula Valley Alano Club, in the amount of $4,218 of in-kind facility services/costs annually, in support of the group's Temecula Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Workshop Group Meetings. BACKGROUND: The non-profit Temecula Valley Alano Club has had a long- standing agreement with the Mary Phillips Senior Center to utilize the facility for their Temecula AA Workshop Group Meetings. The Temecula Valley Alano Club sponsors the workshop group meetings and facilitates several programs including Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), and Al -Anon. Currently, the Temecula AA Workshop Group holds one meeting per week from January through May each year at the Mary Phillips Senior Center, with the City providing in-kind staff and facility support valued at $4,218 annually. These workshops provide resources to alcoholics through their recovery journey and support their sobriety through group meetings. Overall, this partnership supports the City's goals of a healthy and livable City and a safe and prepared community. The City of Temecula Community Services Department's Human Services Division is committed to further improving residents' quality of life by developing and supporting social and human services such as these programs. FISCAL IMPACT: Budget process. ATTACHMENTS: Funds are allocated annually as part of the Annual Operating Cooperative Agreement COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY ALANO CLUB THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 13th day of February, 2018, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Temecula Valley Alano Club, a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit"). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a. The Nonprofit shall operate the Temecula Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Workshop Group (hereinafter referred to as the "Event") every Thursday from January — May from 6:00 — 9:30 pm. The Event is located at Mary Phillips Senior Center, 41845 Sixth Street. The non-profit will require the use of the facility for the facilitation of the AA Temecula Workshop Group in the Multipurpose Room. b. The Event includes support to former alcoholics throughout their recovery journey while maintaining their sobriety through group meetings. c. Alcohol will not be served. d. The City desires to be a Co -Sponsor of the above mentioned event, providing in-kind support including facilities. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on February 13, 2018, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2021, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. CONSIDERATION a. As a Co -Sponsor the City shall receive sponsor benefits as listed in Exhibit A. b. As a Co -Sponsor, the City shall provide in-kind support services and costs in the amount of Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Zero Cents ($4,218.00) annually, for a total agreement amount not to exceed Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Four Dollars and Zero Cents ($12,654.00) as listed in Exhibit B. 4. WRITTEN REPORT Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Event, the Nonprofit shall prepare and submit to the Director of Community Services a written report evaluating the Event, its attendance, media coverage, and description of the materials in which the City has listed as a Co -Sponsor. The report shall also include samples of media, press clippings, flyers, pamphlets, 1 etc., in a presentation notebook format. In addition, complete financial statements including a balance sheet, income statement and budget to actual comparison report of the Event must be included in such a written report. 5. MEETING ATTENDANCE The Nonprofit shall attend all City pre -event planning meetings and event recap meetings if warranted. 6. INDEMNIFICATION The Nonprofit shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of the Nonprofit's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non- performance of this Agreement. 7. INSURANCE The Nonprofit shall secure and maintain from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement an insurance policy of comprehensive general liability against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by February 13, 2018, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Recipient owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Recipient has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: Two million ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 2 3) Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency that it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the NonProfit; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Nonprofit; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Nonprofit. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Nonprofit's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Nonprofit's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurers liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Nonprofit shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A -:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self-insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Nonproft shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City 3 before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Nonprofit's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 8. GOVERNING LAW The City and the Nonprofit understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 9. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Nonprofit shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Nonprofit to comply with this section. 10. ASSIGNMENT The Nonprofit shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 11. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: Mailing Address: To Recipient: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Valley Alano Club Attn: Doug Taber 27470 Commerce Center Dr. C Temecula, CA 92590 15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. The Nonprofit shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of the 4 Nonprofit shall at all times be under the Nonprofit's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of the Nonprofit's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. The Nonprofit shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. No employee benefits shall be available to the Nonprofit in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to the Nonprofit as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to the Nonprofit for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to the Nonprofit for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 17. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. Choose an item TEMECULA VALLEY ALANO CLUB (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: TabePresident Matt Rahn, Mayor Doug , ATTEST: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Tina McPHtee, Secretary Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney NONPROFIT Temecula Valley Alano Club Doug Taber 27470 Commerce Center Dr. C Temecula, CA 92590 Ienvierra@live.com 6 PM Initials Date: e 12/28/2017 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS CO-SPONSOR Temecula Valley Alano Club shall provide the following benefits and services for the citizens of the City of Temecula: • Support and resources to Temecula Valley recovering alcoholics through group meetings facilitated by the Temecula AA Workshop Group. • City of Temecula logo/name on event flyers or other promotional materials EXHIBIT "B" IN-KIND SERVICES ESTIMATED ANNUAL VALUE OF CITY SUPPORT SERVICES AND COSTS The City will provide the following support for the Event, valued as follows: Community Services Facility Rental (in-kind): Community Services Staff Hours (in-kind): ANNUAL TOTAL: TOTAL: 8 $3,363.00 $ 855.00 $ 4,218.00 $12,654.00 A W I? I)" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MMIDD/YYV) 01/04/2018 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, IMPORTANT: 11 the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the pollcy(loe) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement, A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsament(s). PRODUCER Hlscox Inc. d/b/a/ Hlscox Insurance Agency In CA 520 Madison Avenue 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022 INSURED Temecula Valley Alan° Club Inc 27470 Commerce Center Dr C Temecula CA 92590 CONTACT XV NAICI 10200 jAIC No. Exe: -(88e_) 202_•3.007 — I (ATC, No): E•rlaL ADDRESS; C.Ontactehlscox.COnl !Neon R(S) AFFOROINO COVERAGE INSUReRA: Hlscox Insurance Company Inc A INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER O: INsunen E INSURER F: • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT. CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY EXCLUSIONS ANO CONDITIONS OF SUCH iNSR (,TR TYPE OF INSURANCE OF INSURANCE PERTAIN, POLICIES. ADDL SUDN )NSD�YYC LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN POLICY NUMBER ISSUED TO CONTRACT THE POLICIES REDUCED BY POIICY EFF IMPANDIYYYYI THE INSURED OR OTHER DESCRIBED PAID CLAIMS. POLICY EXP ItIWIA/YYYY) NAMED ABOVE FOR TIIE POLICY PERIOD DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS HEREIN 1S SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. - LIMITS X COMMERCUILOENERALUABIUTY �_ I CLAIMS•MADE X OCCUR EACHOCCURRENCE OAL41C1E TO RENTED_._--- f RE A(SEE ([e ctvumr.9)_ MED EXP (Arty one oanoN 8 2,000,000 •� = 1OO�000" J: 6,000 A• GENI X AOOREQATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY ( ITT I I LOC JEC nTRER UDC -2139548 -COL -18 01/04/2018 01/04/2019 PERSONAL &ADVINJURY GENERAL AGGREGATE PRODUCTS • COMP/OP AGO s 2,000,000 / $ 2,000,000'V/ s SIT Gen. Agg. 1 AUTOMOBILE — _ LIABILITY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS ( SCHEDULED AUTOS C OLIBIFIED SINOLE WWII .(EILSA1or!e _ . BODILY INJURY (Par person) - k ----- BODILY INJURY (Pei aOCXbne S i HIRED AUTOS ! AUr08WNEO r•IfOl'E ( b7MAAOE— (Per eccIdenti 8 UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAR nr1 I I nl_TENT ONS OCCUR Ct AIMS.MAIIE EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE 8 _ S WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITYY/N ANYPROPRIE TORJPARTNERIEXECUTIVE OFFICER/LtEMBEREXCLUOEn7 (Mandatory In NH) 1y ea, UMC bO under gra OCSCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below N/A I f•EIt 101H. ,STATUTE_ __.I ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.t. DISEASE • EA EMPLOYEE E.L DISEASE • POLICY LIMIT 3 $ $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/ YEHICLEs (ACORD 101, Addition) Remark, Schedu., may be attached 11 more space le r.R.lred) The_Ciiyafse ecula, Successor Agency t0 the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the Temecula Commuint Services District, their officers, officials, employees nd volunteers are named Additional Insured General Liability Wo&1 ( City of Temecula Attn: Finance DepartmentACCORDANCE 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 1 \\O jM \� 1 V J SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 73/ a'4-• ACORD 25 (2014/01) 1988.2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Pursuant to the Agreement effective February 13, 2018, between the Temecula Valley Alano Club (Nonprofit) and the City of Temecula (City) the Nonprofit hereby make the following declarations: INSURANCE 7.a.2) The Nonprofit owns no Automobiles. INSURANCE 7.a.3) and 7.b,3) The Nonprofit has no employees. TEMECULA VALLEY ALANO CLUB (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: DougTaber, President Tina McPhe: Secretary NONPROFIT Temecula Valley Alano Club Doug Taber 27470 Commerce Center Dr. C Temecula, CA 92590 lenvlerra@Ilve.com PM Initials: Date: Commercial Automobile Liability Waiver Form City of Temecula Contractor (Consultant, etc.). Temecula Valley Alano Club Automobile Liability Requirements: • Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. • Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: One million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Waiver Request Staff confirms that the Vendor is unable to obtain a non -owned auto endorsement to their General Liability Policy. Therefore an Automobile Liability waiver is being requested for the following reason(s): Initial Vendor does not use an automobile in connection with their work. The Vendor's vehicle is not primarily used for commercial purposes. Therefore, although the Vendor has Automobile Liability coverage, the Vendor does not have Commercial Automobile Liability coverage Prepared By: Department Director: Risk Management: Pta lfric -t vto 0), lie r 1%2�r:v v:\tcsd\insurance - automobile liability waiver - commercial.docx Date o<la/,fi Date Date Item No. 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer February 13, 2018 Approve Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, Rancho California Road, Project Number PW17-26 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Avlin Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer — CIP Nino Abad, Associate Civil Engineer — CIP That the City Council approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, Rancho California Road (Old Town Front Street to the Western City Limits), Project Number PW 17-26. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. At the August 16-17, 2017 meeting, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved the Annual Reporting Guidelines for The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The City of Temecula is set to receive an estimated amount of $616,222 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 for Local Streets and Roads from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funded by SB 1. In order to utilize SB 1 funds, the CTC required that a list of projects be submitted before October 16, 2017. Section IV of the Annual Reporting Guidelines for The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, Project List Submittal, indicates that the list of project must be included in the adopted CIP Budget. In addition, the list of projects must include a description of each proposed project, the specific street name, the project termini, the proposed schedule for completion, and the estimated useful life for each proposed project. On June 13, 2017, the City Council adopted the FY 18-22 Capital Improvement Budget (CIP) that included the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide project. In order to meet the CTC requirements and comply with corresponding deadlines for SB1 funding, the City Council adopted a resolution amending the FY 18-22 CIP Budget at the September 26, 2017 Council Meeting. The budget amendment revised the Pavement Management Program — Citywide project to include the required list of streets for SB1 RMRA funding. The budget amendment included the segment of Rancho California Road from Old Town Front Street to the Western City Limits and designated the $616,222 of RMRA funding to the project for FY17-18 for the repaving of this road segment along with Gas Tax for the balance of the project budget. This project will rehabilitate the full width of Rancho California Road from the westerly edge of the bridge deck at Murrieta Creek to the westerly City Limit (approximately 1.1 miles). The existing asphalt pavement will be removed and replaced with a new 6 -inch thick asphalt section, surface drainage facilities will be repaired, pedestrian ramps will be reconstructed to meet current standards, utility facilities will be reset, vehicle detector loops will be replaced, and all striping and pavement markings will be restored. Specifications are complete and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the Director of Public Works' office. The Engineer's estimate of construction cost is $1,270,000 and estimate of construction duration is 70 working days (approximately 3.5 months). FISCAL IMPACT: The Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide is identified in the City's amended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2018-2022 with Gas Tax and RMRA funding specifically identified for this segment of Rancho California Road. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. FY18-22 CIP Budget Sheets as amended September 26, 2017 2. Project Location Map Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Circulation Project Street and Limits" Margarita Road - PW 12-11 (Rancho California Road to Temecula Parkway) Residential Slurry Seal - PW 17-03 Anticipated Year of Construction/ Useful Life Funding Source (Years) Appropriation Funding Source Appropriation $1,148,944 $3,176,384 $4,325,328 General Fund Measure A $2,300,000 Measure S $6,625,328 > Rancho California Road 2017-18 (Old Town Front/Jefferson to Western City Limits) 20 $1,200,000 Gas Tax > Winchester Road $616,222 RMRA(2) (Nicolas Road to Eastern City Limits) 20 $2,323,589 Measure A > Ynez Road $4,139,811 (Winchester Road to Date Street) 20 > Equity Drive and County Center Drive Loop (Equity from Ynez to County Center and County Center from Ynez to Equity) 20 > Meadowview Loop (Via Norte/ Del Rey) 20 > Rancho Way (Business Park Drive to Diaz Road) 20 > Business Park Drive Loop (Diaz Road to Rancho California Road/Ridge Park Drive) 20 2018-19 $1,848,557 RMRA $1,181,855 Measure A $3,030,412 > Rancho Vista Road 2019-20 (Paseo Goleta to Butterfield Stage Road) 20 $1,910,985 RMRA > Pauba Road $1,205,227 Measure A (Margarita Road to Via Rami) 20 $3,116,212 > Commerce Center Drive/Rider Way 2020-21 (Commerce Center Drive, including Rider Way from Enterprise Circle West to Via Montezuma) 20 $1,949,205 RMRA > Enterprise Circle West $1,228,862 Measure A (Winchester Road to Commerce Center Drive) 20 $3,178,067 > Rio Nedo Road 2021-22 (Diaz Road to Via Industria) 20 $1,988,189 RMRA > Avenida Alvarado $1,252,744 Measure A (Diaz Road to Via Industria) 20 $3,240,933 (1) For Fiscal Year 2017/18 and beyond, the list of streets are subject to change based on the updated Pavement Management Program (2) Gas Tax - Senate Bill one (SB 1) Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 78 Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2018-22 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CITYWIDE Circulation Project Project Description: This project includes the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of major streets as recommended in the Pavement Management System. Benefit / Core Value: This project improves pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. In addition, this project satisfies the City's Core Value of Transportation Mobility and Connectivity. Project Status: A priority list of rehabilitation projects is used to determine the allocation of available funding. Installations are completed on an ongoing basis. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.165.655 Project Cost: Prior Years FYE 2017 2017-18 Actual Carryover Adopted Expenditures Budget Appropriation 2018-19 Protected 2019-20 Projected Level: 1 2020-21 Projected 2021-22 Projected and Future Years Total Project Cost Administration $ 2,138,060 $ 160,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 3,798,060 Construction $ 13,683,479 $ 5,299,817 $ 3,589,811 $ 2,480,412 $ 2,566,212 $ 2,628,067 $ 2,690,933 $ 32,938,731 Construction $ 12,115,159 $3,176,384 $ 2,323,589 $1,181,855 $ 1.205,227 $ 1,228,862 $1,252,744 $ 22,483,820 Engineering $ 201,180 $ 503,579 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,954,759 Design $ 636,110 $ 661.932 $ 4.139.811 $ 3,030.412 $ 3.116.212 $ 3.178,067 $ 3.240,933 $ 1.298,042 Totals $ 16,658,829 $6.625.328 $ 4,139,811 $3,030,412 $3,116,212 $3,178,067 $3,240,933 $ 39.989,592 Source of Funds: Prior Years Actual Expenditures FYE 2017 2017-18 Carryover Adopted 2018-19 Budget Appropriation Projected 2019-20 2020-21 Projected Projected 2021-22 Projected Total Project Cost General Fund Gas Tax $ 4,543,670 $ 1,148,944 $ 1,200,000 $ 5.692.614 $ 1,200,000 RMRA111 $ 616,222 $1,848,557 $1,910,985 $1,949,205 $1,988,189 $ 8,313,158 Measure A $ 12,115,159 $3,176,384 $ 2,323,589 $1,181,855 $ 1.205,227 $ 1,228,862 $1,252,744 $ 22,483,820 Measure S S 2,300,000 $ 2,300.000 Total Funding: $ 16.658.829 $ 6,625,328 $ 4.139.811 $ 3,030.412 $ 3.116.212 $ 3.178,067 $ 3.240,933 $ 39.989.592 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Gas Tax - Senate Bdl one (SB 1 Fiscal Years 2018-22 Capital Improvement Program 79 Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2018 Springfest Events PREPARED BY: Steve Charette, Associate Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the following proposed action by the City Manager: Temporarily close certain streets for the following 2018 Springfest Events: ROD RUN OLD TOWN TEMECULA BLUES FESTIVAL TASTE OF TEMECULA REALITY RALLY BACKGROUND: Four special events scheduled for March, April and May 2018 necessitate the physical closure of all or portions of certain streets within the Old Town area. The closures are necessary to facilitate the events and protect participants and viewers. The Four events and the associated street closures are as follows: 1) TEMECULA ROD RUN — March 2nd and 3rd The annual Spring Rod Run will be held March 2nd and 3rd in Old Town Temecula. Street closures are scheduled as follows: Old Town Front Street from South Moreno Road to Second Street 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Friday, March 2' and 4:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 3rd Main Street Old Town Front Street to Mercedes Street 8:00 a.m. on Friday, March 2nd to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 3rd Sixth, Fifth, Fourth, and Third Streets from Mercedes Street to Murrieta Creek 4:00 p.m. on Friday, March 2"d to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 3rd The street closure location for the Temecula Rod Run event is shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Show car parking will be at designated parking lots and along both sides of Old Town Front Street, also as shown on Exhibit "A." Northbound and southbound traffic will detoured around the event via Mercedes Street. The entire length of Mercedes Street will be open for the duration of the event starting Friday, March 2nd at 4:00 p.m. The Old Town Parking Garage will be open with ample free parking available to the public. Access to the parking garage during the Rod Run from the north will be via Moreno Road to Mercedes Street, and from the south via Old Town Front Street to Second Street to Mercedes Street. 2) OLD TOWN TEMECULA BLUES FESTIVAL — April 20th, 21st and 22nd The Old Town Temecula Blues Festival event will be held April 20th 21St and 22nd in the Town Square. Street closures are scheduled as follows: Main Street from the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Front Street at Rosa's Cantina to Mercedes Street 8:00 a.m. on Friday, April 20th to 8:00 a.m. on Sunday, April 22nd Mercedes Street between Fourth Street and Third Street 8:00 a.m. on Friday, April 20th to 8:00 a.m. on Sunday, April 22nd The street closure location for the Temecula Blues Festival event is shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 3) TASTE OF TEMECULA — April 2e through April 29th The annual Taste of Temecula event will be held April 26th through April 29th in the Town Square. Street closures are scheduled as follows: Main Street from the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Front Street at Rosa's Cantina to Mercedes Street 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 26th to 8:00 a.m. on Sunday, April 29th Mercedes Street between Fourth Street and Third Street 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 26th to 8:00 a.m. on Sunday, April 29th The street closure location for the Taste of Temecula event is shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. 4) REALITY RALLY — May Stn The annual Reality Rally event will be held May 5th at the Town Square. Street closures are scheduled as follows: Main Street from the easterly driveway edge of 28636 Old Town Front Street at Rosa's Cantina to Mercedes Street 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 5th Mercedes Street between Fourth Street and Third Street 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 5th The street closure location for the Reality Rally event is shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Street closures are allowed by the California Vehicle Code upon approval by the local governing body for certain conditions. Under Vehicle Code Section 21101, "Regulation of Highways," local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution for, among other instances, "temporary closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes, when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing." Chapter 12.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, Parades and Special Events, provides standards and procedures for special events on public streets, highways, sidewalks, or public right of way and authorizes the City Council or City Manager to temporarily close streets, or portions of streets, for these events. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs of police services, as well as services provided by the City Public Works Maintenance Division (for providing, placing and retrieving of necessary warning and advisory devices), are appropriately budgeted within the City's operating budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A — Temecula Rod Run Site Plan 2. Exhibit B — Springfest Street Closures 2018 TEMECULA ROD RUN Site Plan March 2, 2018 (4:00 PM — 8:30 PM) March 3, 2018 (4:30 AM — 5:00 PM) Merchant Parking Lots End of L-12 30 Lot L-14 26 End of L-1 55 Lot L-16 13 Public Parking Structure 480 Handicap Parking: Sixth Street First Street Mercedes Street Open to Public Civic Center Parking Structure Open to Public Additional motorcycle parking at 1-13 Friday evening (until 6:00 PM) Third Street closure will move up to Kid's World parking area to allow for child pickup Trash Bins Portable Toikls (ADA Ace. ble) r— Road Closure Ip__y_, Public Parking Parceu Nu Event Headquarters f Incident Command Post (ICP) Ir, i Show Car Parking I/A Handicap Parking II- Private Lot (for Stampede Employees) reit.t I ServICe by Appoinlmenl Only (Customer Parking) Mardian( Parking I Motorcycle Parking 0 95 190 380 570 760 T:-- —� Feet Emergency Response Area at Fire Station 12 Old Town r ... -,...,s.,,, J. C.y M la,..ue p.a 1bwstint n.em�. awn,. I, a,. Mwm l. .a b r. .w.nc.,;wru.en.r. www.+ nod he IsampulM0.11101 M.nn....A4.eq M Wm. CMAY The CO, S*Mt.. mo r. wort., ,-W .. spn. rrw b n. Wonsan sr, ....w.N m s..6 IT .p Cr. ..dv..w.r+..w.e H...n..... fosselm erase., mums Nral •• 10.0.04 . rn. I....-. to ....to. me.. apPorgArwa r N.vry 11, 20r0 a ut SIXTH ST 1 -- Incident Ccimniand Pura Mol Icyc i Puking l il O o L.0 (_ I!7 I 1 Z FIFTH ST I- ,H� Viw,01 Ir1rs • Ifatnilcep Parkin .1 MAIN $T it Conten Structure r Handicaptin ihi \on Street/ / EXHIBIT 'A' SPRINGFEST STREET CLOSURES - 2018 (MAIN STREET AND MERCEDES STREET) * TEMECULA BLUES FESTIVAL - APRIL 20 - 22 * TASTE OF TEMECULA - APRIL 26 - 29 *REALITYRALLY - MAYS LEGEND STREET CLOSURE BARRICADE EXHIBIT 'B' TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT CONSENT Item No. 10 ACTION MINUTES January 23, 2018 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING The Temecula Community Services District meeting convened at 7:29 PM CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, Stewart (absent), Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 6 Approve the Action Minutes of January 9, 2018 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Edwards, Second by Rahn; and electronic vote reflected approval by Edwards, Naggar, Rahn, and Comerchero, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of January 9, 2018. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 13, 2018, at 5:30 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] CSD Action Minutes 012318 1 Item No. 11 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: General Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Director of Community Services DATE: February, 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with BAS Security, Inc. for Additional Security Services for City Events, Programs, and Facility Rentals PREPARED BY: Mylene Waterman, Senior Administrative Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with BAS Security, Inc. in the amount of $18,000, for additional security services for City Events, Programs, and Facility Rentals. BACKGROUND: On May 22, 2017, an annual agreement was established in the amount of $30,000 for security services for City events, programs and facility rentals. These services include the daily patrolling of Community Services facilities. In 2017, staff identified an increased need for security services and protection of facilities as a result of increased transient and criminal activity. Utilization of a private security was discussed with and supported by the Police Department as a cost-effective means of ensuring a safe and enjoyable environment at Community Services facilities, programs, and events. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds will be requested as part of the mid -year budget request. ATTACHMENTS: First Amendment FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND BAS SECURITY, INC. SECURITY SERVICES FOR CITY EVENTS, PROGRAMS AND FACILITY RENTALS THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of February 13, 2018 by and between the Temecula Community Services District, a community services district (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and BAS Security, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. This Amendment is made with the respect to the following facts and purposes. a. On May 22, 2017, the City and Consultant entered into that certain Agreement entitled "Agreement for Security Services for City Events, Programs and Facility Rentals," in the amount of Thirty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($30,000.00). b. The parties now desire to increase the payment in the amount of Eighteen Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($18,000.00), and to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 2. Section 4 of the Agreement entitled "PAYMENT" at paragraph "a" is hereby amended to read as follows: The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and schedules and terms set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. The FIRST Amendment amount shall not exceed Eighteen Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($18,000.00) for additional security services for a total Agreement amount of Forty Eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($48,000.00). 3. Exhibit "B" to the Agreement is hereby amended by adding thereto the items set forth on Attachment "A" to this Amendment, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 4. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 12/28/2017 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES BAS SECURITY, INC. DISTRICT (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By: By: Jeff Comerchero, TCSD President ATTEST: By: By: Rand/ Johl, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Brian Silverman, President Peter M. Thorson, General CONSULTANT Counsel BAS Security, Inc. Attn: Brian Silverman 27996 Whittington Road Menifee, CA 92594 (760) 297-0227 Bas.silvermanOvahoo.com 2 12/28/2017 ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule All costs shall be based on actual services approved and provided. In no event shall the cost of services exceed $48,000 for the total term of this agreement unless additional payment is approved pursuant to Section 4 of this agreement. The not to exceed amount fisted herein is an estimated expenditure and this agreement does not guarantee Consultant this amount in purchased services. City Patrol Rates: (rate negotiable based on requested services) Regular $24.20 hourly Holiday $30.30 On Site Security Rates: Hourly $17.90 Overtime $23.90 Holiday $23.90 Holidays Recognized holidays are as follows: New Year's Eve New Year's Day Independence Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve Christmas Day 3 12/28/2017 2976457 State of California Secretary of State te�r; w• ^`r 'kV" ARf 1, DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of the State of California, hereby certify: That the attached transcript of 3 page(s) has been compared with the record on file in this office, of which it purports to be a copy, and that it is full, true and correct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 execute this certificate and affix the Great Seal of the State of California this day of APR 0 5 2007 DEBRA BOWEN Secretary of State Sec/State Form CE -107 (REV 1/2007) AS OSPO6 99734 2916457 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION ENDORSED - FILED lathe office of the Secretary of Slate of the State of California MAR 0.5 2007 ONE: The name of this corporation is BAS Security. TWO: The purpose of the'corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of California other than the banking business, the trust company business or the practice of a profession permitted to be incorporated by the California Corporations Code. THREE: The name and address in the State of California of this corporation's initial agent for service of process is Brian Silverman 2131 Carnation Ave Hemet Ca, 92545. FOUR: This corporation is authorized to issue only one class of shares of stock, which shall be designated common stock. The total number of shares which this corporation is authorized to issue is 50 shares. FIVE: The names and addresses of the persons who are appointed to act as the initial directors of this corporation are: Name Address Brian Silverman 2131 Carnation Ave Hemet CA, 92545 Articles of Incorporation Page 1 SIX: The liability of the directors of the corporation for monetary damages shall be eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under California law. SEVEN: The corporation is authorized to indemnify the directors and officers of the corporation to the fullest extent permissible under California law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all the persons named above as the initial directors, have executed these Articles of Incorporation. Dated: /417,,A, l 02007 r trite SilverMav1 The undersigned, being all the persons named above as the initial directors, declare that they are the persons who executed the foregoing Articles of Incorporation, which instrument is their act and deed. Dated: / 'oJ'Ck jr AV'_ Articles of Incorporation Page 2 Articles of Incorporation Page 3 BASSEC1 ACORO CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 1/4.------ DATE(MMIDD/YYYY) 01/24/2018 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER 858-452-2200 Wateridge Insurance Services 10717 Sorrento Valley Rd. San Diego, CA 92121 Rina K Hamzey INSURED BAS Security 27996 Whittington Rd. Menifee, CA 92584 CONTACT Rina K Hamzey 858 452-6004 PHONE 858-452-2200 J FAX INC, No, Ext): INC, No): rhamzey@wateridge.com .HISS, INSURER(S) AFFORDING COYERAGE RAMS INSURER A . Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. 10328 A ` INSURER B • United Financial Casualty Co. 11770 A+ State Com ensation Ins.Fund INSURER C : p $ 100,000 35076 f Ire INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : VERA • • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. II T R TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXP I TR 1N.P YJVD iMMIDD/YYYY) IMMIDDlYYYYI LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY / EACH OCCURRENCE _ 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE X OCCUR y/" CS0266835002'/ 04/30/2017 04/30/201 �q; ,r.,,, MED EXP !Any one Don) $ 100,000 $ 5,000omen) _PEN'. X iPOLICY AGORErG_ATE LIMIT APPLIES s' f OTHER: PER: LOC PERSONAL & ADV INJURY 1,000,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,00 PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 $ B AUTOMOBILE _ X._ WSEJTY ANY AUTO OWNED AUTOSREDONLY AUTOS ONLY X .x-. SCHEDULED AUTOS ED AUTOS ONLY y 027338422 10/19/2017 I SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000 000 ' J`C�.OM 10/18/2010 BOOILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY ITNyJURYlper ecddenp $ ?xt,,,, o�dent AMAGE —3 S UMBRELLA UAB EXCESS LIAB OCCUR CLAIMS -MADE EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGRE $ DED RETENTION $ $ C WORKERS COMPENSATOR AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y/N QF�FICER/MEM R EXCLUDED? J (Mandatory In NH) DIf ESS, IPTION under DESCRIPTION oo OPERATIONS below N/A 915964217 05/25/2017 PER OTH- LITE ER 1,000,000 $ 05/25/2018 EL, EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE- EA EMPLOYEE $ 1x000,000 E.L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS 1 LOCATIONS 1 VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached If more space Is required) THE CITY OF TEMECULA THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT THEIR OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS ARE ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECT TO GENERAL LIABILITY & COMMERCIAL AUTO. RE: NAMED INSURED'S OPERATIONS PERFORMED UNDER WRITTEN CONTRACT. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CA 92590 CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT Item No. 12 ACTION MINUTES January 23, 2018 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING The Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency convened at 7:30 PM CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Stewart (absent), Rahn SARDA PUBLIC COMMENTS - None SARDA CONSENT CALENDAR 7 Approve the Action Minutes of January 9, 2018 - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, and Edwards, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of January 9, 2018. 8 Approve Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the Period of July 1, 2018 Through June 30, 2019 (ROPS 18-19) - Approved Staff Recommendation (4-0, Stewart absent); Motion by Comerchero, Second by Naggar; and electronic vote reflected approval by Comerchero, Naggar, Rahn, and Edwards, with Stewart absent. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. SARDA 18-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2018 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 34177 AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH SARDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT SARDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS SARDA Action Minutes 012318 1 SARDA ADJOURNMENT At 7:32 PM, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 13, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Matt Rahn, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] SARDA Action Minutes 012318 2 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No. 13 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance Jk- City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Introduce Ordinance Amending Section 10.44.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code Relating to the Use of Golf Carts on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive PREPARED BY: Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer II - Traffic RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.44.010 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE OF GOLF CARTS ON ROYAL BIRKDALE DRIVE FROM MEADOWS PARKWAY TO TEMEKU DRIVE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE: follows: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as Section 1. The text of Section 10.44.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code, but not Table 10.44.010A or Table 10.44.010B, is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.44.010 Honors Drive, Temeku Drive and Royal Birkdale Drive A. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: 1. Honors Drive from Margarita Road to Tee Drive, Temeku Drive from Tee Drive to La Serena Way and Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive, are streets within the jurisdiction of the City and, for the purposes of this section, shall be collectively referred to as the "streets." 2. The streets are located adjacent to and provides access to the Temeku Hills Golf course. Further, the streets are located between the golf course and the place where golf carts are parked or stored. The street is within one mile of the golf course. 3. The streets are within and bounded in part by a real estate development offering golf facilities. 4. The streets are designed and constructed so as to safely permit the use of regular vehicular traffic and also the driving of golf carts on the streets. B. Pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code Section 21115 the City Council hereby designates the streets as streets for the combined use of vehicles and golf carts. C. Pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code Section 21115, the following rules and regulations are hereby enacted for the use of vehicles and the use of golf carts on the street. It shall be unlawful for a vehicle or golf cart to be operated in violation of the following rules and regulations, which shall have the force of law: 1. A white line of six inches in width shall be painted on Honors Drive from Margarita Road to Tee Drive and Temeku Drive from Tee Drive to La Serena Way at a distance of fourteen (14) feet from the centerline so as to designate an area for vehicular traffic and a separate area for golf cart traffic. A white line of six inches in width shall be painted on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive at a distance of eleven (11) feet from the centerline so as to designate an area for vehicular traffic and a separate area for golf cart traffic. 2. Vehicles shall travel in the designated fourteen (14) foot travel lanes closest to the centerline on Honors Drive from Margarita Road to Tee Drive and Temeku Drive from Tee Drive to La Serena Way and shall not travel in the area designated for golf carts unless necessary for an emergency. Vehicles shall travel in the designated eleven (11) foot travel lanes closest to the centerline on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive and shall not travel in the area designated for golf carts unless necessary for an emergency. 3. Golf carts shall travel in the designated eight (8) foot lane between the white line and the edge of the roadway. Golf carts shall not travel in the vehicular lane. 4. The posted speed limit for vehicles traveling on the streets shall be twenty-five miles per hour. 5. The speed limit for golf carts traveling on the portion of the streets designated for golf carts shall be twenty-five miles per hour. 6. Golf cart crossings shall be permitted across the streets at the locations designated in Table 10.44.010A, incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 7. Golf cart crossings shall conform to the plans and the signage requirements set forth in Table 10.44.010B, incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 8. If a golf cart is operated on the streets during darkness, the golf cart shall be subject to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 24001.5 regarding equipment. Section 2. Table 10.44.010A and Table 10.44.010B are not being modified by this Ordinance and shall remain the same as originally enacted by Ordinance No. 01-09. Section 3. The designation, and the rules and regulations described in Section 1 shall become effective upon the posting of signage on the Street which gives notice of the speed limit and the rules and regulations governing operation of vehicles and golf carts. Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 5. The designation of the golf cart areas and the rules and regulations governing their use as provided in this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulation Section 15301 because the Ordinance provides for the operation, permitting, and minor alteration of existing public streets and similar facilities that involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the streets will not be widened and the only physical change will be the painting of a white line marking the area for golf cart use on the existing roadway. BACKGROUND: In August 2001, the City Council adopted an Ordinance designating the combined use of vehicles and golf carts on Honors Drive and Temeku Drive and establishing a 25 MPH prima facie speed limit on both streets between Margarita Road and La Serena Way. The Ordinance also established the use of a separate eight (8) foot wide striped lane for golf cart traffic on Honors Drive and Temeku Drive. The Ordinance was enacted to address resident's concerns about excessive speeds on Honors Drive and Temeku Drive and to enhance the safety of pedestrians and golf carts utilizing both streets. This Ordinance did not include a designation for Royal Birkdale Drive as a combined facility, at the time. The proposed amendment to the Ordinance will add Royal Birkdale Drive as a street designated for combined use by vehicles and golf carts as defined in CVC Section 21115. The amendment includes the designation of specific widths for travel lanes and golf cart lanes on Royal Birkdale Drive between Meadows Parkway and Temeku Drive. The proposed Ordinance was presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at their meeting of January 25, 2018. The Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Staff recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Section 10.44.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code relating to the use of Golf Carts on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division's, Annual Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the installation of signs and associated pavement markings. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.44.010 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE USE OF GOLF CARTS ON ROYAL BIRKDALE DRIVE FROM MEADOWS PARKWAY TO TEMEKU DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The text of Section 10.44.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code, but not Table 10.44.010A or Table 10.44.010B, is hereby amended to read as follows. 10.44.010 Honors Drive, Temeku Drive and Royal Birkdale Drive A. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: 1. Honors Drive from Margarita Road to Tee Drive, Temeku Drive from Tee Drive to La Serena Way and Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive, are streets within the jurisdiction of the City and, for the purposes of this section, shall be collectively referred to as the "streets." 2. The streets are located adjacent to and provides access to the Temeku Hills Golf course. Further, the streets are located between the golf course and the place where golf carts are parked or stored. The street is within one mile of the golf course. 3. The streets are within and bounded in part by a real estate development offering golf facilities. 4. The streets are designed and constructed so as to safely permit the use of regular vehicular traffic and also the driving of golf carts on the streets. B. Pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code Section 21115 the City Council hereby designates the streets as streets for the combined use of vehicles and golf carts. C. Pursuant to the authority of Vehicle Code Section 21115, the following rules and regulations are hereby enacted for the use of vehicles and the use of golf carts on the street. It shall be unlawful for a vehicle or golf cart to be operated in violation of the following rules and regulations, which shall have the force of law: 1. A white line of six inches in width shall be painted on Honors Drive from Margarita Road to Tee Drive and Temeku Drive from Tee Drive to La Serena Way at a distance of fourteen (14) feet from the centerline so as to designate an area for vehicular traffic and a separate area for golf cart traffic. A white line of six inches in width shall be painted on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive at a distance of eleven (11) feet from the centerline so as to designate an area for vehicular traffic and a separate area for golf cart traffic. 2. Vehicles shall travel in the designated fourteen (14) foot travel lanes closest to the centerline on Honors Drive from Margarita Road to Tee Drive and Temeku Drive from Tee Drive to La Serena Way and shall not travel in the area designated for golf carts unless necessary for an emergency. Vehicles shall travel in the designated eleven (11) foot travel lanes closest to the centerline on Royal Birkdale Drive from Meadows Parkway to Temeku Drive and shall not travel in the area designated for golf carts unless necessary for an emergency. 3. Golf carts shall travel in the designated eight (8) foot lane between the white line and the edge of the roadway. Golf carts shall not travel in the vehicular lane. 4. The posted speed limit for vehicles traveling on the streets shall be twenty-five miles per hour. 5. The speed limit for golf carts traveling on the portion of the streets designated for golf carts shall be twenty-five miles per hour. 6. Golf cart crossings shall be permitted across the streets at the locations designated in Table 10.44.010A, incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 7. Golf cart crossings shall conform to the plans and the signage requirements set forth in Table 10.44.010B, incorporated herein as though set forth in full. 8. If a golf cart is operated on the streets during darkness, the golf cart shall be subject to the provisions of Vehicle Code Section 24001.5 regarding equipment. Section 2. Table 10.44.010A and Table 10.44.010B are not being modified by this Ordinance and shall remain the same as originally enacted by Ordinance No. 01-09. Section 3. The designation, and the rules and regulations described in Section 1 shall become effective upon the posting of signage on the Street which gives notice of the speed limit and the rules and regulations governing operation of vehicles and golf carts. Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 5. The designation of the golf cart areas and the rules and regulations governing their use as provided in this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulation Section 15301 because the Ordinance provides for the operation, permitting, and minor alteration of existing public streets and similar facilities that involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the streets will not be widened and the only physical change will be the painting of a white line marking the area for golf cart use on the existing roadway. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of , Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 18- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 13th day of February, 2018, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 14 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Kevin Hawkins, Community Services Director DATE: February 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Receive Presentation and Adopt a Joint Resolution for the Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership with the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District PREPARED BY: Yvette Martinez, Community Services Supervisor I RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONTINUATION OF THE TEMECULA AREA CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP AS IT RELATES TO SUPPORT FOR AREA FOSTER YOUTH, INCLUDING EMANCIPATING FORMER FOSTER YOUTH BACKGROUND: The Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership was established by resolutions of the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District in November 2009. Concurrently, a second set of resolutions authorized the establishment of a study committee to assess the needs of Temecula's foster youth population, and to ascertain how they could be assisted to successfully emancipate. In January 2010, the Partnership appointed a chair and the task force began its work. The issue was originally raised by the California City County School Partnership studies that showed the devastating impact to local governments if these issues are not addressed collectively, community by community. The Foster Youth Task Force spanned from November 2008 through 2014. This joint resolution outlines the recommendations of the Task Force to the CCS Partnership in order to provide ongoing cooperation and support to foster youth. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS: Joint Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE CONTINUATION OF THE TEMECULA AREA CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP AS IT RELATES TO SUPPORT FOR AREA FOSTER YOUTH, INCLUDING EMANCIPATING FORMER FOSTER YOUTH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. The Foster Youth Task Force was formed by the Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership in January, 2009 to study the needs of our foster youth and to make recommendations to improve their conditions. B. The Task Force comprises representatives from civic, service, and religious organizations as the City, the School District, and the County's Department of Public Social Services. C. Members of the Task Force held regular meetings, researched the conditions of foster youth, and interviewed foster youth, foster parents, former foster youth, professionals in the field, national organizations and foundations with an interest in supporting foster youth. D. Members of the Task Force reported back to their sponsoring agencies on a regular basis. E. The City, County, and School District participated in trial programs that directly improved the lives of our foster youth F. Churches, civic organizations, and community leaders readily and generously supported the activities being tested that could serve as a model program. G. Temecula Area City County Schools (CCS) Partnership actively works to implement the recommendations of the Foster Youth Task Force as appropriate through contractual agreement with local non-profit organizations which serve foster youth and their foster parents/guardians through 1. the provision of services which assist foster youth in successful preparation to emancipate and to receive additional training and education beyond high school and into the workforce 2. the development of the structure of a CCS Partnership Foster Youth Advisory Committee to link with local non-profit organizations Boards of Directors and staff for the express purpose of developing the infrastructure and governing system that broadens and stabilizes the entire community's ability to effectively and efficiently serve this population in a manner that will give them opportunities to become productive members of society. Section 2. The City Council, as a member of the Temecula Area City County Schools (CCS) Partnership, hereby approves the recommendations of the Foster Youth Task Force (Final Report, July 2017), attached. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 13th day of February, 2018. ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ss Matt Rahn, Mayor I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 13 day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Temecula Area C;1y County Schools Parfnersh;p Murrieta Area City Coun4y Schools Par4nersh;p 5oj Fos3er Yo+h Task Force Barbara Tooker, Chair FINAL REPORT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: Members of the Temecula and Murrieta Area City County School Partnerships From: Barbara D. Tooker, Chair; Joint Foster Youth Task Force Date: July, 2017 Subject: Report and Recommendation of the Foster Youth Task Force, 2009-2016 On behalf of the Task Force Members, I would like to transmit this report to you for your acceptance and request that you take action on our recommendations. As most of you know, and as our report confirms, we have an opportunity to implement a model foster youth program that can address the service goals of the City County School Partnership as a whole, as well as separate entities. The model embraces community service organizations, businesses, religious organizations, foundations, and individuals who are eager to assist our youth. Our Task Force was fortunate to be supported by a broad base of experts across the country, to link with SDSU (San Diego State University) and CSUSM (California State University San Marcos) for research and project validation, and to make multiple presentations to a large portion of our population. The Task Force itself brought together a wide variety of talents and expertise with the willingness to dig deep for solutions to long-standing challenges within this population. Wherever we searched, we were helped. In the end, there seemed to be only one issue that we could not resolve, although we know it is "resolvable" by the right approach (fingerprinting of volunteers). We found that there are many agencies involved in helping foster youth; however, there is not a method for coordinating the activities. This causes duplication of services in some cases, overlap in others, and issues that stay unattended. We think we have found a solution. Working together and being assisted by a coordinating agency will serve our public agencies and our foster youth in a more seamless way. We can be proud of the model we implement and share with other communities. Best of all, we can envision our foster youth thriving here, graduating from our high schools, receiving their higher education and/or vocational training, and becoming productive, participating, independent members of our communities. Regards, Barbara Tooker, Chair EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership was established by resolutions of the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District in November 2009. Concurrently, a second set of resolutions authorized the establishment of a study committee to assess the needs of Temecula's foster youth population, and to ascertain how they could be assisted to successfully emancipate. See appendix: CCS Partnership. In January 2010, the Partnership appointed a chair and the task force began its work. The issue was originally raised by the California City County School Partnership studies that showed the devastating impact to local governments if not collectively addressed community by community. Not a one of us starting this work ever dreamed that we would be members of The Mother of All Task Forces, with its work spanning November 2008 through 2014. The issues of Foster Youth are complicated by the tangle of laws and official agencies tasked to deliver services. When we started, there were many misunderstandings among agencies punctuated by lack of communication, miscommunication, assumptions, jurisdictional responsibilities, lack of coordination and oversight, and lack of data (including actual numbers of foster youth as "official"). Many actions taken by well-intentioned employees and volunteers were adversely impacting our foster youth population with alarming frequency. Five conditions became crystal clear as we moved through this project: 1) there was a confusing array of officials interfacing with foster youth and their foster parents/guardians; 2) there was an overwhelming desire on the part of our communities to find meaningful ways to help; 3) there was an overwhelming frustration and confusion on the part of our communities as they sought for legal ways to include this population in their largess; 4) there was a clear need to develop our own more comprehensive definition of what emancipation should look like to both a foster youth and our community, and 5) there was a need to break down barriers and forge new pathways of effective, efficient collaboration among agencies, while capturing the energy and enthusiasm of a community willing to help. The Task Force continuously experimented with ways to bridge the gap between agencies, the community, and the foster youth/families in terms of information, assistance, and getting the right resources to the right place at the right time. The primary and secondary state and national research initially guided our activities as we searched for ways to demonstrate how to build community capacity and draw agencies closer together to support this population: 1. Educational stability 2. Placement stability 3. Presence of permanent stable adults 4. Transportation 5. Financial assistance and literacy 6. Transitional services past high school The Task Force thanks you for your decision to allow the Chair to select its members, to assign a decision-making level to represent each of your governing agencies, and to authorize that the Chair would be able to report back directly to the elected officials. It made a significant difference in our ability to sort through a tough topic, develop a program and test it, and then take action. The following activities comprise the body of work addressed by the Task Force between January 2009 and December, 2014: • Faced the reality that the official data from the county did not match the official data from the school district. Our closest estimates were about 10 youth per grade. • Learned techniques to identify "rescuing" as opposed to assisting and encouraging. • Introduced to city, county, school agencies and how they work. • Amassed the laws that impact foster youth & attempted to understand the implications. • Wrote and submitted 2 OJJDP at -risk youth three-year grants for $1 M (City of Temecula as lead agency). We were not awarded either due to the fact that our city was "too safe." • Developed and presented a 5 -hour financial literacy workshop which was the precursor to the United Way financial literacy program countywide called SHADES (now administered by Assistance League of Temecula Valley). See appendix: Financial Literacy. • Initiated agreement with Temecula Rotary Clubs to include foster youth in RYLA (Rotary Youth Leadership Assembly). • Initiated program for freshmen foster youth to take ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery). • Developed partnership with CSU San Marcos for campus visitations and assistance in admissions. Field trip for 9 -12th graders. Transportation provided by Boys & Girls Club, DPSS, and City of Temecula. See appendix: College Field Trips. • Began a community awareness education program, presenting programs to most of the area service organizations, the Interagency Council, the Ministerial Alliance, and The California School Board Association Annual Education Conference (Mary Ann Edwards, Dr. Carol Leighty, & Barbara Tooker). • "Year of the Intern," September 2010 -May 2011, courtesy of San Diego State University: Shari Crall 2nd year MSW Internship. See appendix: Ms. Crall's Body of Work. • Developed and administered four Foster Youth Leadership Retreats (two-day events designed to build community capacity and provide youth with local positive role models) for Juniors and Seniors. See appendix: Leadership Retreats. • Addressed the difficult issue of fingerprinting for Task Force members and volunteers. Unsuccessful in "attaching" to any of our government agencies. • Received designations of foster youth liaison counselors at each high school to expedite communication with students and process paperwork. • Sponsored two joint school county FY Back to School Family Nights. • Arranged with H.E.A.R.T. to hold an account for the Task Force called the GAP Fund (needs not addressed, initial funding from Assistance League of Temecula Valley and Temecula Valley Woman's Club). • Examined A -G requirements (UC system entry) & how they impact foster youth. • Analyzed transcripts for placement in life skills, vocational, academic, or on-the- job training programs. • Laid groundwork for community capacity building (Rotary, Kiwanis, Assistance League of Temecula Valley, Temecula Valley Woman's Club, Hope Lutheran Church, Temecula Valley Center for Spiritual Living, American Association of University Women, Better World Foundation). • Raised awareness of H.E.A.R.T. to include foster youth in their funding of Pennypickle Children's Museum interns. • Examined the effectiveness (for our kids only) of the County's life skills education program under contract to RCC. Asked for improved conditions and parity. • Selected clubs on school campuses that could help make permanent adult connections as well as provide opportunities for community service (Key Club, Assisteen, Interact, Habitat for Humanity, Boys & Girls Club). • Analyzed the effectiveness of the school/county shared database, FYSIS. Reported discrepancies. FYSYS discontinued; an alternate program is now in place • Established connections with Riverside County Office of Education for Educational Rights Holders (volunteers from American Association of University Women). • Established connections with CASA for collaborative research regarding transportation issues, driver licenses, and possible grants. • Developed a Prom Prep program that Assistance League of Temecula Valley could administer to fit young women with gowns & jewelry, young men with tuxedos. • Developed an After-Christmas Shopping Spree with the assistance of Hope Lutheran Church and Temecula Valley Center for Spiritual Living. • Presented a TEDx Temecula talk on community capacity for Foster Youth (Barbara Tooker, 2012), available on YouTube. See appendix: TEDx Temecula Foster Youth presentation by Barbara Tooker. • Assisted many youth with financial assistance for housing, phones, clothes, and drivers' education (Hope Lutheran Church provided scholarships for drivers' education, along with Ace Driving School). • Encouraged the formation of the City of Murrieta, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors CCS Partnership through joint resolution and combined efforts of the Foster Youth Task Force, 2011. See appendix: CCS Partnership. • Received the volunteer services of Debbie Searle, retired TVUSD counselor, to make the family and foster youth contacts during the 2012-13 school year (following the work of Ms. Crall during her internship). • Participated in countywide discussions regarding the SIP for DPSS. • Riverside County Sheriff's Department provided bicycles to select youth needing rides to school. • Wallick & Volk donated $4,000 to support various projects of the Task Force. • The City of Temecula Community Services Department funded the development and design of the "Communications Portal" for this report. They also designed and produced the certificates for the Leadership Retreats. • City of Temecula included foster youth in their summer work programs and their young entrepreneur workshops, as well as in their job fairs and college fairs. • Riverside County DPSS compiled workbooks to help our youth access resources available to them. • Temecula Valley Unified School District provided an office for our intern and our volunteers. • Arranged and sponsored a field trip for 9-12th graders to tour MSJC. TVUSD provided bussing. • Developed the Mayors' Foster Youth Winter Fun Fest with the support of the Temecula Valley Center for Spiritual Living. • Temecula Middle School Home Economics teacher Linda Silvasy's students made cloth bags for all foster youth attending the Leadership Retreat. The following year they made a quilt that was raffled by TV Woman's Club, raising $250. • "Year of the Intern" for MVUSD. Shannon Tobias, CSU Fullerton, was assigned as an intern to the Special Education Department to identify the FY population of the District and to make recommendations as to how to best assist them. See Appendix: MVUSD Foster Program Design 2016. • Staff from all CCS partners willingly and generously provided time, ideas, and resources to support the task force, thus assuring the quality of the activities and the veracity of the recommendations to follow. • Task force began to develop recommendations, based upon its research and trial programs, for the CCS Partnership that focus on coordination of services, collaboration among agencies, and sustainable community capacity to support of foster youth as they grow to become educated productive citizens. Awareness of the need for a permanent structure through the powers of the CCS Partnership came into sharp focus. Developed The Foster Youth Communications Portal concept for community capacity building. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE TO THE CCS PARTNERSHIP Adopt a joint agency mission statement: The City County Schools Partnerships of Temecula and Murrieta encourage broad general support for our foster youth by embracing multiple pathways to ensure their successful transition into adulthood and productive citizenship. Further, we will seek ways to proactively include them in community life, while protecting them from harm. We recognize that the journey to emancipation begins early in their childhood and continues throughout their education and life skills training to the time when they become employed at above minimum wage and are able to independently sustain themselves. Contract with Rancho Damacitas Children and Family Services (RDCFS) to serve as the face of foster youth support by providing coordinating services to 1) sustain community capacity, 2) coordinate community service, 3) track foster youth as they leave high school, 4) provide and coordinate transitional resources as they are placed in higher education, vocational training, or in jobs that include additional training opportunities, 5) develop a digital pathway (The Foster Youth Portal) to connect foster youth and community resources, 6) place foster youth in jobs that support them above the poverty level and in communities willing to assist them in their pathway to success, and 7) serve as the model for developing partnerships and community capacity in other communities. Support RDCFS with an initial financial contribution of $5,000 per city, school district, and county and $12,000 (or balance thereof) from the Foster Youth Task Force Gap Fund. Provide ongoing cooperation and support of RDCFS with appropriate resources as outlined in MOU. MOU to be developed by representatives of all agencies and include 7 points listed above. Support RDCFS in their general fundraising efforts to continue their model of excellence and the CCS Partnership vision of developing model citizens. FOSTER YOUTH commumenTI0nS PORTfiI SPONSORED BY THE TEMECULA & MURIETA AREA CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIPS FOSTER YOUTH JOINT TASK FORCE What: A mechanism for the cities of Temecula and Murrieta, the County of Riverside, the school districts in Temecula and Murrieta, foster youth agencies, foster youth parents, service organizations, businesses, and individuals to maximize public and private resources that are necessary to help current and newly emancipating foster youth succeed. The Portal: serves as a safe, secure way for our foster youth community of 14-25 year- olds to access the help they need to become productive citizens. Why: The laws are clear about the need to protect this vulnerable population; and our public agencies and direct service providers are diligent about shielding specific information, including identities, of our youth. This has posed a challenge for groups & individuals in our communities to volunteer their time, talent, and resources to our children. The Portal easily solves this dilemma, How does The Portal Work? Each participating youth creates a public representation of themselves, called an avatar. Through the coordination and supervision of the Foster Youth Joint Task Force, their individual or group needs are posted electronically. Any member of our community can access the portal and see a description of the needs and wishes of our youth through their avatar. OSTER YOUTH and RECT SERUICE PROVIDERS Investments then can be made by simply ••• • choosing what the donation might be; i.e., • • • money. mentoring, transportation, • • • • • • employment, food, clothes, shelter, • • • • • • • education, etc. • • • • • • •• • • • • • xi • RELIGIOUS • ORGANIZATIONS Foster Youth Communications Portal SELF - IDENTIFYING FOSTER YOUTH BUSINESSES INDIVIDUALS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS muniTY RESOURCES Avatars communicating needs and wishes. Our Foster Youth can succeed with our help and our care. We make the difference. BACKGROUND In June 2008, the California City County School Partnership convened a conference of representative elected officials from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California School Boards Association to hear the results of a two-year study on emancipating foster youth and what would be needed collaboratively at the local level to address these issues. Few understood the gravity of the situation nor the in-depth level of assistance most of these youth would need in order to become successfully independent, especially given the grim statistics of the 83,000 foster youth in California, with 4,000 emancipating each year ("Barriers Facing Foster Care Youth: National and Local Statistics About Emancipating Foster Youth" www. hevsf.orq): Homelessness: 65% need immediate housing; 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless within 18 months. Employment: 50% experience high rates of unemployment within 5 years; 60% earn at or below $6,000/year. Education: 70% want to go to college, 10% attend, 1% graduate; 75% are behind grade level; 40% complete high school. Mental & Physical Health: nearly 50% suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay, and malnutrition; 50-60% have moderate mental health problems; and they as a group experience PTSD at a rate 2 x's the level of U.S. war veterans. Incarceration: 5-10 times more likely to become involved in the juvenile justice system; 25% will be incarcerated within the first 2 years of emancipation. The CCS Partnership issued a Call to Action to develop local integrated approaches to address youth permanency and preparation for adulthood. The Call was to ensure the following minimal assets (California CCS Partnership report): 1. Connections to adults who care about them and will remain connected to them throughout their lives; 2. Knowledge of and access to support systems, including housing, employment support, educational options, and health care; 3. A high school diploma; 4. Work experience; 5. A safe, stable place to live; 6. An opportunity to continue their education; 7. Financial resources. With this in mind, the City of Temecula, the Temecula Valley Unified School District, and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors passed joint resolutions in November 2008, to 1) form the Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership (for the purpose of entering into collaborative endeavors), and 2) form the Foster Youth Task Force (to study the challenges of our local foster youth, especially facing those who are emancipating, and to make recommendations for coordinated actions to address their issues). See Appendix: CCS Partnership. In January 2009, the Partnership appointed Barbara Tooker, former 17 -year governing board member of Temecula Valley Unified School District, to chair the Foster Youth Task Force. Each entity was represented by one decision-making level administrator, and Ms. Tooker appointed the balance. The original Task Force included Tamra Middlecamp Irwin, City of Temecula; Susan Mahoney, County of Riverside DPSS; Guerrmo Henry, County of Riverside DPSS; Mike Runyan, Temecula Valley Unified School District Student Services Director; Rhonda Guaderrama, community at large and non-profit representative; Bruce Cripe, community at - large and non-profit representative; Michael Hubbard, Temecula Valley Unified School District Student Services Assistant Director; Tom Julian, community at - large and group home administrator; Diane Garrett, community at -large and philanthropist; and Shari Crall, community at -large, former CASA administrator, and MSW student at SDSU. Subsequently, Ms. Mahoney and Mr. Henry were succeeded by Dean Wilson, County of Riverside; Ms. Guaderrama resigned to accept a job outside the area, Mr. Runyan retired, and Ms. Irwin left her position. All have been kept in the loop and have been in contact outside the committee structure by mutual agreement of all involved. We began with what we knew, suspected we knew, and what we could research. See appendix: Guiding Documents. Our original guiding documents were: 1. CCS Partnership, CA, Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, a Community Action Guide, 2007 2. CA Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, "Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home," 2008 3. CA Office of the Legislative Analyst, "Education of Foster Youth in CA," May 29, 2009 4. Public Policy Institute of California, "Foster Care in California; Achievements and Challenges," Caroline Danielson and Helen Lee, principal authors, 2010. 5. CA Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, "Building a Brighter Future for California's Children," 2010 These documents were quickly followed by an abundance of evidence -based as well as anecdotal stories of failures and successes across the country, California, and Riverside County. The task force soon discovered that they would be more effective if they confined their focus to foster youth ages 14 and up. Two reasons supported this decision: Younger children are more likely to be placed into adoption or returned to their family of origin, and they are less expensive to maintain within the "system." Teens, conversely, are more difficult to stabilize and to place in more permanent environments; they are of immediate concern as they get closer to "emancipation," and, they interface with a multitude of agencies who deal with academic, behavioral, judicial, and social challenges. Thus, the Task Force embarked upon a long-term study of a complicated issue, developing test programs and activities in conjunction with community service organizations to test efficacy of approach. Many organizations, at school and in the community, and several businesses made generous donations of time, people, and money. The City of Murrieta, the Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and the Riverside County Supervisors approved joint resolutions in 2011, and their representatives, Dean Lesicko (MVUSD) and Tammy Wilson (Oak Grove) joined the Task Force. Thousands of hours of volunteer time were spent in research, program development, and direct service to foster youth in order to develop a set of recommendations for the CCS Partnerships to develop 1) community capacity, and 2) a model program that could be used by other communities to support foster youth. got married Dec, 23, dl 1 miss her alircady though 1 am glad we got reunited just in time w spend some time together. 1 don't think I made the hest of impressions though. I am understandably not the same person as 1 was when 1 was ten. The `you knew. I haven't been on my meds for years and am strting to wonder if I should try to get back on them. 1 wish I were a better person sometimes and other times couldn't be happier just being who l am. No one tells you just how complicated life can get do they? Well how could anyone? 1 might not be the best prepared to take on the world by myself but I don't think 1 have to anymore. 1 get to visit my younger brothers now and w ill hopefully he getting my drivers license soon. I still work at thin. Training accadctny though it's mostly volunteer i work full time and am on call twenty four five sometimes seven. I don't enjoy it as much as 1 could thou ,It it's much better than what l had going for me several months ago. Hcy. 1 have not bourn anywhere with this college thing. The workers in county are either lazy or just don't give a I have spent at least 30 dollars on payphones with absolutely no results other than more names and more phone numbers. I was told by f� s to call her today between Sand 9 California time. I did 5 times but only got a machine and was once connected to some random number instead of her extension. The number is but you have to asked to be connected to -v.. Another name and number the first one 1 got trying to fart de dcncy letter is ellala y at '. And yet another I'orilligis. I. I-Iow hard can it be for someone whocs job is to help to actually help someone. A care about right now is trying 0 get housing and getting into college and 1 thought that that was soposcd to be granted to me for being a ward of the court for 11 years. 1 may be an adult now but lam still that same v was put through all of that., don't know what to do. I don't know who to talk to. And college as slim a possibility as it seems right now is the closest I've come to seeing it as a possibility. I really do want to go to college. I loved school growing up. It was about the onl: escape I truly had and would like nothing more than to go back. I don't know the routine enc have very few resources of my own. 1 don't have a license and figure taking the bus back to 1 o California would be pointless without a destination. Shelters arc worse than group homes m filled with dnig addicts crazies the hopeless and criminals or the over righteous. I'm sick of c •c being on and off of the streets for no good reason and looked down upon sby society as a fai when it feels Like I have hcen failed by society. hall scents so unjust and unescapable. Sur, there are allways opportunities somewhere and just need to be found and achcived. But in b g realized how far do those opportunities ever extend and which one do 1 choose? What would v £ fest and how would it be achieved? Where do I stmt? f don't want to feel hopeless. 1 really d o q o want a finure- 1 can't sec myself living this way forever. .1 T. et ct 1 am in_ right now at visiting my sister411111111.1 stay here forever. Though I can't So 1 it would probably not do much good right now to go to the ,o lege though 1 really do appriciate the offer. If you could mail me coppics of the court documents they might help Inc later on. Though 1 ani cuorious about there as well and would like to sec them even if they would turn out to be of no substance to a college. I was finnaily told today at 6:00 p.m. , 4:00 p.m. in California, when 1 called again. that the only person that can assist me in getting the dependency letter or letter of emancipation, though 1 was never emancipated,1 hope they get it right, would not be back in until August 31st and that 1 can expect the letter in the mail sometime duffing the firs eek of September. 1 guess 111 just have to wait till then and hope for the best. Thank you again g -x tV } .r 0 > 3RI j .g g 00 E >. E E 0 } 'o 0 ( N )s 0 0 � L 4 } o Vj0 0 H 0 rjs IDE ou; c ti c 0 :0 E i h '0 ea VI h THE PROJECT Year 1: November, 2008 — December, 2009 The concept to address foster youth as a collaborative had its roots in the study and report of the California City County School Partnership, "Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth," 2008. The CCS partnership is comprised of members of the CA State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, and the California School Boards Association. They establish a common vision and then strategize common approaches. In May, 2008, the CCS Partnership convened in San Francisco to raise the awareness on the mutual foster youth challenges facing local governments. Barbara Tooker attended that meeting, as a representative of Board of Directors for the California School Boards Association. Between May and November, the ideas for the formation of a local version of the CCS Partnership began to develop. The three local government agencies had already established informal partnerships and it was a natural progression to formalize the concept. It also made sense for the Partnership to authorize a study committee to address our local foster youth issues as they related to successful emancipation. Thus, in November, 2008, the three entities passed resolutions to accomplish these objectives. See appendix: CCS Partnership. In January 2009, Barbara Tooker was appointed as chair. It was agreed that each agency would appoint one decision-making level representative and Ms. Tooker would appoint the balance. This decision proved critical over the course of the study, as it expedited necessary actions in a safe and effective manner (see Background for committee members). Thus began a journey into a fascinating and convoluted world, where "simple" solutions did not exist, where a foster youth's story was not the story of foster youth, where misunderstandings and misperceptions thrived, and where ignorance was common. The first steps of the Task Force were to recognize these conditions, especially among themselves, and build a clear roadmap to greater understanding of this multi -faceted challenge. We began 6 months of research, interviewing experts, and listing priorities; and we were guided by (among others) the evidence -based work of The Casey Foundation, TVUSD, DPSS, Rancho Damacitas, and state and nationwide projects. Each agency was alerted to possible grant opportunities, and when a federal RFP through Juvenile Justice became available, we applied. Dr. Carol Leighty, Tamra Irwin, and Barbara Tooker wrote two $500,000 three-year proposals with the City being the lead agency. It was a healthy process because it helped clarify our vision, goals, objectives, and activities. We did not receive either grant because our area was "too safe." In November, we presented a workshop on financial literacy called "Millionaire Mindset" after developing it with Task Force Members Bruce Cripe, Tom Julian, and Barbara Tooker. Bruce provided a valuable link to United Way, who eventually improved the curriculum in 2011 and conducted workshops throughout Riverside County. Year 2: 2010 Participating in countywide meetings to develop FYSIS (a foster youth database linking school districts, trying to tie down accurate foster youth demographics through the shared efforts of the school districts, the Riverside County Office of Education, and the Department of Public Social Services), fingerprinting for the Task Force and volunteers on any projects being developed, building community awareness, developing a leadership retreat for juniors and seniors, preparing and presenting a joint TVUSD/DPSS "Foster Youth Family Night," arranging for a field trip to CSUSM, researching possible mentoring programs, and soliciting an internship program became the focus. These activities began to address the research -based issues as identified in the state -level CCS Partnership's Call to Action. FYSIS was a multi-year project that frustrated schools and social workers alike. Linking the districts' various student enrollment data to an existing social services database was never achieved. Manually comparing the data between agencies demonstrated inaccuracies in each system. FYSIS was abandoned and a new system is currently in the pilot stages through RCOE. Fingerprinting became a continuing issue for the Task Force. None of our government agencies had a way to accommodate this need due to constraining parameters of the Department of Justice. This became a discussion and research point throughout the study. Almost every service organization in Temecula and many religious organizations requested programs about foster youth, and many of these groups became active supporters. An example is illustrated in the attached documentation between the Task Force and Temecula Valley Assistance League. See appendix: ALTV. Without this type of support, the Task Force would not have been able to undertake its curriculum and program test models. DPSS Social Workers and School Counselors developed a "Foster Youth Family Night," as a way of linking parents to the educational needs of their youth and providing information on county services to both parents and youth. ALTV provided each youth with a back pack and Office Depot filled each back pack with school supplies. This was our first year to test our theory about the need of a leadership program for Juniors and Seniors. Acknowledging the research regarding the need to provide access to stable and permanent adults, mentors, jobs, scholarships, career training, and community service opportunities, we developed a two-day, overnight retreat that utilized our community leaders to emphasize how these youth could connect with an entire community of resources. See appendix: Leadership Retreats. The agreement with San Diego State University and the Task Force (TVUSD as lead agency) to place Shari Crall with the Task Force for an M.S.W. Internship propelled the work of the Task Force, provided us with expert guidance, and challenged our assumptions about foster youth. This has been viewed by both SDSU and the Task Force as mutually beneficial and the most impactful opportunity we had to build community capacity and a model program. We all are indebted to both SDSU, represented by Field Instructor Ken Nakamura, and Ms. Crall for the professional approach we were able to take on the entire project. Our first Logic Model was developed for the submission of the OJJDP Grant Application. Ms. Crall vastly refined and realistically reshaped it into a visual reminder of the "real work load" necessary to support our youth. See appendix: Logic Model, 2011. Fund and creme Temecula arca 1.I1F+ housing �1. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL APPENDIX 4 — CLIENT OUTCOME LOGIC MODEL FOR TRANSITIONS TEMECULA Assumptions: better emancipation outcomes for TAY can be achieved through community collaboration and support educational stability (cads to academic achievement placement stability leads to emotional health Activities/Services Transcript review. counselor contact. youth %Merman.% and case management supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness. homelessness incarceration. and substance abuse for TAY access to transportation promotes opportunity financial aid is necessary for post -high school training presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. 'loan all branches on impact of educational instability and college ratdiness f i Designate FY high school coumek,rs Context to RC Il. tutoring Foster family recruitment Secure uad maintain vital rccxxds Involvement in ream Decision Making tTtmd) meetings Information and r.fenals to caregivers Tours of college campuses arid connection to guardian scholar programs Community College assessment and is -mediation begun during seam I(S year V Connect to TI IN �Jf housing Priority placement summer jobs program Sheltered job and internship program Comecl to emancipation services. bus passes Driver's license program ► CAP FUND Follow up on FAFSA. Choice. Cal Grants. scholarships amt community groups Fund CASA. CASA Stan txogsam Train all stakdabldcxs in A1312 provisions Intermediate Outcomes College readiness Increased emotional health Increased employment Increased access to health and welfare services increased mental health access ti Increased access to safe and secure housing -41 Family Finding 41. Increased access to transportation Increased access to financial aid 3-5 relationships with permanent, stable adults Results Increased graduation from post RS programs Reduction in homelessness, incarceration, and unemployment for TAY TAY who can achieve, compete, and thrive alongside their peers, contributing to the communities in which they reside Year 3: 2011 The internship program with SDSU continued through May, and the needs of this population became much more evident through our research. TVUSD provided office space and IT support for Ms. Crall. Highlights of this year included addressing mentorship programs, health issues, transportation to work and/or after school activities, administering both ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) and AnseII- Casey Life Skills Assessment. See appendix: Demographics. As tools to address a clearer path to emancipation, building community capacity, expanding the work of the task force to Murrieta, transitional housing, improving communications among agencies, contacting foster families to refer them direct assistance to meet their needs, another field trip to CSUSM was provided, a workshop was presented to school counselors and social workers on transitions to college. The 2nd Leadership Retreat was held. The City of Murrieta, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and the County of Riverside formed, by resolution, their CCS Partnership and a team joined the Temecula Foster Youth Task Force. See appendix: CCS Partnership. Although the importance of permanent, stable adults in the lives of our youth was a research -based finding and a need to be addressed, it became clear that our volunteer task force could not manage the depth of an ongoing mentorship program. It was unwise to start a program of this magnitude with no assurances of being able to sustain it. Therefore, we looked for other ways to support this "notion" of permanency. The retreats added this element, and we encouraged our youth to join clubs on campus (Key Club, Habitat for Humanity, Assisteens, Interact, faith -based) that were tied to adult service organizations. When medical issues arose that were seemingly beyond the scope of what already existed, the Task Force reached out quietly and effectively to members of our own medical community for assistance. Transportation loomed as a major challenge. We were good at finding part-time jobs, but employers needed workers who could reliably get to work. Many jobs went unfilled for this reason, or our youth were hired and then fired when they couldn't always get to work as agreed upon. We used the "prudent parent" permission forms to transport youth when we could, but it was inconsistent and frustrating for everyone. A proposal for discussion between the city of Temecula and Thessalonika Family Services for transitional housing was met with enthusiasm; however, it soon became evident that the amount of work and the lead times were beyond the scope of the Task Force. The realization set in that many of our efforts would not be able to continue without permanent staff support. Year 4: 2013 We were fortunate to acquire the volunteer services of Ms. Debbie Searl, long-time TVUSD counselor and newly retired, to continue the work begun during Ms. Crall's internship. Ms. Searl coordinated the field trip to CSUSM as well as one to MSJC. She also worked tirelessly to make sure our youth had their college applications in on time and their scholarship applications submitted. She also assisted on the leadership retreat. Members of Hope Lutheran Church and the Center for Spiritual Living Temecula Valley sponsored an after Christmas shopping spree with gift cards for each youth and drawings for additional money. The Task Force members began to work on building recommendations for what needed to happen next. Foster youth became a targeted focus of the state's budgeting process and funds were transferred into a new method of allocating resources as defined by the Local Control Funding Formula. The Task Force chair joined the LCAP (Local Control Action Planning) committee at TVUSD and MVUSD to ensure inclusion of foster youth needs into the plan. The California School Boards Association released its handbook for governing board members. See appendix: Local Control Funding Formula. It was at this point that the Foster Youth Communications Portal concept began to develop. It was a logical outgrowth of seeing the frustration of individuals and organizations in our communities who were attempting to reach out to help foster youth, but were running into the protective boundaries of laws and the agencies tasked with enforcing the laws. Examples are numerous, and include such things as giving a ride, providing gift cards, holding a workshop, invitations to a party or a community service event, giving scholarships, taking pictures at events, etc. There has been no true face of our foster youth, no contact, no expression of needs and matching services that the ordinary population can find. It is true, if one were to know about such great foster homes or service providers, portions of this population could be reached indirectly. However, unless one figures out that DPSS offices in Riverside have staff directly involved with this group, the effort seems futile and people move on to easier -to -access service projects. The visual of the Portal shows how students, through a protected and approved "avatar" can express their needs, and how a community can search to find out how to match their interests — all without unduly burdening the government agencies involved. Year 5: January — December, 2014 Due to major career changes with most task force members and serious medical issues impacting the committee chair, neither the field trips to CSUSM and MSJC took place. Two major events for our youth and 2 discussion meetings occurred during the year: however, did occur. For the youth directly: 1) the leadership retreat was assigned to the staff at Rancho Damacitas (Mary Robilotta) and went on without a hitch; and 2) the first Mayors' Foster Youth Winter Fun Fest was held at the Temecula Civic Center at the end of December. This event was co-sponsored by the Center for Spiritual Living Temecula Valley. Mayor Edwards was a popular selfie inclusion and the group received a personal tour of the civic center and council chambers (sitting in council chairs was a big hit). Extensive discussions were held with E.A.T. Market * Eatery, a Temecula - based slow foods establishment, and also with Smooth Transition, Inc., an at -risk - centered educational organization headquartered in Riverside who provides educational and apprenticeship opportunities in vocational occupations. If continued by our contractor, as outlined in the recommendations, we would have two more viable local training and employment opportunities. Years 6 & 7: inactive except for Chair making presentations to community organizations and assisting individual FY in meeting emergency needs. Funds held by Temecula Education Foundation (approximately $12,000). CONCLUSION Over the course of 5 years, we discovered many positive and several negative situations regarding the condition of our foster youth. The negatives were very frustrating, and we were able to address most of them at the staff level of our public agencies. It was never the intent of the Task Force to publicize these challenges with specific detail. Our goal was to point them out and work toward solutions. This was a successful approach and brought about an unprecedented level of cooperation, exchanges of information, and active participation in system improvements. Today, our county social services works closely with our school districts to discuss educational achievements and behavioral plans, living situations, goals, life skills, needs, community service opportunities, and issues of mutual concern. Our city governments play an integral role in the overall framework of community -building. Their active and ongoing planning to provide rich social, cultural, and multi -generational activities is a testament to how it builds and maintains a climate of success for all. Master Planning has been a staple, even as the cities were planning their own births in 1991-2. Our CCS Partnership members understand clearly the risks to youth when a long-term consistent and coordinated approach is not well-defined and operational: • High risk are those youth without a sense of permanency or place; with no plans for the future that are realistic, attainable, or supported by friends, family, or community; or with mental and/or physical health issues or special needs that go unaddressed. • Medium risk have been those youth in group homes with many levels of staff to complete tasks, who are served through additional resources of the community • Low risk are youth offered permanency, who are connected to stable adults and mentors in a community; who find work and job shadowing and internships; who are connected to additional education or training post high school; who have access to resources such as transportation, housing, health care; who are given community service opportunities; and who can reach back into our community for assistance because they know they will be "heard and helped." It is not difficult to see that the dismal statistics cited in the Background section of our report can be dramatically decreased through the proper management of and attention to this population. Communities do not want to be the targets of the unemployed, the homeless, the gangs, the human trafficking, the unwanted pregnancies, the hospital emergencies, the high school dropouts. We can't undo what has happened to them to get them into the foster care system; however, we can give them hope, opportunity, and support to help them make the right choices in moving their lives forward toward a pathway of dreams realized. We can help them provide for themselves as responsible adults. We can wrap our arms around them as securely as we do our own children, knowing that they can then stand more than a fighting chance to successfully integrate into our communities, raise their families, work, be productive, and give back to others. me 411° BETTERWORLD' TRUST January 25, 2017 Ms. Barbara D. Tooker Chair Joint Foster Youth Task Force Dear Barbara, It is with sincere admiration and praise that we honor the yeoman work of you and your colleagues on the Joint Foster Youth Task Force. Your selfless hard work and persistence inspires us to offer you this letter of support and endorsement. For many years throughout the United States, the crisis as it relates to the status of foster youth, has been well-documented. It therefore should be of deep concern to community leaders who have the responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of the citizens living in their communities... including foster youth...to act with responsive discernment. BetterWorld Trust heartily endorses the five recommendations put forward by the Joint Foster Youth Task Force to the City County School Partnership. We are especially supportive of the recommendation to develop and support the ongoing operation of the Foster Youth Communications Portal which will serve as a critical link for foster youth in our region to the various resources available to them by existing foster youth direct service providers and by existing and new community resources that provide services to foster youth. Our team at BetterWorld Trust have read the report of the Joint Foster Youth Task Force and commend the effort of the task force to "dig deep for solutions to long-standing challenges within this population." The plight of foster youth is of concern to both the chair and vice chair of BetterWorld Trust and as such will encourage our continued efforts to support programs aimed at assisting this most vulnerable population. Our sincere hope is that the various members of the CCSP will both jointly and independently work to provide tangible support for the recommendations put forward in the report of the Joint Foster Youth Task Force. aul B. Thompson Executive Director BetterWorld Trust Two BetterWorld Circle Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590 June 9, 2015 TO: Barb Tooker, Chair, CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force CC: Temecula Area City County Schools Partnership CC: Murrieta Area City County Schools Partnership RE: Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services - Letter of Interest / MOU Dear Mrs. Tooker and CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force, On behalf of Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address the needs of current and former foster youth in Riverside County, CA and surrounding areas. Your commitment to serving this vulnerable population, and your work with the CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force, is a testament to your unyielding dedication to making a difference in our community. As you know, Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services has been serving abused and neglected children and developing foster youth programs since 1983. Our former Executive Director, Tom Julian, has served as a member of the CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force. Through the CCS Partnership's work, it became apparent that a lead agency should be identified that would partner with local governments and community organizations to assist all foster youth in the area. The lead agency would engage stakeholders to design and implement uniquely tailored programs focused on providing access to information, resources and services for youth exiting foster care, including the years from post -high school/post-emancipation, through career/vocational training, employment placement and higher education. Rancho Damacitas Children & Family Services would be interested in developing a Memorandum of Understanding with public agencies and community stakeholders for ongoing foster youth support, to include an advisory committee to work with myself, our staff and our Rancho Damacitas Board of Directors, to become the public face of area foster youth. Tracking mechanisms, documentation and accountability measures will be established in the development of a comprehensive foster youth community portal. We look forward to close collaboration among partnering agencies and other community stakeholders. We're convinced we can dramatically change CA's dismal statistics and raise the levels of long- term success for our children and young adults. I look forward to any questions you may have. Best regards, Cal Winslow, CEO 951.302.2317 ext. 220 calA4kidsfirst.org 1 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 08-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO SUPPORT EMANCIPATING FOSTER YOUTH THROUGH THE TEMECULA VALLEY CITY COUNTY SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 2007 Conditions of Children Task Force has called all California City Councils, County Board of Supervisors and School Boards to explore their role in addressing the needs of emancipating foster youth; and WHEREAS, California has the largest number of children and youth in foster care of any state in the nation with approximately 80,000 children in care; and WHEREAS, each year over 4,000 of those youth emancipate from the system as they turn 18 years old, an increase of 38% since 1998; and WHEREAS, foster youth enter the child welfare system through no fault of their own and become wards of the state; and WHEREAS, we hold a shared responsibility to support safe passage of these youth into adulthood; and WHEREAS, the task force found unacceptable outcomes for emancipating youth in the areas of education, housing, employment, mental and physical health, and within the criminal justice system; and WHEREAS, only 40% of foster youth in California complete high school; and WHEREAS, 70% of youth who emancipate from foster care report wanting to go to college, while only 10% attend and Tess than 1% graduate from college; and WHEREAS, 65% of emancipating foster youth need immediate housing when they exit the system; and WHEREAS, within 18 months of emancipation 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless; and WHEREAS, 60% of former foster youth emancipate into destitution, earning incomes at or below $6,000 per year; and WHEREAS, 33% of all foster care alumni have no form of health insurance; and WHEREAS, nearly 50% of foster children suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay and malnutrition; and R:/Resos 2008/Resos 08-99 1 1 1 1 WHEREAS, former foster youth experience Post Traumatic Stress disorder at a rate two times the level of US war veterans; and WHEREAS, currently 25% of foster youth will be in prison within two years of emancipation; and WHEREAS, these unacceptable and costly outcomes must be averted; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District has established the Temecula Valley City County Schools Partnership to collectively address these types of issues; and BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Temecula, that the City of Temecula will join the County of Riverside and the Temecula Valley Unified School District in forming an ad- hoc task force to report on current conditions of emancipating foster youth from our City and develop recommendations for our role in better assisting these children safely toward productive adulthood. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 18th day of November, 2008. ATTEST: R:/Resos 20081Resos 08.99 2 Michael S. Nagger, Mayor 1 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ss I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 08-99 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Washington, Naggar NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roberts ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Susan RJResos 2008/Resos 08-99 3 Jones, MMC City Clerk Murrieta Valley Unified School District RESOLUTION NO. 10/11-36 "SUPPORT EMANCIPATING FOSTER YOUTH" WHEREAS, the Partnership on the Conditions of Children Task Force has called all California City Councils, County Boards of Supervisors and School Boards to explore their role in addressing the needs of emancipating foster youth; and WHEREAS, California has the largest number of children and youth in foster care of any state in the nation with approximately 83,000 (2007) children in care; and WHEREAS, each year over 4,000 of those youth emancipate from the system as they turn 18 years old; and WHEREAS, foster youth enter the child welfare system through no fault of their own and become wards of the state; and WHEREAS, we hold a shared responsibility to support safe passage of these youth into adulthood; and WHEREAS, the task force found unacceptable outcomes for emancipating youth in the areas of education, housing, employment, mental and physical health, and within the criminal justice system; and WHEREAS, only 40% (2007) of foster youth in California complete high school; and WHEREAS, 70% of youth who emancipate from foster care report wanting to go to college, while only 10% attend and less than 1% graduate from college; and WHEREAS, 65% of emancipating foster youth need immediate housing when they exit the system; and WHEREAS, within 18 months of emancipation 40-50% (2007) of former foster youth become homeless; and WHEREAS, 60% (2007) of former foster youth emancipate into destitution, eaming incomes at or below $6,000 per year; and WHEREAS, 33% of all foster care alumni have no form of health insurance; and WHEREAS, nearly 50% (2007) of foster children suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay and malnutrition; and Murrieta Valley Unified School District RESOLUTION NO. 10/11-36 "SUPPORT EMANCIPATING FOSTER YOUTH" (Page 2 of 2) WHEREAS, former foster youth experience Post Traumatic Stress disorder at 2 times the level of U.S. ware veterans; and WHEREAS, currently 25% (2007) of foster youth will be in prison within two years of emancipation; and WHEREAS, these unacceptable and costly outcomes must be averted; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: by the Murrieta Valley Unified School District that the District will join the Temecula Valley Unified School District, the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside's ad-hoc task force to provide support for emancipating foster youth and develop recommendations for our role in better assisting these, our children, safely toward productive adulthood. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Murrieta Valley Unified School District Board of Education this 23`d day of June, 2011. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT. 0 Kris Thomasian, Clerk of the Board Murrieta Valley Unified School District Temecula Valley Unified School District RESOLUTION NO. 2008-09/09 "SUPPORT EMANCIPATING FOSTER YOUTH " WHEREAS, the Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 2007 Conditions of Children Task Force has called all California City Councils, County Boards of Supervisors and School Boards to explore their role in addressing the needs of emancipating foster youth; and WHEREAS, California has the largest number of children and youth in foster care of any state in the nation with approximately 83,000 children in care; and WHEREAS, each year over 4,000 of those youth emancipate from the system as they turn 18 years old, an increase of 38% since 1998; and WHEREAS, foster youth enter the child welfare system through no fault of their own and become wards of the state; and WHEREAS, we hold a shared responsibility to support safe passage of these youth into adulthood; and WHEREAS, the task force found unacceptable outcomes for emancipating youth in the areas of education, housing, employment, mental and physical health, and within the criminal justice system; WHEREAS, only 40% of foster youth in California complete high school; and WHEREAS, 70% of youth who emancipate from foster care report wanting to go to college, while only 10% attend and less than 1% graduate from college; and WHEREAS, 65% of emancipating foster youth need immediate housing when they exit the system; and WHEREAS, within 18 months of emancipation 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless; and WHEREAS, 60% of former foster youth emancipate into destitution, earning incomes at or below $6,000 per year; and WHEREAS, 33% of all foster care alumni have no form of health insurance; and WHEREAS, nearly 50% of foster children suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay and malnutrition; and WHEREAS, former foster youth experience Post Traumatic Stress disorder at a 2 times the level of U.S. war veterans; and WHEREAS, currently 25% of foster youth will be in prison within two years of emancipation; and WHEREAS, these unacceptable and costly outcomes must be averted; Temecula Valley Unified School District RESOLUTION NO. 2008-09109 "SUPPORT EMANCIPATING FOSTER YOUTH" THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: by the Temecula Valley Unified School District that the District will join with the City of Temecula and the County of Riverside in forming an ad-hoc task force to report on current conditions of emancipating foster youth and develop recommendations for our role in better assisting these, our children, safely toward productive adulthood. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Education this 18th day of November, 2008. AYES: 5 - NOES: D ABSTAIN: D ABSENT: 0 Clerk of the Board of Education for the Temecula Valley Unified School District California State University SAN MARCOS ACC ScholarsServices nem Scholars Services Califomia State University San Marcos 333 5. Twin Oaks Valley Road San Marcos, CA 92396-0001 Tel: 760.750.4861 ACE@csusm.edu www.csusm.edu/ace September 11, 2013 To whom it may concern; I am the director of the ACE Scholars Services program at California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). Our mission is to turn around the lives of foster youth through higher education. Currently CSUSM serves more former foster youth per capita than any University in the United States. This fall we have 56 students enrolled and for the Last four years we have maintained an 88% retention rate. Consequently 20 of our students have graduated, half of which you've gone on to post graduate work since we started in 2007. We have achieved this success in part due to our partnerships with the community. We have memorandums of understanding with Riverside and San Diego counties that guarantee emancipating foster youth (who meet the minimum CSU standards) admission to CSUSM. We work with community groups like the Task Force in Temecula (Temecula City, Temecula Valley Unified school District and Riverside County) to increase the pipeline of foster youth from finishing high school to obtaining a higher education. As a subgroup, foster youth have the lowest educational attainment rate and efforts like the Task Force greatly increase the chances of this population to go to college. Although it is important for young people to visit college campuses to help instill the dream of going to college it is imperative that they received early support and encouragement so they can be prepared for college. This support and guidance must start as early as the eighth and ninth grades. The partnership between CSUSM (ACE Scholars Services) and the Task Force has proved fruitful and increasing that educational pipeline for foster youth. We wholeheartedly support their continuation and expansion. Res • ectfully, m Mic elson, MSW Director ACE Scholars Services The California State University Bakersfield 1 Channel Islands 1 Chico 1 Dominguez -Hills 1 EastBay 1 Fresno 1 Fullerton 1 Humboldt 1 Long Beach 1 LosMgeles 1 Maritime Academy Monterey Bay 1 Northridge 1 Pomona 1 Sacramento 1 San Bernardino 1 San Diego 1 SanFrancisco 1 SanJose 1 San Luis Obispo 1 San Marcos 1 Sonoma 1 Stanistaus School of Social Work/ Title IV•E MSWBASW Program (:dlegeal/lath and Hunrrn Services San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego CA 92182.4119 Tel: 619. 594 .6888 Fax: 619 594.5991 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY November 25, 2014 TO: Ms. Barbara Tooker, Chair Temecula City, County, School Partnership, Foster Youth Task Force FROM: Ken K. Nakamura, MSW LCSW Project Coordinator, Title IV -E Program San Diego State University, School of Social Work RE: SDSU MSW Title IV -E Program - Temecula CCS Task Force Collaboration Master of Social Work Internship I am pleased to provide a summary of the San Diego State University, School of Social Work, MSW Title IV -E Program's participation and collaboration with the Temecula City, County, and School Partnership, Foster Youth Task Force from Spring 2010 to May 2011. The Title IV -E Child Welfare Stipend Program at San Diego State University is one of 23 Master of Social Work (MSW) programs in California for workforce development of professional social workers in child welfare services. The SDSU Title IV -E Program is committed to developing new social workers with a commitment for improving the safety, permanence and well being of children and families in our local communities. The prevention and intervention opportunities to improve the outcome of all children and youth in foster care are of particular interest in order for young people to have caring and supportive relationships, guidance for successful education from kindergarten to college, and encouragement for a meaningful place in their communities to work and live. In the Spring of 2010, I was approached initially by Shari Crall, a MSW student in the Title IV -E program to explore the possibility of an internship in Temecula. Like all professional social work education programs, internships require an institutional agreement between the university and an organization, supervision for the student provided by a master level social work professional with experience, and appropriate accommodations for a workspace and a complex series of responsibilities and activities to ensure learning is consistent with professional social work education and preparation. Unfortunately, the Temecula City, County, School Partnership Task Force did not have a structure to supervise a MSW student. However, the purpose and the opportunity to work across multiple jurisdictions of city and county for the benefit of foster youth in order to improve their successful transition to adulthood with better outcomes in education were intriguing. After meeting with Barbara Tooker, Chair of the task force and Dr. Carol Leighty, then -Superintendent of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, and Shari Crall, the desire to commit to supporting the ambitious effort in Temecula was heightened. Page 1 of 3 THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY • BAKERSFIELD • CHANNEL ISLANDS • CHILO • LA]MINGUEZ 11111 s • EAST BAY • FRESNO • ELBA ERTON • HUMBOLDT • LONG BEACH • LOS ANGELES MARITIME ACADEMY • MONTEREY BAY • NORTHRIDGE • POMONA • SACRAMENTO • SAN BERNARDINO • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SAN l ISE • SAN LUIS OBISPO • SAN MARCOS • SONOMA • STANISLAUS Dr. Carol Leighty agreed to ensure that the agreement between SDSU and TVUSD would be signed and in place by Fall 2010 when Ms. Shari Grail's MSW program would require her to start her internship. She also committed office space and administrative support in order to have a place for Shari in the district. I agreed to provide the MSW supervision of Shari with Barbara Tooker responsible for the day-to-day guidance. Shari agreed to take a more comprehensive role in her internship to combine both administrative and direct work with foster youth in order to benefit the task force and meet her educational program's requirements. With a few meetings touring the summer to plan and work out the details, an internship was confirmed for the academic year 2010-11. The nature of long term foster care is often taxing, emotionally, psychologically and socially challenging for young people. As they near transitioning into young adulthood, the multiple foster homes, changing schools, loss of friends and without the stability of a healthy home life, young people in the child welfare foster care system, often struggle to complete their high school education, let alone seek admission to college. The Temecula CCS, Foster Youth Task Force did not have the resources to fund a position to provide some of the work needed by the task force to better plan and coordinate efforts, the idea of an internship had emerged. In 2010, it was apparent it Temecula that thie Flivcrs,de County DPSS airs the school district also did not have an accurate sense of the nurnber of foster youth, let alone their progress toward graduation and ability to enter college. With a positive energy among the partners to explore improving outcomes for transitional -age foster youth, a wonderful opportunity to better understand, improve and support foster youth in Temecula offered Shari, a very significant role in her internship. Due to Shari's motivation, dedication and genuine investment as a longstanding Temecula resident, she committed enormous time and energy to develop her internship role in multiple ways. She met directly with foster parents and high school age foster youth to understand their specific situations, worked with the school district to track their educational progress and reviewed their educational records, worked with both the county child welfare services and community agencies serving foster youth to assess how to improve delivery of services, foster home placement issues, and developing a comprehensive strategic plan. Much to her credit, the task force began to hone in their investment to improve outcomes for foster youth in Temecula. Many wonderful efforts and changes occurred during the year among all of the partners involved in the task force and increased a community effort and process to transform caring into substantive changes for improving the conditions that support foster youth. More importantly, the task force engaged multiple public and private entities to work together, acknowledge the level of need for improving the services for foster youth, and begin a conscious and intentional process to improve the lives of foster youth in the Temecula area. For a master level social work internship, Shari's participation and involvement in the CCS Foster Youth Task Force was a considerable investment of effort and an amazingly rich context for learning and enhancing her many skills. For SDSU School of Social Work, Title IV -E Program, this opportunity provided an avenue to support community efforts to improve the welfare of foster youth. The internship offered meaningful ways to enrich the preparation of a professionai social work graduate student directiy but more importantly, supported the opportunity for a university program to be a partner in the desired goals of Temecula area. Though Temecula and Riverside County are usually outside of SDSU's geographic area for internships for social work, I met with Riverside County DPSS administration and coordinated approval for placement with Loma Linda University, another school with a MSW program. Page 2 of 3 Fortunately, since the 2010-11 internship year, The Fostering Connections Act, AB 12 and subsequent legislation in California took affect in January 2012 and now, all county child welfare services are responsible to provide support and services up to the age of 21, a significant change to support the transition into adulthood of countless foster youth. Much of the CCS Foster Youth Task Force effort was addressing the concerns even prior to the implementation of California's efforts to address the needs of transitional age foster youth and offered the potential to be a model of community involvement. It seems very possible today, given the legislative support of California's new efforts for foster youth, Temecula CCS Partnership could elevate the range of involvement and support within the city limits to ensure an established commitment to improve all foster youth and success in education. The SDSU School of Social Work, Title IV -E Program greatly appreciated the opportunity to partner and support the CCS Partnership Foster Youth Task Force and the benefits for the community, the student, and the university were unique and a great example of working together to improve the welfare of our children, youth and families and to establish a viable process to coordinate, improve and respond positively to enhancing community life. Page 3 of 3 Millionaire Mindset: You, Too, Can Be One! A Boot Camp for Temecula's Foster Youth and Foster Parents When: November 7, 2009 (Saturday) Time: 8:30-3:30 Where: CRC in Temecula, on Rancho Vista Rd at the Sports Park Agenda 8:30-8:45 Registration and Materials Handout 8:45-10:00 Opening Session: Ms. Maryann Edwards, Mayor of Temecula Keynote: Mr. Jeff Mitzchang: Developing a Millionaire Mindset 10:00-10:15 Break 10:15-11:30 Money 101: Accounts and How to Manage Them 11:30-12:00 Millionaire's Lunch: Provided by Sbarro 12:00-12:15 Break and Back to Work 12:15:-1:15 Keynote: Janeal LeBaron: Teen TLC 1:15-2:30 Credit 101: Getting It, Keeping It, Using It, Guarding It 2:30-2:45 Break 2:45-3:30 Community Connections Keynote: Mr. Tim Ritter: The Magic of a Million $$ Education Sponsored by The City of Temecula, The County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District, through its CCS Partnership and the Foster Youth Committee. In concert with United Way of the Inland Valley, Sbarro's, and California Bank of Commerce (Temecula Branch). This is a great opportunity to learn about money and to work on preparation for emancipation. Parents and students working together can make a big difference in getting a head start toward independent living. Pre -register by calling: Questions? call 951-694-8910 or email btooker(a)AccentOnParenting.com sAapeA pUelul allija AeM pal!ufl ASM paTtun FREE MOW/ SKILLS WORKSHOPS In only 4 classes learn how to avoid identity theft, credit problems, banking basics, affordable or free trade school and college choices, how to buy a car, planning for your paycheck, budgeting — play the Game of Life! Interactive and special guests not to be missed. Limo rides to special classes! PIZZA, DOOR PRIZES, AND FUN SURPRISES! —41111111.15"— - „ • 4 '••'• ••' ' ' , , • CLASSES LIMITED TO 15 ATTENDEES' EmalL: calgazi@uwiv.org or call 951.697.4702; ManDaTonY ORIORTRTIOR: FeBRURRY 21ST, 2013 FROM 4-5pm wHeRe: THe EmPoweRmenT CenTeR (Permission and liability waivers will be sent: with confirmation and need to be signed by guardian) ,; • A., WHen: !"... March 7th, March 14th, March 215t, April 4th WHene: ie Firpoweamerrt Clew — 27262 Via Industria, Temecula, CA 92590 Thursdays - 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm .TrtansporvTaTton: Pick up and return from convenient points in region available. Each course is 4 different classes - (must attend all classes at one location) -,- 110PMPT.11i Cid (•";ridcy• Springboard Nonprofit Consumer Credit Monogernent. Inc The Gas Company United Way of the Inland Valli, United Way THIS PROGRBM 15 mane POSSIBLe BY a GRanT Fnom THe FINRA InvesTon EDUCaTIOR FOURDaTIOR THROUGH a panTnensmp WITH URITBD WaY WORLDWID Why NOT Cal State San Marcos? Well, why not? Give me one good reason. I'm waiting. Can't think of a reason can you? Here are the top ten reasons why foster youth should go to CSUSM: 10. Personal assistance with entrance forms and Financial Aid 9. Smart campus — state of the art technology 8. Smaller campus — under io,000 — personalized attention 7. Career assistance before and after graduation 6. Personal development training 5. Priority registration 4. Social activities — Zoo clubs and organizations 3. Year-round apartment style on campus housing (with a pool) 2. Guaranteed admission* And the number 1 reason... ncc Scholars Services The ACE Scholars Services program supports ambitious former foster youth exiting the system or transferring from a community college. ACE provides the much needed guidance and financial assistance to ensure the students success at Cal State University San Marcos. * California State University San Marcos has agreements with San Diego and Riverside Counties and San Pasqual Academy that assure foster youth are automatically admitted if the student meets the minimum CSU admission standards. "ACE Scholars has become the icing on the CSUSM cake!" - Emily Gauden California State University SAN MARCOS /.SCC Scholars Services For information about ACE Scholars (760) 750-4869 ACE@csusm.edu www.csusm.edu/ace MT SAN JACINTO COLLEGE OUTREACH DEPARTMENT MSIC- Mt SAN JACINTO COLLEGE MVC TOUR AGENDA April 17, 2014 Room 805 and 814 - MVC 9:30 am Liza Alvia — Room 805 Arrival * Welcome * Video 10:00 am - 10:45 am College Mentors and MSJC Students Student Panel 10:45 am - 11:35 am College Mentors Tour — Stop at DSPS, Financial Aid, Multimedia (900), Child Dev./Lobby only, Nursing Skills Lab and Ceramics 11:40 am — 12:45 am College Mentors - Room 814 Application Workshop (seniors) and Website workshop (juniors and Mrs. Searl) 12:45 am — 1:15 pm See Mrs. Searl for lunch ticket Lunch and SGA BBQ Running head: TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 1 Temecula's City, County, School Partnership Task Force on Foster Youth Needs Assessment Shari Crall San Diego State University SW 791 Dr. Mathieson November 29, 2010 TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 2 Abstract The City of Temecula, in conjunction with Riverside County and Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) formed a CCS Partnership in 2008, creating a task force on foster youth, to look at ending duplication, better utilizing existing resources, and coordinating activities to better serve their foster youth (TVUSD, October 2008). A needs assessment was completed using a convergent, multi -method approach. It was found the TVUSD high school foster youth population (N=45, sample N=28) underutilizes services and is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement, with many years in care, numerous placements, and insufficient class requirements for college readiness. Keywords: CCS Partnerships, foster youth, placement stability, educational stability, college readiness TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 3 Temecula's City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth Needs Assessment A needs assessment was completed to better understand high school aged foster youth in Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) using a convergent, multi -method approach. Following a literature review, community assessment included focus groups with key stakeholders, one-on-one interviews with current foster youth, caregivers, and institutional providers, data from a questionnaire administered to TVUSD foster youth, data from the Foster Youth Student Information System (Riverside County Office of Education, 2010), high school transcripts and data for Riverside County from the Child Welfare Dynamic Report (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010). It was found the TVUSD high school foster youth (FY) population (N=45, sample N=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement, with many years in care, numerous placements, and insufficient class requirements for college readiness. In addition, just over a third (N=17) of the high school population live at a large group home in Temecula, weighting the sample toward youth with challenging issues and many placements in their background. In the senior class (N=8), one had a GPA and required classes in place for 4 -year university, contingent on success this year. One is pursuing a cosmetology course. Four were community college ready, two with GPA success but not a -g courses in place. One had concerning mental health issues and we lost one, mid -semester, who had been in a stable placement for the past few years because of a family emergency in his foster family. Two of the youth had Individual Education Plans (IEP). The questionnaires revealed a desire for more assistance in key areas identified in the TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 4 literature: housing, employment, education, financial assistance, transportation, and stable permanent connections. Many did not know their social worker's name or were not receiving substantive help with emancipation tasks, i.e. college applications, financial aid applications, or meaningful information about options in the coming year. Findings in each of the focus areas have been discussed in the City, County, School Partnership (CCS) Task Force on Foster Youth, with recommendations to align emancipation efforts, utilizing existing resources and coordinating activities of the three governing bodies and their agencies. A focus on college readiness is recommended, employing guidelines from the October 2010 Community College Report, "Something's Got to Give" (EdSource, October 2010). The other major recommendation is to employ specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely (SMART) goals, with attendant role assignment and task completion deadlines, to better utilize and end duplication between case -carrying social workers, independent living program social workers and emancipation coaches. Strengths were the multi -method, convergent approach utilizing access to both primary and secondary data, access to stakeholders on all levels, and review of the process by an independent researcher, Dr. Tony Garcia, from the San Diego State University School of Social Work. Limitations to the assessment were inherent in the small sample size, even noting it was more than representative of this particular population. A more robust program design might be employed in the future, administering pre and post-test questionnaires in a comparable community, not receiving a CCS intervention. The lack of a mental health component in the assessment is another limitation. The current questionnaire, created by the task force, will be replaced by the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment, Version 1- TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 5 Youth in Care (Casey Family Programs, 2010), a similar, but standardized review, providing norms for comparison. Finally, it is suggested more qualitative work with foster youth m high school be completed, to supplement the secondary data. This assessment served to draw a clear picture of the status of high school youth in foster care within the TVUSD school district, for use and analysis by the Foster Youth Task Force charged with gathering information and reporting back to the elected governing boards of TVUSD, the City of Temecula, and the County of Riverside. TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 6 References Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1- Youth in Care). Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, Independent Living, and Self -Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.kl2.ca.us/studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long -Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107- 124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review , 164- TEMECULA'S CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, TASK 7 170. Summit, C. F. (2007). Casey Family Foundation. Retrieved from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummit Report.htm Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Shari Crall MSW Intern Prepared for CCS Partnership October 6, 2010 Task Force on Foster Youth Our High School Population The TVUSD high school foster youth (FY) population (N=45, sample N=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement (permanent plans are employed after 12-18 months of reunification efforts) with many years in care, numerous placements, and challenging GPAs. PLACEMENTS • The majority (64%) 4-10 placements • Significant number on both ends of the spectrum: 18% in 1-3 placements, and 17% in 11-20 placements YEARS IN CARE • Most 4-6 years (39%), followed by 36% in care under 3 years • Significant number (25%), in care seven plus years • 14% spending 11-15 years in care, comprising virtually their entire academic careers GPA — N=22 • majority (45%) below 2.0 • 41% between 2.0-2.9 • 2 FY (9%) with GPAs over 3.0 • 1, with a listing for only the last semester, 4.0 ETHNICITY • 54% white, 29% Hispanic, 7% African American with smaller populations of Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American youth Our Seniors — Typical? We began with 9 — One: GPA and a -g classes in place for 4 -year university, contingent on success this year One: Wants to go to Paul Mitchell Academy Four: Community college ready, one possibly private university ready; two with GPA success but not a -g courses in place One: mental health issues One: transferred out due to foster family emergency One: not a foster youth Two: out of county placements Two: IEPs Questionnaire results (5 of 6) — 2 — ASVAB complete 0 — FAFSA complete 3 — know SW name Page 1 of 2 Shari Crall MSW Intern Prepared for CCS Partnership October 6, 2010 Task Force on Foster Youth 2 — remember last time seen SW 3 — report having an ILP SW 4 — met with ILP SW 0 — emancipation coach 1— attended ILP classes 1— housing after emancipation 3 —jobs after emancipation 0 — driver's licenses, 2 would like to get DL 4 — CA ID cards Permanent adults —1 said 0, 1 said 4, 1 cited Rancho Damacitas 2 — would like help making extended family connections 5 — want CCS help: 2 — education 4 — housing 2 — careers 1— support network 4 — transportation 4 — financial assistance Page 2 of 2 Running head: POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 1 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE Shari Crall San Diego State University SW 702 Dr. Loring Jones May 2, 2011 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 2 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE Policy is created in many ways, often having more impact than legislative or judicial action. Often we think of policy as those notions that precede and overarch official actions, such as in gay rights attitudes bringing down "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Most of the time though, policy is created by unelected staff who may not even realize their work has a tremendous impact. It is procedural policy that generates structures and regulations that tend to affect people the most. These are bureaucrats, and I aspire to be one. For the past two years I have served on the Temecula Area City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth. In September, 2010, I began a 20 -hour a week internship with the Task Force to provide documentation and research to inform the body in making recommendations to partner elected officials, to meet and connect Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) high school aged foster youth and their caregivers with community resources, and to make policy recommendations to Riverside County's Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). Although it is the Director of the Task Force, my supervisor, Barbara Tooker, who has met and reported back to DPSS and elected officials, I have had the unique opportunity to prepare and present three research and policy briefs at the task force level that have recently changed DPSS policy. The Task Force Organizational History and Profile Disturbing outcomes of homelessness, unemployment, underemployment, incarceration and even death were documented in a 2008 report from a California State level CCS Partnership task force. Presented at the 2008 California School Board Association meeting, the report proved a call to action for Barbara Tooker, a 17 -year TVUSD trustee on the verge of retirement. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 3 The ensuing formation, at Tooker's request, of a City, County, School Partnership (CCS) in 2008, by the City of Temecula, County of Riverside and TVUSD, was immediately followed by resolutions to form a task force focused on foster youth. A Community Action Guide (CCS Partnership, 2007) created by the State task force composed of the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California School Boards Association became the foundation for Temecula's effort, the only local CCS partnership in California. An example of a Community Building Approach, the Partnership's Task Force on Foster Youth is charged with reporting "on current conditions of emancipating foster youth and develop[ing] recommendations for our role in better assisting these, our children, safely toward productive adulthood" (TVUSD, 2008). Each governing partner assigned a representative to the task force and Tooker appointed other community stakeholders, including a care provider, representatives of local service clubs, funders and organizations focused on foster youth (see Appendix A for organizational chart). Creating a Shared Vision The task force, authorized by elected officials of three governing bodies and their charge to gather information and make recommendations regarding foster youth, has given discussions a discrete position of power. Task force members were carefully assembled to include decision makers from partner agencies, care providers, and representatives from community assets, including funders and service groups. First year discussions ran a spectrum from the ideal to the real, but created a shared commitment and vision to positively change outcomes for the foster youth entrusted to our community. A central belief emerged that by localizing issues, a community could "wrap its arms around its children." POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 4 Gathering the Data We looked closely at the specific issues facing our high school aged foster youth, developing a picture mirrored in the literature. Research included task force meetings, extensive literature review, focus groups, one-on-one interviews with key informants at partner agencies, as well as with foster youth and their caregivers, surveys, and secondary data analysis. After an initial period of becoming informed of the challenges of foster youth and established best practices addressing them, and in conjunction with my Research class group under Dr. Mathieson, a convergent, multi -method needs assessment was completed. My supervisor, Barbara Tooker, and I then met with Dr. Anthony Garcia, who reviewed our work making several recommendations: locate a standardized survey instrument, identify a comparative population, and complete more qualitative work with students and their caregivers. That has now been completed. Please see Appendix B for research design, and Appendix C for Intern Report, delivered at the October Task Force meeting. Analysis The November Task Force meeting was very well attended, with all governing partners and community organizations represented. After other business, my intern report began with an activity learned at a California Youth Connection (CYC) presentation. I put members in groups of three or four, gave them a simple assignment — share names, their education, who they represented, and describe their interest in foster youth. As they progressed through the assignment, I made constant group changes, asking members to move and join other groups, simulating the life of a foster youth with many placement changes and little educational stability. Members did not finish the assignment, were frustrated with me and the interruption in getting to know someone. They reported feeling confused, and annoyed. In short, they got it. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 5 This laid the foundation for the analysis report (See Appendices D and E), following up on the basic assessment results presented in October, correlated with research and best practices. The System The March Task Force meeting was focused on what we had learned about the current Child Welfare System as related to emancipating foster youth. Initially, the task force thought the community building approach would consist of discovering the different roles and responsibilities of providers and better connecting our area youth to the system, enhanced with community inputs. This intern report was entitled "Lost in Translation" (See Appendix F) as after speaking with county and contracted emancipation service providers, our youth and caregivers, educators, and other stakeholders, it was evident much was said and done, but it was not translating into successful emancipation. Current structures did not support necessary activities to create success, there was role confusion, and many barriers to access of services. This report provided the foundation for task force recommendations to DPSS: 1) allow qualified and screened community volunteers to teach the Independent Living curriculum, in Temecula, in school district provided space; and 2) make Temecula/Murrieta a pilot program, aligning county Independent Living social workers with school district boundaries. The first recommendation came out of both supply and demand. Our youth were not attending ILP classes because of 20-30 mile distances that many caregivers were unable to transport to, creating a demand for closer classes; and supply because of many offers for support and help from area service clubs and organizations as Task Force presentations and outreach were completed. The second recommendation arose out of frustration on the part of both school officials and county workers. They lacked knowledge of one another, lacked relationships, and had too many surprises on both ends. With 15 current ILP social workers and 23 school districts in POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 6 Riverside County, it was felt a pilot of matching ILP workers with districts would yield a better compliment of services. A presentation by Pam Smith, and follow up interview with Dennis Leggett, from San Diego Child Welfare Services, East County Region's Neighborhood for Kids approach, provided solid evidence of success with a similar approach. Results It has taken two years of creating a shared vision among stakeholders, conducting evidence -based research, and then allowing the task force to analyze and correlate the data to make recommendations. The belated identification of similar goals and already operationalized programming showing success in San Diego's East County Region, provided confirmation that programming based on solid evidence yields expected results. While much remains to be done, it has been exciting and rewarding to have an internship where creating policy became a reality. i Appointed by 1 electeds J 1 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 7 APPENDIX A - ORGANIZATIONAL CHART TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD APPOINTED CHAIR FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE CITY REPRESENTATIVE J 1 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAND VALLEYS/ROTARY l COMMUNITY MEMBERS Elected officials COUNTY DPSS REGIONAL MANAGER BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB H.E.A.R.T. Appointed staff TVUSD CHILD WELFARE DIRECTOR/ EDUCATIONAL LIAISON DIRECTOR, GROUP HOME/FFA BETTERWORLD TRUST 1 Appointed by chair POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 8 APPENDIX B — RESEARCH DESIGN I. Outcomes for Foster Youth (FY) are disturbing II. Data re Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Youth Needs assessment - Convergent, multi -method approach Step 1: Definition of parameters • Community assessment • Key stakeholders • Current Foster Youth • Data from administered survey to FY • Data from Foster Youth Student Information Service (FYSIS) • Budget: intern works for free, access to data during school year • Resources: Task Force, scholarly researcher through databases accessed through SDSU library system. Step 2: Identification of information needed • Outcome of FY • housing after emancipation • possession of vital documents (birth certificate, social security, SSI etc) • Educational attainment and plans • Employment status • Permanent and stable relationships Step 3: Information that already exists • Secondary data analysis : FYSIS • Survey to FY • Expert knowledge among the Task Force • Research showing FY outcomes in Riverside Co.: Child Welfare Dynamic Report Step 4: Methodology - convergent analysis: • use of secondary data : FYSIS, Child Welfare Dynamic Reports on FY outcomes • use of impressionistic approaches: Focus Groups, speak with key informants (Task Force, community group, City of Temecula, FY, FFA providers and homes) • Surveys from current foster youth showing what services are utilized, level of educational success, future outlook in post -emancipation success • targeted sample — FY in TVUSD high schools • Task Force participants : Temecula City, TVUSD, County of Riverside, DPSS, Community Agencies • Foster Youth in TVUSD • Variables • Services offered • Services utilized • FY outcome results • Objective- to discover how governing agencies, in collaboration with existing community resources, can ensure the successful emancipation and self-sufficiency of Temecula's foster youth POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 9 APPENDIX C — OCTOBER INTERN REPORT TO TASK FORCE Intern Report — Our High School Population • The TVUSD high school foster youth (FY) population (N=45, sample N=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement (permanent plans are employed after 12-18 months of reunification efforts) with many years in care, numerous placements, and challenging GPAs. PLACEMENTS o The majority (64%) 4-10 placements o Significant number on both ends of the spectrum: 18% in 1-3 placements, and 17% in 11-20 placements YEARS IN CARE o Most 4-6 years (39%), followed by 36% in care under 3 years o Significant number (25%), in care seven plus years o 14% spending 11-15 years in care, comprising virtually their entire academic careers GPA — N=22 o majority (45%) below 2.0 o 41% between 2.0-2.9 o 2 FY (9%) with GPAs over 3.0 o 1, with a listing for only the last semester, 4.0 ETHNICITY o 54% white, 29% Hispanic, 7% African American with smaller populations of Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American youth Source: FYSIS, searched 9.29.2010 • Our Seniors — Typical? We began with 9 — One: GPA and a -g classes in place for 4 -year university, contingent on success this year One: Wants to go to Paul Mitchell Academy Four: Community college ready, one possibly private university ready; two with GPA success but not a -g courses in place One: mental health issues One: transferred out due to foster family emergency One: not a foster youth Two: out of county placements Two: IEPs • Questionnaire results (5 of 6) — 2 — ASVAB complete 0 — FAFSA complete 3 — know SW name One of our seniors overlooks CSUSM with Cesar Chavez saying "Si, se puede" —"Yes, it can be done" POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 10 2 — remember last time seen SW 3 — report having an ILP SW 4 — met with ILP SW 0 — emancipation coach 1 — attended ILP classes 1 — housing after emancipation 3 — jobs after emancipation 0 — driver's licenses, 2 would like to get DL 4 — CA ID cards Permanent adults — 1 said 0, 1 said 4, 1 cited Rancho Damacitas 2 — would like help making extended family connections 5 — want CCS help: 2 — education 1 — support network 4 — housing 4 — transportation 2 — careers 4 — fmancial assistance POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 11 APPENDIX D — NOVEMBER INTERN REPORT TO TASK FORCE WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OUR TEMECULA KIDS Needs Assessment Results — Highlighting two important areas: Quantitative results already reported, in December, qualitative interviews were begun, and initial interviews demonstrate community efforts to connect youth and caretakers to existing resources and help facilitate and navigate agency systems is welcome and needed. Placement Stability • 64% of our youth have had 4-10 placements • 17% have had 11-20 placements The majority of our youth are in the category described in a 2002 CA Child Welfare report: A 2002 Report on foster youth outcomes in California noted, "The clearest consistent finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system who have had five or more placements were those who generally experienced the worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care." (Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley) Education Outcomes • 45% have GPAs <2.0 • 41% have GPAs between 2-2.9 Many arrive in the district with strong academic needs, those needs are not identified upon arrival but take months to process. The needs are remedial, especially in math, and youth may not remain in our district long enough for us to have an impact. Many receive support while in TVUSD to graduate from HS, but are unprepared in a -g courses to enter 4 -year universities, and unprepared for community college work, needed remediation in math and English to pass the Accuplacer assessment for placement in courses receiving college credit. Summary Services are underutilized by area foster youth. More outreach is needed to connect youth to what exists and to tailor services to their needs. The community can do much to supplement POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 12 and enhance agency efforts. Indeed, budget cutbacks are creating an opportunity and demand for more community involvement at the same time best practices are calling for institutional change to foster more community involvement. Communities are well-suited and can be called on to build capacity in schools, recruit foster families to increase stability, provide volunteers to increase capacity in family finding, mentoring and educational rights holders, foster connections to job networks, enhance capacity of foster family agencies and other caretaker networks, and provide financial aid. Research and Best Practice Objectives Assumptions based on the last decade of academic research, including task forces and commissions, particularly the City, County, School Partnership Task Force at the state level (see reference list): • educational stability leads to academic achievement, • placement stability leads to emotional health, • supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for transitional aged youth, • access to transportation promotes opportunity, • fmancial aid is necessary for post -high school training, • presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. Complicating Factors • out of county Foster Family Agencies AND emancipation services Recommendations? What can we do differently to create more placement stability, increase permanency, and improve academic skills for our foster youth? POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 13 APPENDIX E — NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS REFERENCES REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/ CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport.htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1- Youth in Care). Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, INdependent Living, and Self -Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program. Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment of foster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Partners for our children, building a case for change. POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 14 Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review , 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness -Based Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care in their middle twenties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review , 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment , 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k12.ca.us/ studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 15 Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long -Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107-124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982- 2006, 62.05 state. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=16 POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, APPENDIX F — MARCH, 2011, INTERN TASK FORCE REPORT Lost in Translation 16 What we know: - There are many caring, dedicated social workers, who take ownership and love their jobs - Much thought and work has gone into current system management - Social workers, ILP social workers and emancipation coaches are charged with emancipation readiness activities - EBP suggests: successful emancipation outcomes are based on access to education, fmancial aid, transportation, housing, jobs, and connections to permanent, stable adults - Many communication rays are going out - Few are received - Sender -receiver loop Analysis: - It is not a skill problem, is it a performance problem? - Is it a model problem? - Is it an expectation problem? - Is it a processing problem? - Is it a clarification problem? Generalist Practice Model: Engage — workers see this as their job, relationships are nurtured Assess — no clear awareness of CWS outcome 8A goals in larger picture Plan — overlapping responsibilities, model of minimum 4 touches for ILP, monthly for emancipation coaches, reactive rather than proactive system, no clear plan for assisting toward outcomes Implement — lacking clear delegation of roles and responsibilities — case management model? Line model? Evaluate — CWS outcome summaries, Ansell-Casey Chafee Supplements Terminate — Our seniors: 20-80 • Those in permanency (defined as believe they have an aftercare stake) are low risk; served through capacity building, i.e. connection to ACE scholars, chafee application • Those in group home with many level of staff to complete tasks are medium risk; served through capacity building, i.e. community college info, financial aid applications • Those without permanence, increased staff, or with special challenges, i.e. mental health are high risk; direct service required, ex. One youth: 48 e- mails, 8 phone calls, 3 in person POLICY PROGRESS: THE TEMECULA CCS PARTNERSHIP, 17 • Number of professionals employed has no bearing on success if roles and responsibilities are not clear Collaboration has offered: - Connection to city programs, i.e. summer job program, library programs, i.e. practice SAT, FAFSA help, college and career expo, youth council Connection to school programs, i.e. AVID, high school counselors, grade monitoring, RCOE tutoring, college tour Connection to community programs, i.e. RYLA, Viewpoints Retreat, laptop, boys and girls club volunteers Connection to task force, i.e. fmancial aid information, university and community college information, city/school/community programs Meeting Summary Dr. Anthony Garcia San Diego State University 11.4.10 Attendance: Barbara Tooker, CCS Partnership Task Force on Foster Youth Director Shari Crall, MSW Intern We met with Dr. Garcia to establish evaluation methods providing documentation and data for analysis by the Task Force and the elected governing officials. Dr. Garcia reviewed a history of the Task Force, a logic model, and needs assessment information, prior to our meeting. He offered four main suggestions to supplement the documentation work already in progress, and make our research design more "robust": 1. We are limited by our small sample size, even if it is 904+ of our population. Dr. Garcia suggested locating a comparable FY population, without a CCS partnership in place, for comparison. It would be important to match those communities demographically, etc., as much as possible. 2. Add a qualitative component of structured 1-2 hour interviews with foster youth asking about their past experiences, how they are faring presently, and their future plans. Once conducted, salient themes would be identified and coded for data analysis. 3. A mental health component needed to be added to our work. Dr. Garcia suggested establishing Global Assessment Functioning (GAF) scores at timepoints along a FY's journey. 4. As activities are put in place, at post-test (just prior to HS graduation), we need to ask, "Did you complete activities?" Possibly a check box needs to be provided so youth can check activities they participated in. Following our meeting with Dr. Garcia, Ms. Tooker and the intern discussed replacing our Task Force questionnaire with the Casey-Ansell Assessment tools. Something's Got to Give CA Community College Report October 2010 • What can we do to prepare college ready students? • Remediation is essential in HS so Tess necessary in college • "Helping these students well before they leave high school so they can improve their math knowledge and assess into higher levels of these sequences — and thus have a shorter path to college -level study with fewer opportunities for attrition — would be of great service to both colleges and students." p. 8 • "... despite other behaviors that are predictive of success for the group as a whole and all else equal, students who started at the lower levels were less likely to successfully complete college -level course in math and writing even when they stayed in the system for many years." P. 13 • Math is the hardest hit area • English composition second • Early Assessment Program (EAP), available summer prior to senior year to students who have reached at least Algebra II by grade 11 • Keys for Community College success, p. 11-12 • Enroll full time during first year • Begin remedial sequence immediately, do not stop midway • Pass initial remedial course — if danger of failing pile on educational supports here ■ "When students are struggling academically, they need additional support so that they can pass remedial classes on the first attempt." P. 22 • Keep remedial sequence consistent • Developmental education approaches, p. 14 • Based on fine-grained assessments of students' developmental needs • Modularized instructional units • Contextualized for students as far as possible • Utilize technology • Have a 'high touch' component in the form of coaches and mentors • USE Evidence Based Practice, what works?! P. 15 • Support for student success needs to be explicit and pervasive — ensure students stay engaged, receive assistance, and maintain a sense of forward progress toward their goals, p. 15 • Four distinct approaches, p. 15 • Learning communities, case management, study centers, summer bridge programs • Milestones and on track indicators can give early warning signs students falling off-track, p. 18 • Developmental students need better course taking guidance and stronger support systems to help reach their goals Systems to Match our Youth Early Adolescence (12-18) Development Emergence of Formal Operational Thought • Ability to mentally manipulate more than two categories of variables simultaneously • Ability to think about the changes that come with time • Ability to hypothesize logical sequences of events • Ability to foresee consequences of actions • Ability to detect logical consistency or inconsistency in a set of statements • Ability to think in relativistic ways about self, others, and the world Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2009). Development Through Life: A Psychosocial Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, p. 328. Recent analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N=8984) suggests, "Childhood resources, which include intellectual functioning, parenting quality, and socioeconomic status, predict adaptive outcomes in resilient individuals. Specific to emerging adulthood, an additional set of characteristics, mainly autonomy, future motivation, adult support, and coping skills, provides additive resources to support a successful transition to adulthood regardless of risk in childhood. Berzin, 5. C. (2010). Vulnerability in the transition to adulthood: Defining risk based on youth profiles. Children and Youth Services Review , 487-495. One of our seniors overlooks CSUSM with Cesar Chavez saying "Si, se puede" — "Yes, it can be done" RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICE OBJECTIVES Assumptions (logic model) based on the last decade of academic research, including task forces and commissions, particularly the City, County, School Partnership Task Force at the state level : • educational stability leads to academic achievement, • placement stability leads to emotional health, • supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for transitional aged youth, • access to transportation promotes opportunity, • financial aid is necessary for post -high school training, • presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. TASK FORCE HISTORY First Year — building a shared vision, mind map Second Year — needs assessment, capacity building, asset mapping, change SUCCESSFUL TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES Connection to city programs, i.e. summer job program, library programs, i.e. practice SAT, FAFSA help, college and career expo, youth council Connection to school programs, i.e. AVID, identification of high school counselors as task force liaisons, grade monitoring, RCOE tutoring, CSUSM college tour Connection to community programs, i.e. RYLA, Viewpoints Retreat, boys and girls club volunteers Connection to task force, i.e. financial aid information, university and community college information, city/school/community programs Tarnarllln Fne4ar Vnnth Teelr Fnrra Intern Dannrt C C 11 INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES Our Seniors: 1— Wellesley College 2 — CSUSM 3 — MSJC 1— Paul Mitchell Academy 2 — High School Graduation Housing in place for Seven of Nine • 22 of our HS students, and most of their corresponding caregivers have received a presentation on 4 - year university, community college, financial aid, and monitoring of their transcripts • 22 youth have received requested connections to county services, i.e. ILP classes, computer and education camps, emancipation services, requests for vital records • 1 youth has received direct emancipation services • 18 youth attended the Viewpoints Retreat presented by community leaders and sponsored by the Temecula Valley Assistance League • Several youth have attended Rotary's Youth Leadership Awards (RYLA) • 15 of our youth have had placement interruptions or changes during this school year (1/3) • 2 youth remained in the district following intervention for educational stability • College and financial aid information, focused on foster youth, has been presented to: Rancho Damacitas, High School Counselors, Oak Grove Institute, CASA, and County ILP workers Tnrnnrnl. Cnefnr Vnnth T.QL Cnrrn Ininrn Dnnnr4 C C 11 Running head: TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1 Transition Temecula: Program Proposal Shari Crall San Diego State University SW 740 Dr. Thomas Packard December 13, 2010 Running head: TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 2 Transition Temecula Foster Youth Program 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula 92592 Funding Source: City of Temecula, Riverside County, Temecula Valley Unified School District Project Dates: July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012 Amount Requested: $227,575.00 Date of Submission: December 13, 2010 Project Coordinator: Shari Crall Abstract: The Califomia Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (2008) documented disturbing outcomes for foster youth in our state. These fmdings demonstrated 40-55% of emancipated foster youth experience homelessness within 18 months, and 65% of foster youth need immediate housing when emancipating. 40% of foster youth complete high school, 75% are below grade level, 70% of youth emancipating report wanting to go to college, but only 10% attend college and less than 1% graduate from college. Compared with their peers from other "at risk" populations, i.e. low socio-economic status, non-White, English language learners or children with disabilities, foster youth fared worse. 50% of foster youth experience unemployment within the first five years, 60% have incomes at or below $6000 annually. 50-60% identified with moderate to severe mental health problems, substance abuse rates are high, and 33% have no health insurance. 25% are incarcerated within two years of emancipation (Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, May 2009). The Riverside County Child Welfare Dynamic Report (2009), showed 317 youth emancipated from care in 2009, with similar outcome statistics. A 2007 study by Chapin Hall of former foster youth in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin showed that when services were extended to age 21, rates of homelessness, unemployment, unplanned pregnancy, arrest and incarceration all dropped significantly (Hook & Courtney, 2010). Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) has 40 foster youth currently enrolled in need of wraparound support to achieve the primary outcome of engendering healthy, successful, independent adults who can contribute to their communities. Transition Temecula (TT) is based on a San Francisco model, and is an outgrowth of Temecula's City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth, an interagency planning effort that created directives to improve outcomes for Transitional Age Youth (TAY), aged 16-24, which met from 2008-2010. The effort highlighted the unmet needs for Temecula's 14-18 year olds. Case management and capacity building will be employed with a goal to support current agency activities, events, and programs, link TAY and caregivers to current resources, enable stability, and employ evidence based practices to improve TAY access to education, financial assistance, housing, employment, health and welfare services, transportation and permanent, stable adult relationships. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 3 LIST OF APPENDICES 1— Service Area Map 2 — Public Transportation 3 — List of Community Partners 4 — Logic Model 5 — Staff Characteristics 6 — Staff Training Log 7 — Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Youth in Care 8 — Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Emancipate Youth 9 — Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Adult Reporter Youth in Care 10 - Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, Adult Reporter Emancipated Youth 11 — TT Questionnaire, Youth in Care 12 — Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) 13 — Foster Youth Student Information System (FYSIS) Cover Sheet 14 — Staff Monthly Report 15 — Client File Audit Tool 16 — Client File Review Schedule 17 — Client Progress Notes 18 — Client Critical Needs Assessment Checklist 19 — Program Design Research Timeline 20 — Line -Item Budget 21 - Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement Benchmarks 22 — Job Descriptions 23 — Organizational Chart TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 4 Target Population/Goals and Objectives: Section 1 Target Population, Need and Client Characteristics The TVUSD high school foster youth (FY) population (N=40, n=28) is made up of youth in permanent foster care placement (permanent plans are employed after 12-18 months of reunification efforts) with many years in care, numerous placements, and low grade point averages (GPA). Ethnicity is 54% white, 29% Hispanic, 7% African American with smaller populations of Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American youth. Upon review of current records in the Foster Youth Student Information Service (FYSIS), the majority (64%) have experienced 4-10 placements, with a significant number on both ends of the spectrum: 18% in 1-3 placements, and 17% in 11-20 placements. Most had been in care for 4-6 years (39%), followed by 36% in care under 3 years. A significant number (25%), have been in care seven plus years, 14% spending 11-15 years in care, comprising virtually their entire academic careers. Academic records showed significant challenges with a majority (45%) having GPAs below 2.0. 41% had GPAs between 2.0-2.9, and two FY (9%) had GPAs over 3.0 (Riverside County Office of Education, 2010). Characteristics of our eight senior class members give an even clearer picture. Only one of our eight has a GPA and required academic classes for 4 -year college eligibility. One would like to attend, and has applied to cosmetology school. Four students want to attend college but will be limited to community college placement for at least 60 hours of credit, before transferring to a 4 -year college, because of limited high school academic records. One has serious mental health issues to be addressed, and attends a non-public school. One was quickly transferred from the district, mid - semester, after many years in placement in Temecula, when his foster family experienced a family crisis. Two of these youth are out of county placements and two have Individualized Education Plans (IEP). TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 5 A questionnaire established these seniors are not connected to offered services, do not have driver's licenses or applications for school or financial aid complete, limited contact with independent living and emancipation providers, and would like assistance in accessing education, employment, health and welfare services, mental health services, housing, transportation, financial aid and relationships to permanent, stable adults. A 2002 Report on foster youth outcomes in California noted, "The clearest consistent finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system who have had five or more placements were those who generally experienced the worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care" (Needell, Cuccaro-Alamin, Brookhart, Jackman, & Shlonsky, May 2002). Goals and Objectives The overarching goal of Transition Temecula is to improve outcomes for youth emancipating from foster care in Temecula. This goal will be reached through implementation of both case management and capacity building models that address each client's individual risk factors known to have an adverse effect outcomes and through increasing the capacity of agencies serving this population. This program will serve foster youth aged 14-24 residing within the boundaries of TVUSD. The number of youth served attending high school is 40. It is estimated half that number (20) of emancipated foster youth remain m the Temecula area and would be eligible for services, for a total number of 60 youth served. The Transition Temecula Program will serve as a pilot program for Riverside County. If effective, the model could be expanded to other Riverside County cities and school districts willing to sponsor the service. Specific output objectives for the pilot program are as follows: 1. Between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, two case managers will screen all transitional aged foster youth (TAY) attending TVUSD high schools, or of high school age residing within TVUSD boundaries. Outreach efforts will be made through local Foster Family Agencies TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 6 (FFA), group homes, County Independent Living Programs (ILP), and high school contacts to identify and screen emancipated TAY within the service boundaries. Screenings will result in identification of 50 eligible clients who will be individually assessed for connection to existing services and individual client plans will be developed. 2. Following an assessment, 50 TAY will have at least 5 visits with a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. 3. Case managers will provide clients referrals to agencies/organizations based on individual need on an on-going basis. All referral activity will take place between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012. 4. Case managers will follow up on 100% of all referrals made to community agencies/organizations during the year from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012. Specific outcome objectives for the program are as follows: 1. 100% of clients who receive at least 5 visits from a case manager will be connected to ILP and emancipation services offered through Riverside County 2. 75% of clients still in high school, who receive at least 5 visits from a case manager will increase their college readiness by community college, CSU or UC standards 3. After 5 visits from a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 75% of clients will remain in placement within the boundaries of TVUSD 4. Between June 1, 2011 and July 30, 2012, 75% of eligible program participants will be connected to a community mentor, Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) or have a family finding search completed 5. After 5 visits from a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 70% of high school seniors will have completed appropriate applications for continued education or trade opportunities and fmancial aid applications TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 7 6. Between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, the number of foster families licensed, or in process of licensing will increase 50% 7. After 5 visits from a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 70% of clients will be connected to a summer job program or other employment 8. After 5 visits from a case manager between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, 70% of TAY in need of housing will be connected to a transitional housing program Methodology: Section 2 Evidence -Based Intervention Model Disturbing outcome statistics of foster youth have been well-documented and a focus of research for the past decade and a half. Best practices and important areas of focus have been identified through The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (2009), statewide review by the City, County, School (CCS) Partnership (CCS Partnership, 2007, 2008), The Casey Family Foundation (Casey Family Foundation, 2007), research departments at the University of California, Berkeley ((Needell, Cuccaro-Alamin, Brookhart, Jackman, & Shlonsky, May 2002), Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago (Hook & Courtney, 2010), nationally at the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (Macomber, et al., 2008), through the Child Welfare League of America (Child Welfare League of America, 2005), and through numerous academic studies (Henderson, 2010; Sullivan, Jones, & Mathieson, 2010; Strijker & Knot-Dickscheit, 2008; Pecora P. J., 2005, 2006). A Community Action Guide created through a statewide CCS Partnership (2007) stated foster youth: ... exit care largely unprepared for managing life on their own. Some have been in care since they were young; most have multiple foster home and/or group home placements. On average they have had six placements. For many of these young people the outcome of public parenting is unemployment, under -education, homelessness and prison. Studies show that about TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL two-thirds of the incarcerated population were foster youth at some point in their lives. For all of the youth, the effects of their years in foster care are lasting. The state removes these youth from their homes and becomes their parent. As a parent the state has failed. (CCS Partnership, 2007, p. 3) 8 A review of the literature identifies five areas of critical need: housing, education, employment, mental and behavioral health, and permanency. Models created using case management and capacity building, as well as legislative policy initiatives to address these issues, have proven effective. The Transitional Age Youth San Francisco Project (TAYSF), established in 2008 after a multi -agency task force convened by Mayor Gavin Newsom, works to connect, convene, measure and sustain transitioning foster youth, Justice system involved youth, parenting youth, youth with disabilities, immigrant youth, and youth who have not completed high school. They have "successfully advocated for the inclusion of transitional age youth as a priority population in housing development, supported improvements to education and employment services and has worked collaboratively with other agencies to increase health access for older youth and young adults" (Transitional Age Youth San Francisco, 2010). CONNECT CONVENE Innovation Incubator Interagency scope & coodination Leverage local/private funds Population -specific program design Evaluation & sustain MEASURE SUSTAIN TAYSF Research & Data Best practices Evidence -based research Local & emerging data Youth & community engagement Capacity b ikhng Transitional Youth Building a Strong *ridge to Adulthood cultural competence Relationship based Flexible services Public Policy Recomendations to local departments & legislative bodies Leveraging local, state & federal resources Public awareness & education We envision a City where all young people thrive into adulthood TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 9 Figure 1. Model, Transitional Age Youth San Francisco Casey Family Programs operates the Pasadena Alumni Support Center (PASC), a similar, smaller scale program than TAYSF, in conjunction with public and private social service agencies and departments in Los Angeles County. Key members of the staff are youth advocates, young adults formerly in foster care who know what it's like to go out into the real world feeling unprepared and uncertain of the future. Along with the on-site community supervisor, community specialist and case managers, Youth Advocates connect young people to services they need, TAY seek employment, find housing, and gain access to health and mental health benefits, and research scholarships and information about higher education. In addition to Casey employees, a county probation officer and transition coordinators from the county child welfare and probation departments are on-site. Target Neighborhood The geographical boundaries of Temecula Valley Unified School District will be the target community for this program (see Appendix 1), comprising the City of Temecula, and surrounding Riverside County unincorporated areas, including the heavily residential French Valley and more rural neighborhoods. An estimated 60 TAY live within these boundaries. It is a well -resourced community with a commitment to better outcomes for foster youth. Transition Temecula will be located at the new Cal State University San Marcos extension, at 32225 Pio Pico Road, Temecula 92592, which also houses TVUSD's alternative high school, Rancho Vista. A former TVUSD elementary school building, located on the southeast side of Temecula, a classroom has been designated to house this program. Co -location with both the CSUSM extension and alternative high school provides easy access and collegial association with both related programs. The center is accessible from the Temecula/Wal-Mart bus stop, Riverside Transit Agency Route 24. See Appendix 2 to view TT's TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 10 proximity to public transit, with service running from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Center is located in a busy, well -lit neighborhood, near commercial and residential properties. Client Recruitment and Acceptance to Program TAY still in high school will be identified through TT staff access to the Foster Youth Student Information System (FYSIS), through their association with TVUSD, as well as indirect access to ARIES, TVUSD's student database, through TVUSD's foster youth liaison. It is believed, once establishment of TT is completed, TAY will remain identified after high school, because of earlier identification while still in foster care. In addition, TT staff will conduct outreach to emancipated TAY through relationships with Riverside County Independent Living Program (ILP) coordinators, resident care providers, and high school counselors. All foster youth, aged 14-24, are accepted into the program. Former foster youth who have been adopted are not eligible. Program Description Transition Temecula will utilize a case management and capacity building model. To prepare for the implementation of TT, staff will receive training in basic mental health screening, motivational interviewing and cultural sensitivity. They will also begin meeting with key contacts from local social service agencies, foster family agencies, group home providers, educational providers, and community assets to begin forming working relationships. Partner agencies will serve both as a referral source and a client resource. Please refer to appendix 3 for a list of community partners. Once determined eligible, clients will be further assessed by a case manager. Clients will work with case managers to develop a plan to address the identified individual risk factors. Clients will be assessed for the five areas of critical need: housing, education, employment, mental and behavioral health, and permanent, stable adult relationships. Clients will be given appropriate referrals to address their individual needs. If desired by client, family finding activities will be initiated. Vital record repository will also be offered. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 11 In addition, each client will meet with TT staff a minimum of 5 times at which time services such as mentoring and case -management will be provided by the TT staff. One of the visits must be in the client's home. Since the clients will be involved with several service delivery systems, care will be coordinated (Connelly, 2007). To accomplish the capacity building portion of TT's mission, program outreach coordinators will sponsor foster parent recruitment, educational awareness training, housing establishment, and sheltered job and internship programs. Fundraising will be conducted to establish a GAP fund. TT will accomplish its ultimate goal of improving outcomes for TAY residing within TVUSD boundaries by improving access to education, fmancial assistance, housing, employment, transportation, mental and personal health services, and permanent, stable adult relationships. Operational Schedule Transition Temecula will be open Monday, Tuesday, and Friday, from 11:OOam-7:OOpm, and 11:OOam — 9:OOpm on Wednesday and Thursday nights to accommodate the schedule of the working and student clients. Home visits will be scheduled for times that are convenient for the client. Logic Model The logic model for TT is based on the overriding assumption that better emancipation outcomes for TAY can be achieved through community collaboration and support. Underlying assumptions are: educational stability leads to academic achievement, placement stability leads to emotional health, supportive services past the age of 18 can ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for TAY, access to transportation promotes opportunity, fmancial aid is necessary for post -high school training, and the presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. The resources, or inputs, dedicated to TT are clients (TAY residing within the boundaries of TVUSD), other resources (program supplies, training), facilities (office space inside Temecula CSUSM campus), equipment (computers, phones), and the support of local partnering agencies. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 12 Program activities, or throughputs, for TT are developing relationships with community partners, assessing clients, making referrals, connection to services, providing service through 5 case manager visits, continuous assessment, referrals and intense referral follow-up, capacity building, family finding activities, attendance at team decision making meetings, foster parent recruitment, educational awareness training, housing establishment, sheltered job and internship programs, fundraising and monitoring and evaluation of TT efforts. All of this will be done in a culturally sensitive manner (Connelly, 2007). The resources (inputs) and program activities (throughputs) will result in a variety of outcomes. The short-term results (intermediate outcomes) will be increased college readiness and graduation from post -high school programs, increased access to transportation, jobs, health and welfare services, mental health services, substance abuse programs, financial resources, and increased relationships with permanent, stable adults. Other short-term results for the community will be increased collaboration among agencies. The short-term effect on society will be less cost associated with client outcomes (homelessness, substance abuse, dependence on public assistance, incarceration). In addition to the short-term results (intermediate outcomes), the combination of resources and activities will also lead to long-term results (final outcomes). TT's logic model indicates the projected long-term results of the program will be youth who can achieve, compete, and thrive, alongside their peers, contributing to the communities in which they reside. TT's long-term effects on the community will be the increased capacity for community agencies to collaborate, strengthening existing programs outside the Temecula service area. The program's long-term effects on society are decreased costs associated with clients' outcomes (homelessness, substance abuse, dependence on public assistance, incarceration). Please refer to Appendix 4 for TT's logic model. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 13 Management Information System (MIS): Section 3 Introduction The Transition Temecula program will have a data collection and evaluation process built in to monitor program implementation and measure client outcomes, to ensure services effect desired client outcomes (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008). Monthly reports will be gathered with a focus on outcomes to reflect whether service objectives have been met, comprehensiveness to assess performance against all important objectives, comparability to similar populations, and timeliness so data can retain relevance for decision makers (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008, p. 200) Outcome measures and instruments were established in consultation with Dr. Anthony Garcia, a researcher at the San Diego State University School of Social Work. Process Monitoring To monitor process fidelity, monthly reports will be gathered from TT staff (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008). Key inputs of practitioner characteristics and training (see appendices 5 and 6), as well as client demographics (appendices 7 and 8) will be tracked. A set of data collection forms has been created and can be viewed in the attached appendices. Case management documentation will include initial assessment (see appendices 7-12), followed by assessment after completion of at least 5 case management visits. Outreach documentation will be reported in the monthly report and will document all staff contacts with the community and its partners. The following program activity (throughputs) will also be monitored in stability/permanency, supportive services and assessment: placement stability, team decision meetings, foster family recruitment, family finding activities, referrals and services to increase access to education, employment, health and welfare services, mental health, safe and secure housing, transportation, fmancial aid, and connection to permanent, stable adults, and pre and post assessment. TT utilizes both a case management model in micro practice and a capacity building model in mezzo and macro practice. Therefore assessment and intervention are continuous activities that will TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 14 be monitored through case management, addressing the six identified areas of critical need. Results of the pre and post Ansell-Casey assessments will be compared to benchmark data housed at Casey Family Projects (Casey Family Programs, 2010). Results of pre and post GAF assessment (American Psychiatric Association [DSM -IV -TR], 2000) testing will be compared for improvement over time. For assessment activity monitoring, please refer to appendices 7-10, and 12. The youth self report on the TT Questionnaire (Appendix 11) will be used for youth in care, pre and post the prescribed 5 case management visits, and will indicate youth's perception of connection to existing services. All on-going client contact and critical need assessment will be noted in client progress notes (see Appendix 17) and critical need assessment checklist (see Appendix 18). Number, mode and location of staff visits with client will also be recorded in the client progress notes. All on-going community partner referral and follow-up activity (to address clients' critical need factors) is recorded by staff in a referral log (Appendix 18). The activities related to treatment fidelity will be monitored in supervision. Outcome Evaluation Intermediate and fmal outcomes will be measured to evaluate program effectiveness. Intermediate outcomes to be measured are college readiness, emotional health, employment, and access to health and welfare services, mental health services, safe and secure housing, transportation, fmancial aid, and the establishment of relationships with permanent, stable adults. These outcomes will be measured through secondary record review, administration of the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement (Casey Family Programs, 2010) pre and post tests, and pre and post tests of the GAF assessment (American Psychiatric Association [DSM - IV -TR], 2000). Completion of the case management model will lead to fmal outcome results, with capacity building measured in process evaluation only. Outcomes of increased graduation from post high school programs and a reduction in homelessness, incarceration and unemployment will be time series measured, pre test, post test and then quarterly, as long a TAY are active in the program. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 15 Those results will be compared individually and also on a macro level with statistics on emancipating youth recorded in the Child Welfare Dynamic Report (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010) for Riverside County. Use of Aggregate Data Collection Tools Select data will be aggregated on a monthly basis to provide useful program evaluation data. Upon entry, after 5 case management visits, and then quarterly while active in the program, other key variables will be aggregated. All data will be aggregated by the administrative assistant from client forms onto aggregate data forms. On a monthly basis, for review during the first staff meeting of every month, starting the second month, the administrative assistant will aggregated select data into a monthly report to be reviewed during client case review and to monitor client care and program delivery process. See Appendix 14 for Monthly Report form. Monthly data includes measures of stability/permanency, supportive services, and assessment. Measures include numbers of TAY enrolled, those moved from program boundaries, team decision meetings attended, foster family recruitment and licensing outreach, family fmding applications, case management visits (one of which must be in client's home), referrals and referral follow-ups to supportive services, and number of assessments completed. Services are customized to individual areas of critical need as assessed by both the youth and adult reporters living with the youth, supplemented by educational and placement information in FYSIS (see Appendices 7-13). The addition of the adult reporters to the youth self report is expected to bring a more accurate picture, as well as identify TAY perception deficits. As TAY are often cut off from adult support, or stable placement, it is important to know youth do not know they have a social security number, even though their caregivers know they do. In addition, staff will perform monthly client file audits. Five client files, of clients who have been in the program for 30 days or more, will be divided amongst staff each month. Measures have been selected for monitoring based on key components of TT's services and individual TAY's TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 16 identified critical needs. Auditors will look for evidence that a case manager has been assigned, assessments given and critical needs identified, appropriate referrals have been made, what progress, if any, has been noted, regular staff/client contact has been maintained and appropriate staff/community partners contacts have been made. Refer to Appendices 15 and 16 for audit tool and schedule. EVALUATION DESIGN: SECTION 4 TT Evaluation Research Questions An overall evaluation plan will incorporate program objectives and data collection procedures. TT's performance can be measured and the implementation fidelity can be monitored with use of appropriate research questions. Although TT is a new program and evaluation efforts will mostly be formative, two databases will provide comparative populations. Independent variables will include staff visits/contacts, client referrals, and client referral follow-ups. Dependent variables include college readiness, emotional health, employment, access to health and welfare services, mental health services, safe and secure housing, transportation, financial aid and the establishment of relationships with permanent, stable adults. TT's evaluation research plan will be designed to answer the following questions: Performance Measurement - 1. How many visits/contacts did TT provide? 2. How many referrals did TT provide? 3. Were referrals followed-up? 4. How many clients completed a complete service package (5 visits/contacts)? 5. How many clients reported increased college readiness? 6. How many clients reported increased emotional health? 7. How many clients were employed or increased job readiness? 8. How many clients increased access to health and welfare services? TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 17 9. How many clients were in safe and secure housing? 10. How many clients increased access to transportation? 11. How many clients increased access to fmancial aid? 12. How many clients reported 3-5 relationships with permanent, stable adults? 13. How many clients graduated from post high school programs? 14. How cost-effective are TT's outputs and outcomes to produce? 15. How cost-efficient has TT been in achieving its outputs and outcomes? Monitoring- 1. Does TT staff have credentials required by program model? 2. Does TT staff have required trainings? 3. Does staff have contact with community service providers? 4. Does staff receive supervision on cases to ensure treatment model fidelity? 5. Does TT staff provide the number/ type of visits/contacts required by the program model? 6. Are clients being assigned a case manager as required by the program model? 7. Are clients having regular contact with TT staff per the program model? Evaluation Design, Methods and Timelines An evaluation plan has been designed to accommodate the needs of administration, program staff, and funders. Please refer to Appendix 19 for a timeline conceptualizing the evaluation design. Staff credentials and training will be documented during the planning stage, and again at year-end (Appendices 5 & 6). Monthly reports will document stability/permanency, supportive services and assessment (See appendix 14). During monthly client file audits, which will rotate among staff, staff will verify the assignment of a case manager, staff visits/contacts with clients, including referrals, on-going assessment for areas of critical need, evidence of progress in critical need areas, and contact between staff and community partners (see Appendix 15). Information from the audits will be reported in TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 18 staff meetings and used for program feedback, learning and fidelity monitoring. The administrative assistant will be responsible program and budget monitoring and reporting (Connelly, 2007). Pre and post tests of the Ansell-Casey battery and GAF assessment, as well as the self-report questionnaire for youth in care (see Appendices 7-12) will be used at program entry and after 5 case management visits. As clients enter the program at various stages in their school careers and maturity, as well as following emancipation, it is expected areas of critical need will be unique to each individual. Time series design will be employed to capture progress in access to services in each of the identified areas of critical need. Following completion of the case management program, if clients are still involved with TT, post tests will be re -administered annually. A key measurement component will be the number of case management contacts/visits needed for improvement in critical need areas. Ansell-Casey data will be compared to the Casey Family Programs database (Casey Family Programs, 2010), and identified outcome measures of the Child Welfare Dynamic Reports (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010) for Riverside County will also provide comparison for TT's clientele. This data will be used to decide if TT is meeting their intended objectives on micro, mezzo and macro levels. In the last month of the program, a fmal compilation of data will occur. An evaluation consultant will be contracted for assistance with the compilation and evaluation of fmal program outputs and outcomes. Cost analysis data will also be included in the fmal report. The monthly data and the year end data will be synthesized into one fmal report (Connelly, 2007). The total program's total expenses of $227,575.00 divided by 50, TT's planned number of clients, equals $4,551.50 annually or $12.47 per day to serve each client (see Appendix 20 for line item budget). Per unit service costs are more difficult to allocate during the pilot year, as numbers do not yet exist on service units provided. It is expected, in many cases, service contact will continue beyond the prescribed five case management visits. Eventual valuable evaluation data will consist of TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 19 number of contacts per client, with data on low, medium and high use service usage to achieve intermediate outcomes. The director is paid $50,000 a year, or $24.04 per hour ($50,000/2080 hrs annually) with an additional 25% ($12,500) budgeted for employee related expenses (ERE) (Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 2008), for a total of $62,500. The two case managers are each paid $40,000 annually, which equals ($40,000/2080 hrs worked in a year) or $19.23 per hour salary plus $10,000 ERE for a total of $50,000. The Outreach Coordinator will work part-time (PTE), 20 hours a week, at an hourly rate of $13.50, for a salary of $14,040 annually, plus ERE of $3510 (25%), for a total of $17,550. The Administrative Assistant will also be PTE, 20 hours a week, at an hourly rate of $11.50, for a salary of $11,960 annually and ERE of $2990 (25%), for a total of $14,950. Unit cost can be estimated by adding total salary and ERE costs ($195,000) and dividing by the number of staff hours per year (8320), for a total of $23.44 per staff hour. Individual hours can be assigned through monthly report, to determine a range of unit costs. Design Constraints There are several limitations in this program evaluation design, the first being the low number in the sample, even though it is representative of the entire in care population and the identified emancipated population. The use of comparison data from Casey Family Programs (Casey Family Programs, 2010) and Riverside County Child Welfare Dynamic Reports (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010) will attempt to control for that factor as well as common threats to internal validity, i.e. maturation, history, testing, instrumentation, selection, and mortality (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2010). Indeed, in some aspect, it is a hope of the program design that testing emphasis on the critical areas of need will in itself produce a positive awareness and contribution to results. As clients will enter the program at different ages and stages of their transition, measuring outcomes can be difficult. The time series design will provide individual data on progress. Ideally, TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 20 the evaluation will be longitudinal to allow for TAY to cycle in and out of the program with more final outcomes for consideration. Instruments The Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment, Chafee Supplement, captures outcomes for child welfare and Chafee services. This free assessment was created for adolescents in care and young adults who have emancipated from care or are in aftercare. Benchmark data is available, free of charge, for comparison (Casey Family Programs, 2010). Please see Appendix 19 for information on the benchmark data. The Child Welfare Dynamic Reports for Riverside County include the County —Specific Outcome Spreadsheets. "These spreadsheets contain the data that are included in the California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System quarterly reports, along with additional tabs that include graphs of the measures, ways to compare performance over time, composite views, etc. In order to understand any measure, it is necessary to review it in the context of the entire cycle of measures, performance over time, and performance stratified by age, ethnicity, and gender" (California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley, 2010). This quarterly data includes self-report, availability -sample data obtained during exit interviews with youth emancipating from care on the identified areas of critical need. In 2009, data was compiled from 176 or the 317 youth emancipating from care in Riverside County. Techniques Used to Analyze Data A contracted evaluation consultant will compile and analyze all data gathered through the MIS process. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) will be used to compute frequency distributions for independent variables, and correlations between independent variables and each of the dependent variables through univariate and bivariate analysis. Statistical procedures TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 21 will be chosen by the evaluation consultant according the quantity and quality of the data collected (Connelly, 2007). PERSONNEL: SECTION 5 Case Management and Capacity Building Approach The Transition Temecula team is made of a director, case managers, and an outreach coordinator, with backgrounds in the social services. The team meets weekly to discuss client cases. The director runs the meetings. The TT team is made of five staff members, each of which will be briefly described in this section (Connelly, 2007). Please refer to Appendices 22 and 23 to read detailed job descriptions and to view the organizational chart. Director (1.0 FTE). The TT director will be paid $50,000 annually to direct all activities and provide supervision to program staff. The director will promote TT in the community, in meetings and conferences, and will report to the CCS Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth. The director supervises staff, monitors program fidelity, monitors the program budget and coordinates the program evaluation activities (Connelly, 2007). Some evening and weekend work may be required. Master's level degree, preferably with an administrative emphasis in social work, is required. Other advanced degrees in business, administration, leadership and social services will be considered. Two years of experience with TAY clientele is preferred, two years experience in child welfare is required. Case manager (2 -1.0 FTE). TT case managers will be paid $40,000 annually to manage a client case load of 25-30 TAY. Clientele will consist of both in care and emancipated TAY. Each case manager will work one evening a week, and some weekend time when necessary. The case managers report at weekly meetings, perform file audit review, and administer case management services as proscribed by the program. They screen, assess, counsel, mentor and make customized referrals for clients. Case managers form relationships with community service providers and closely monitor all referrals TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 22 (Connelly, 2007). Bachelor degrees, preferably in social work, but secondarily in the social sciences, are required. A valid California Driver's License is also required. Outreach coordinator (.50 FTE). The outreach coordinator (OC) is responsible, along with the director, for capacity building aspects of TT's mission. A bachelor degree, preferably in social work, but secondarily in the social sciences, is required. A valid California Driver's License is also required. Work hours are flexible each week, requiring night and weekend work, as needed. One night a month, foster family recruitment will be conducted by the OC. Other duties include training stakeholders in the impact of educational instability and college readiness, and the provisions of AB 12, distributing printed materials, conducting tours, doing outreach to identify services and community programs and documenting them for the case managers, representing TT, along with the director, at city, county, and school meetings. Salary is $13.50 an hour, plus benefits. It is hoped providing benefits with this PTE will provide employment stability. Administrative assistant (.50 FTE). The administrative assistant's job is to provide clerical support for the program. It requires a high school diploma and basic computer skills. The administrative assistant compiles client data, monitors budgets and works with the director to create reports and participate in various evaluation activities (Connelly, 2007). Work hours are 11 am-3:30pm daily and the pay is $11.50 an hour, plus benefits. It is hoped providing benefits with this PTE will provide employment stability. Budget: Section 6 Context Transition Temecula (TT) is based on a San Francisco model, and is an outgrowth of Temecula's City, County, School Partnership, Task Force on Foster Youth, an interagency planning effort that created directives to improve outcomes for Transitional Age Youth (TAY), aged 16-24, which met from 2008-2010. The effort highlighted the unmet needs for Temecula's 14-18 year olds. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 23 With a focus on connecting TAY to existing resources, improving collaboration, and coordinating activities, the task force still found significant gaps in supportive services. It was determined the CCS Partnership, which included the City of Temecula, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District would pool financial resources, and solicit community assets for implementation of a pilot program to see if better outcomes for TAY could be achieved. Based on existing best practice research, and on models in San Francisco and Pasadena, the decision was made to form Transition Temecula with a goal to support current agency activities, events, and programs, link TAY and caregivers to current resources, enable stability, and employ evidence based practices to improve TAY access to education, financial assistance, housing, employment, health and welfare services, transportation and permanent, stable adult relationships. The implementation is supported through in-kind matches of office space, office equipment and furnishings, and utility support from the governing partners. Since TT is a new program, the data collected will serve as a baseline for future program evaluations. All expenses are projected, and budgetary data will be monitored for areas that need to be fine-tuned to maximize efficiency as future budgets are created (Connelly, 2007). If successful, TT will be used as model program for other Riverside County cities and school districts who desire to form CCS partnerships of their own. Analysis Personnel. As a case management model, the majority of TT's expenses are under the personnel category, totaling $195,000 or 86% of the budget. CCS partners will contribute both in-kind and in cash, with $150,000 of program costs split evenly between agency budgets. Community partners have allocated the following funds for the first year of the program: BetterWorld Together Trust - $25,000, United Way of the Inland Valleys - $15,000, H.E.A.R.T. - $10,000, Temecula Valley Woman's Club - $10,000, and Wishes for Children - $6000. Temecula Valley Assistance League, TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 24 Temecula Noon Rotary, and Temecula Kiwanis have also promised support for the GAP fund and for a yearly TAY retreat. TT is anxious to show favorable outcomes so support will continue. Due to personnel costs being classified as a direct cost, and the administrative overhead kept down through the support of CCS partners, TT programs/expense ratio is high at 94.6%. This meets and exceeds the 60% desired standard (Connelly, 2007). Nonpersonnel. TT's non -personnel costs are kept low through the in-kind support of CCS partners. A total of $34,180 non -personnel costs are proposed, which equals 15% of the total budget. However, $21,800 of this figure is achieved through in-kind office space, utility, and office equipment and furniture donation, making the total overhead figure $12,380, or 5.4% of the budget. Other Comments Overall, TT's projected budget is balanced. It has acceptable overhead expenses (5.4%), and acceptable cash match total (25%). It has present fmancial support from CCS Partners and community assets. TT is currently looking for additional grant funding. TT needs to diversify funding sources to remedy its initial over reliance government budgets. It is estimated it will cost TT $4,551.50 annually or $12.47 per day to serve each client (see Appendix 20 for line item budget), with a cost of $23.44 per staff hour. These costs can be compared to both in care costs for TAY and incarceration costs to the community. One third of Temecula's TAY live in a level 9 group home, at a rate of $5000-6000 per youth, per month. Foster Family agency placement, the bulk of the rest of Temecula's TAY caregivers, costs $600-800 per month, as does county caregiver placement (State of California, 2007). Incarceration costs for both federal and state prisons, runs at $62.01 and $62.05, respectively, per day (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). The CCS Partnership Task Force on Foster Youth believes if foster youth outcomes can be significantly improved, the TT program will prove a bargain. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 25 REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport. htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1- Youth in Care). Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, INdependent Living, and Self -Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program. Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 26 EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment offoster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief Partners for our children, building a case for change. Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review , 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness -Based Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out offoster care in their middle twenties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 27 Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review , 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment , 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www.rcoe.k 12.ca.us/studentPrograms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.html Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long -Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107- 124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 28 Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982- 2006, 62.05 state. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfin U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj .gov/index.cfin?ty=tp&tid=16 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL APPENDIX 1 - GEOGRAPHICAL MAP OF TT SERVICE AREA 29 Existing High Schools Future High School CHAPARRAL HIGH GREAT OAK HIGH TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH 1 2 4 Mies Attendance Boundaries are reviewed annually and are subject to change as new schools are opened and existing school capacities are evaluated. Temecula Valley Unified School District 2010-11 High School Boundaries TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 30 APPENDIX 2 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 31 APPENDIX 3 - COMMUNITY PARTNERS City of Temecula • City Council • City Manager's Office County of Riverside • Board of Supervisors, particularly District 3 • Department of Public Social Services • Independent Living Programs • Riverside Community College Foster Youth Services Temecula Valley Unified School District • School Board • Foster Youth Liaison • High School Counselors Riverside County Board of Education • Foster Youth Services BetterWorld Together Trust Boys and Girls Club, Southwest County Help Eliminate Abuse in Rancho -Temecula (H.E.A.R.T.) HUGS Foster Family Agency Plan -It Life Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) Temecula Kiwanis Club Temecula Rotary Temecula Valley Assistance League Temecula Valley Woman's Club Thessalonika Services • Rancho Damacitas Group Home • Rancho Jireh Foster Family Agency United Way of the Inland Valleys Wishes for Children 1 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 32 APPENDIX 4 — CLIENT OUTCOME LOGIC MODEL FOR TRANSITION TEMECULA Assumptions: better emancipation outcomes for TAY can be achieved through community collaboration and support educational stability leads to academic achievement Activities/Services Transcript review, counselor contact, youth information and case management )I Train all branches on impact of educational instability and college readiness placement stability leads to emotional health supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness incarceration, and substance abuse for TAY access to transportation promotes opportunity financial aid is necessary for post -high school training presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. school o high school counselors Connect to RCOE tutoring Foster family recruitment Secure and maintain vital records Priority placement -.rig summer jobs program Sheltered job and intemship program L Connect to emancipation services, bus passes Driver's license program ti Follow up on FAFSA, Chafee, Cal Grants, scholarships from community groups Involvement in Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings Information and referrals to caregivers Tours of college campuses and connection to guardian scholar programs Community College assessment and remediation begun during senior HS year Connect to THP+ housing Fund and create Temecula area THP+ housing Train all stakeholders in AB12 provisions Intermediate Outcomes College readiness Increased emotional health Increased employment Increased access to health and welfare services Increased mental health access .4] Fund CASA, CASA Start program Family Finding Increased access to safe and secure housing Increased access to transportation Increased access to financial aid ‚_l3-5 relationships with permanent, stable adults Results I Increased graduation from post HS programs Reduction in homelessness, incarceration, and unemployment for TAY TAY who can achieve, compete, and thrive alongside their peers, contributing to the communities in which they reside TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 33 Staff Name APPENDIX 5 — TT STAFF CHARACTERISTICS Position: O Director O Case Manager ❑ Outreach Coordinator Degree: ❑ High School Graduate ❑ AA Degree ❑ Para -professional Certificate Please state name of certificate ❑ BSW O MSW O LCSW ❑ MFT ❑ Other Please state type TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL APPENDIX 6 - REQUIRED STAFF TRAINING LOG 34 Staff member Trainings Required Date Completed Director Cultural Sensitivity Training GAF Assessment Training Motivational Interviewing Training TT Program Model Training Harm Reduction Model Training Trauma Informed Model of Care Training Casey Family Programs Breakthrough Series Collaborative: Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families Case Manager Cultural Sensitivity Training GAF Assessment Training Motivational Interviewing Training TT Program Model Training Harm Reduction Model Training Trauma Informed Model of Care Training Outreach Coordinator Cultural Sensitivity Training TT Program Model Training Casey Family Programs Breakthrough Series Collaborative: Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families Administrative Assistant Cultural Sensitivity Training TT Program Model Training TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 35 APPENDIX 7 - ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT, YOUTH IN CARE AnseII-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (CS 1.0) VERSION 1 — Youth in Care Instructions: These questions ask about the life of a youth in foster care. This information is considered confidential. Only representatives of your state or county social work agency will see the information. Your responses may help to make your agency's policies and services better for foster youths. If you have any questions about this assessment, please contact your agency social worker or independent living coordinator. Please choose the responses that best describe you. 3. How long have you lived there? C < 1 week O 1 Year O 1 Week 0 2 Years O 2 Weeks 0 3 years O 3 Weeks 0 4 Years O 1 Month 0 5 Years O 2 Months 0 6 Years O 3 Morins 0 7 years O 4 Months 0 8 Years O 5 Months 0 9 Years O 6 Months 0 10 Years O 7 Months O 11 Years O 8 Months 0 12 Years O 9 Monts 0 13 Years O 10 Mayas 0 14 Years O 11 Months 0 15 Years 4. How much school have you completed? C 1. grade O 2. grade O 3^' grade O 4' grade O 54 grade O 6' grade O 7e grade O 8^ grade 5. What is your gender? C Female 0 Male 6. Your current age (years): O 16 Years O 17 Years O 18 Years O 19 Years O 20 Years O 21 Years O 22 Years O 23 Years 0 24 Years O 25 Years O 26 Years O 27 Years O 28 Years O 29 Years O 30 Years • . grade O egad*grade O 12" grade O Trade school O In college O Osler 7. What is your race+ethnicity? O American Indian or 0 Korean Alaskan Native 0 Mexican or Mer,can- O Asian Indian American c- 0 -O Black, Amcan-American 0 Native Haa:aran O Chinese 0 Other .Asian O Cuban 0 Other Pacific Islander O Filipino 0 Puerto Rican O Guamanian a Chamorro 0 Samoan O Hspank, Latino or 0 Vietnamese Spanish 0 White O Japanese 0 Other Race. 8. 1f you are American Indian. Native American. or Alaska Native. please describe your Tribal or Community Affiliation: Demographics 1. From what state would you get Chafee services? O Alabama C Kentucky 0 Oho O Alaska 0 Louisiana 0 Oklahoma O Arizona 0 Maine 0 Oregon :0 Arkansa 0 Maryland C Pennsylvania • California 0 Massachusetts 0 Puerto Rico Colorado 0 Michigan 0 Rhode Island C Connecticut 0 Minnesota 0 South Carolina • Delaware 0 Mississippi 0 Sorts Dakota District of 0 Missouri 0 Tennessee Columbia 0 Montana 0 Texas • Florida 0 Nehraska 0 Utah O Georgia 0 Nevada 0 Vermont O Hawaii 0 New Hampshire 0 Virginia O Idaho 0 New Jersey 0 Washingtct O Illinois 0 New Mexico 0 West Vlrgi-a O Indiana 0 New 'York 0 1MsConsn O Iowa 0 North Carolina 0 Wyoming O Kansas 0 North Dakota 2. Where do you live? 0 On my own (alone or shared housing) O College dormitory O With my Bits (biological) parents O WM my birth (biological) mother or father O With my adoptive parent(s) O With my foster parent(s) who istare unrelated to me O WO relatives (not foster care) O With relatives who are also my foster parents O In a group home or residential facility O In a juvenile detention or corrections facility O WM a friend's fanliry (not foster care) O At a shelter or emergency housing O W W my spouse, or partner, or boyfriend or girlfriend O Homeless O Other Unscored Items Backuround 1. Do you have your own social security number? Yes No Not S.;re 2. Are you taking or have you completed a Driver's Education class? Yes No Not Sure 3. Are you receiving individual or group counseling? O Yes O No O Not Sure Connections 1. Do you plan to connect with any member of your biological family after you leave foster care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Do you currently have a connection with your biological family? O Yes O No O Not Sure Health and Risk PreventiOn 1. Do you take medications prescribed to you? O Yes O N O Not Sure 2. Have you had an assessment related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? 0 Yes O No O Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 36 3. Have you had counseling related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? O Yes O No O Not Sure 4. Have you been homeless for at least one night during the past year? O Yes O No O Not Sure Marital and Parenting 1. Are you married? O Yes oNo O Not Sure 2. Have you ever impregnated a female? (Male specific question) O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Have you ever been pregnant? (Female specific question) O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you a father? (Male specific question) O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you currently pregnant? (Female specific question) O Yes 0 N O Not Sure Education, Vocation and Employment 1. Do you have a vocational certificate or license? O Yes 0 N O Not Sure Scored Items Documents and Plans 1. Do you have an official copy of your birth certificate? O Yes o No O Not Sure 2. Do you have a Driver's License or ID card from the state? O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Do you know how to get your medical records H you need them? • Yes • No O Not Sure 4. Do you know how to get your school records H you need them? O Yes • No • Not Sure 5. Did you participate in developing a plan for your transition from foster care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 6. Do you have a written plan for your transition from foster care? O Yes O No O Not Sure Connections and Housing 1. Do you feel safe where you live? • Yes • No =' Not Sure 2. Do you have at least one adult in the community. other than your caseworker you can go to for guidance and support? O Yes • No 3. Not Sure 2. Are you using a Chafee Education and Training Voucher? O Yes 'No O Not Sure 3. Have you completed an internship in the past year? O Yes • No • Not Sure 4. Have you completed an apprenticeship in the past year? O Yes ONo O Not Sure 5. Have you completed an on-the-job training in the past year? O Yes O No O Not Sure 6. Are you currently attending school when school is in session? Yes n No O Not Sure Financial and Housing Asssistance 1. Are you receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Are you receiving food stamps? O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you receiving housing assistance from a public agency? O Yes O No O Not Sure 4. Do you receive social security payments. scholarships or other grants? • Yes 0 No 0 Not Sure 3. Do you know where you will live after you leave foster care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 4. Do you cook some of your own meals where you live? O Yes O No O Not Sure Health and Risk Prevention 1. Do you know where to call if you need medical care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Do you know where to call if you need dental care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Do you know why you would take prescribed medications? O Yes O No O Not Sure Legal 1. Were you in jail or prison during the past year? • Yes O No • Not Sure Budget. Money Management and Insurance 1. Do you have any kind of bank account? Yes No Not Sure 2. Do you save money on a regular basis? ▪ Yes No • Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 3. Do you have medicaid of other health insurance? O Yes O No O Not Sure 4. Do you have Medicaid or other insurance that pays for part of or all of your prescription drugs. ves Nc r.ot Sere Education, Vocation.and Employment 1. Do you do any volunteer work? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Do you know about the education and training voucher program? O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you employed either full-time or part-time? O Yes • No O Not Sure 4. If -YES" to fi3: How many hours per week do you work? 5. Are you going to school or getting vocational training full or part time? Yes • No Not Sure 37 1. How did you like this assessment? I liked it I: was 0, I Didn't the it 2. Do you belong to any foster youth or alumni association? "es No Not Sure `If you would like to know more about an association dedicated to alumni of `oster care. please contact roster Care Alumni of America at n-ww.foste•carealumni.orgor 1-888-254-6640 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 38 APPENDIX 8 - ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT, EMANCIPATED YOUNG ADULT AnseII-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (CS 1.0) VERSION 1 - Emacipated Young Adult Instructions: These questions ask about the life of a young adult emancipated from foster care This information is considered confidentiar Only representatives of your state or county social work agency will see the information Your responses may help to make your agency's policies and services better for foster youths If you have any questions about this assessment, please contact your agency social worker or independent living coordinator. Please choose the responses that best descnbe you 3. How long have you lived there? • 1 week C 1 Year O 1 Week 0 2 Years O 2 Weeks 0 3 Years O 3 Weeks 0 4 Years O 1 Month O 5 Years O 2 Months 0 6 Years O 3 Months 0 7 Years O 4 Months 0 8 Years O 5 Months O 9 Years O 6 Months 0 10 Years O 7 Months C 11 Years O 8 Months 0 12 Years O 9 Months 0 13 Years O 10 Months 0 14 Years O 11 Months C 15 Years 4. How much school have you completed? C 1` grade O 2"0 grade O 3'1 grade O 47 grade O 57 grade O 6TM grade O 7'" grade O 8"' grade 5. What is your gender? O Female C Male 6. Your current age (years) O 16 Years O 17 Years O 18 Years O 19 Years O 20 Years O 21 Years O 22 Years O 23 Years O 24 Years O 25 Years O 26 Years O 27 Years O 28 Years O 29 Years O 30 Years O 9° O 10' grade O 11' grade O 1? grade O Trade school O In college O Other 7. What is your race/ethnicity? C American Indian or 0 Korean Alaskan Native 0 Mexican or Mexican - O Asian Indian Amencan or Chicano O Black, .African-Amencan 0 Native Hawaiian O Chinese 0 Other Asian O Cuban 0 Other Pacific Islander O Filipino 0 Puerto Rican O Guamanian or Chamorro 0 Samoan O Hispanic. Latino or 0 Vietnamese Spanish 0 White O Japanese 0 Other Race 8. If you are American Indian. Native American, or Alaska Native. please describe your Tribal or C ommunity Affiliation: Demographics From what state would you get Chafee services? O Alabama 0 Kentucky 0 Ohio O Alaska C Louisiana 0 Oklahoma C Arizona 0 Maine 0 Oregon O Arkansa 0 Maryland 0 Pennsylvania O Calitomia 0 Massachusetts 0 Puerto Rico O Colorado 0 Michigan 0 Rhode Islanc O Connecticut 0 Minnesota 0 South Carolira O Delaware 0 Mississippi 0 South Dakota O District of 0 Missoun 0 Tennessee Columbia 0 Montana 0 Texas O Florida 0 Nebraska 0 Utah O Georgia 0 Nevada 0 Vermont O Hawaii 0 New Hampshire 0 Virginia O klatto 0 New Jersey 0 Washington O Illinois 0 New Mexico 0 West Virgna O Indiana 0 New York 0 Wisconsin O Iowa 0 North Carolina 0 Wyoming O Kansas 0 North Dakota 2. Where do you live? O On my own (alone or shared housing) O College dormitory 0 With my Birth (biological) parents 0 With my birth (biological) mother or father 0 With my adoptive oarent(s) 0 With my foster parent(s) who is/are unrelated to me 0 With relatives (not foster care) 0 With relatives who are also my foster parents O In a group home or residential facility O In a juvenile detention or corrections facility 0 With a friend s family (not foster care) 0 Ata shelter or emergency housing 0 With my spouse, or partner, or boyfriend or girlfriend O Homeless O Other Unscored Items Background I. Do you have your own social security number? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Are you taking or have you completed a Driver's Education class? 0 Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you receiving individual or group counseling? O Yes O No O Not Sure Connections I. Do you currently have a connection with or do you plan to connect with your biological family? Yes No • Not Sure Health and Risk Prevention 1. Do you take medications prescribed to you? O • es No O Not Sure 2. Have you had an assessment related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? Yes • Flo Not Sure 3. Have you had counseling related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? 0 Yes O No O Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 4. Have you been homeless for at least one night during the past year? O Yes O No O Not Sure Marital and Parenting 1. Are you married? tic tic: Sze =. Have you ever impregnated a female? (Male specific questtonl O Yes o No O Not Sue 2. Have you ever been pregnant? (Female specific question) O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you a father? (Male specific question) O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you currently pregnant? (Female specific question) Ye Ilc Ilc: 0_ye Education. Vocation and Employment 1. Do you have a vocational certificate or license? O Yes O No O Not Sure Z. Are you using a Chafee Education and Training Voucher? o Yes o No O Not Sure Scored Items Documents and Plans I. Do you have an official copy of your birth certificate? Ples I la.O jre 2. Do you have a Driver's License or ID card from the state? O Yes o No O Not Sere 3. Do you know how to get your medical records if you need them? O Yes o No O Not Sure 4. Do you know how to get your school records if you need them? O Yes o No O Not Sue S. Did you participate in developing a plan for your transition from foster care? • ties o No O Not Sure 6. Did you have a written plan for your transition from foster care? O Yes o No O Not Sure Connections and Housing 1. Do you feel safe where you live? 'IS tic tic. ;.re 2. Do you have at least one adult in the community. other than your caseworker you can go to for guidance and support? • Yes O No Not Sure 39 3. Have you completed an internship in the past year? O Yes O No O Not Sure 4. Have you completed an apprenticeship in the past year? O Yes O No O Not Sure E. Have you completed an on-the-job training in the past year? O Yes o No O Not Sure 6. Are you currently attending school when school is in session? O Yes O No O Not Sure Financial and Housino Asssistance 1. Are you receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)? O Yes O No O Not Sue 2. Are you receiving food stamps? O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you receiving housing assistance from a public agency? O Yes O No O Not Sure L. Do you receive social security payments. scholarships or other grants? Yes No Not Satre ?. Did you identify a place to live after you left foster care? les • No O Not Sire 4. Do you cook some of your own meals where you live? C Yes O No O Not Sure Health and Risk Prevention 1. Do you know where to call if you need inedical care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Do you know where to call if you need dental care? G Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Do you know why you would take prescribed medications? O Yes 0 N O Not Sure Legal 1. Were you in jail or prison during the past year? YES rdc hlo: Sure Budget, Money Management and Insurance 1. Do you have any kind of bank account? G Yes C No • Not Sure 2. Do you save money on a regular basis? O Yes O No O Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 3. Do you have medicaid of other health insurance? C Yes C No C Not Sure =. Do you have Medicaid or other insurance that pays for part of or all of you prescription drugs. O Yes O No O Not S.ve Education, Vocahon.and Employment 1. Do you do any volunteer work? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Do you know about the education and training voucher program? O Yes O No O Not Sure 3. Are you employed either full-time or part-time? O Yes O No O Not Sure 4. If "YES" to e3: Now many hours per week do you work? S. Are you going to school or getting vocational training full or pail time? O Yes O No O Not Sure 40 I. How did you like this assessment? I iKe C. It was OK I d dr't Ike it 2. Do you belong to any foster youth or alumni association? Yes • No • !to Sure 'Y you would Ike to know more about ar association cecicated to alumni o` foster careplease coeact Foster Care Alurrn M An•enca at www fostercarea oNor 1-88F-253-6Eu2. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 41 APPENDIX 9 - ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT, ADULT REPORTER FOR YOUTH IN CARE AnseII-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafes Assessment (CS 1.0) VERSION 1 — Adult Reporter for Youth In Care Instructions: These questions ask about the Ide of a foster youth This information is considered confidential. Only representatives of your state or county social work agency will see the information. Your responses may help to make your agency's policies and services better for foster youths. If you have any questions about this assessment. please contact your agency social worker or independent living coordinator. Please choose the responses that best describe you. 3. How long has the O < 1 week O 1 Week O 2 Weeks O 3 Weeks O 1 Month o 2 Months O 3 Months O 4 Months O 5 Months O 6 Months O 7 Months O 8 Months O 9 Months O 10 Months O 11 Months 4. How much school O 1' grade O 2"d grade C 3rd grade • 4t' grade C 5^ grade C 6^ grade C 7°' grade C 8`" grade 5. What is the youth's gender? Female 3 Male youth lived there? • 1 Year O 2 Years O 3 Years O 4 Years O 5 Years O 6 Years O 7 Years O 8 Years O 9 Years O 10 Years O 11 Years O 12 Years O 13 Years O 14 Years O 15 Years has the youth completed? 00000 O( O 16 Years O 17 Years O 18 Years O 19 Years O 20 Years O 21 Years O 22 Years O 23 Years O 24 Years O 25 Years O 26 Years O 27 Years O 28 Years 0 29 Years O 30 Year 9'"_grade 10 grade 11"grade 12'" grade Trade school In college Other 6. What is the youth's age (years) ? 7. What is the youth's racefethnicity? • American Indian or 0 Korean Alaskan Native 0 Mexican or Mexican - O Asian Indian Amencan or Chicano O Black. Afncan-American 0 Native Hawaiian O Chinese 0 Other Asian O Cuban 0 Other Pacific Islander C Filipino 0 Puerto Rican C Guamanian or Chamorro 0 Samoan O Hispanic, Latino or 0 Vietnamese Spanish 0 White C Japanese 0 Other Race. 8. If the youth is American Indian, Native American, or Alaska Native. please describe your Tribal or Community Affiliation: Demographics 1. From what state would the youth get Chafes services? C Alabama 0 Kentucky 0 Ohio 0 Alaska 0 Louisiana 0 Oklahoma C Anzona 0 Maine 0 Oregon 0 Arkansa 0 Maryland 0 Pennsylvania C California 0 Massachusetts 0 Puerto Rico C Colorado 0 Michigan 0 Rhode Island C Connecticut 0 Minnesota C South Carolina C Delaware 0 Missrssippi 0 South Dakota O District of 0 Missouri 0 Tennessee Columbia 0 Montana 0 Texas 0 Fonda 0 Nebraska C Utah C Georgia 0 Nevada 0 Vermont C Hawaii 0 New Hampshire 0 Virginia C Idaho 0 New Jersey 0 Washington C Illinois 0 New Mexico C West Virgina C Indiana 0 New York C Wrscons n C Iowa 0 North Carolina C Wyomino C Kansas 0 North Dakota 2. Where does the youth live? C On my own (alone or shared housing) O College dormitory O With my Birth (biological) parents O With my birth (biological) mother or father O With my adoptive parent(s) O With my foster parent(s) who islare unrelated to me O With relatives (not foster care) O With relatives who are also my foster parents O In a group home or residential facihty O In a juvenile detention or convictions facility O With a friend's family (not foster care) O At a shelter or emergency housing O With my spouse, or partner. or boyfriend or girlfriend O Homeless O Other Unscored Items Background I. Does the youth have his or her own social security number? • Yes No Not Sine 2. Is the youth taking or has he or she completed a Driver's Education class? C Yes C No • Not Sure 3. Is the youth receiving individual or group counseling? O Yes No ▪ Not Sure Connections . Does the youth plan to connect with any member of his or her biological family after leaving foster care? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Does the youth currently have a connection with or do they plan to connect with his or her biological family? • Yes • No • Not Sure Health and Risk Prevention 1. Does the youth take predications prescribed to them? O Yes O No O Not Sure 2. Has the youth had an assessment related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? O Yes C No C Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 3. Has the youth had counseling related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? ▪ Yes • No • Not Sure 4. Has the youth been homeless for at least one night during the past year? Yes No O Not Sure Marital and Parenting 1. Is the youth married? vec Nc Not Su•e 2. Has he ever impregnated a female? (Male specific question) Yes Nc 2 Not Stye 2. Has she ever been pregnant? (Female specific question) C Yes C No C Not Sure 3. Is he a father? (Male specific question) O Yes C No C Not Sure 3. Is she currently pregnant? (Female specific question) C Yes ▪ Nc • Nct Sue Education, Vocation and Employment I. Does the youth have a vocational certificate or license? Yes Nc Not Sve 4. Is the youth receiving social security payments. scholarships or other grants? Yes Nc 2 Not Sure Scored Items Documents and Plans I. Does the youth have an official copy of his or her birth certificate? Yes No Not Sure 2. Does the youth have a Driver's License or ID card from the state? O Yes O No • Not Sure 3. Does the youth know how to get his or her medical records if he or she needs thein? C Yes C No O Not Sure 4. Does the youth know how to get his or her school records if he or she needs them? Yes Vo Not St. -e E.. Will the youth participate in developing a plan for transition from foster care? Yes ▪ No O Not Sure 6. Does the youth have a written plan for transition from foster care? C Yes • No • Not Sure 42 2. Is the youth using a Chafee Education and Training Voucher? Yes No Not Sure Has the youth completed an internship in the past year? • Yes _; No Not Sure 4. Has the youth completed an apprenticeship in the past year? CI Yes No C Not Sure Has the youth completed an on-the-job training in the past year? • Yes C No C Not Sure 6. Is the youth currently attending school when school is in session? Yes • No Not Sure Financial and Housing Asssistance I. Is the youth receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)? C Yes C No C Not Sure 2. Is the youth receiving food stamps? C Yes C No C Not Sure 3. Is the youth receiving housing assistance from a public agency? Yes No Not Sure Connections and Housing I. Does the youth feel safe where he or she lives? O Yes No O Not Sure 2. Does the youth have at least one adult in the community. other than his or her caseworker he or she can go to for guidance and support? Yes Nc Not Sure Has the youth identified a place to live after he or she leaves foster care? C Yes C No C Not Sure 4. Does the youth cook some of his or her own meals where he or she lives? C Yes • No C Not Sure Health and Risk Prevention I. Does the youth know where to call if he or she needs medical care? C Yes • No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth know where to call if he or she needs dental care? O Yes • No O Not Sure 3. Does the youth know why he or she would take prescribed medications? • Yes C No C Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Lectial 1. Was the youth in jail or prison during the past year? O Yes • No ▪ Not Sure Budget. Money Management and insurance 1. Does the youth have any kind of bank account? • Yes • No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth save money on a regular basis? C Yes • No C Not Sure 3. Does the youth have medicaid of other health insurance? C Yes • No O Not Sure 4. Does the youth have Medicaid or other insurance that pays for part of or all of his or her prescription drugs? • Yes • No C Not Sure Education, Vocation,and Employment I. Does the youth do any volunteer work? O Yes • No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth know about the education and training voucher program? C Yes • No O Not Sure 43 3. Is the youth employed either full-time or part-time? C Yes C No C Not Sure 4. If "YES" to #3: How many hours per week does he or she work? 5. Is the youth going to school or getting vocational training full or part time? C Yes No C Not Sure 1. How did you like this assessment? C I liked it C It was OK C I didn't like it 2. Do the youth belong to a foster youth or alumni association? C Yes C No C Not Sure if you would like to know more about an association dedicated to alumni of foster care, please contact Foster Care Alumni of America at www .fostercarealumni.ora or 1-888-258-6640. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 44 APPENDIX 10 - ANSELL-CASEY LIFE SKILLS ASSESSMENT, CHAFEE SUPPLEMENT, ADULT REPORTER FOR YOUTH IN CARE Anseil-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafes Assessment (CS 1.0) VERSION 1 —Adult Reporter for Emancipated Young Adult Instructions: These questions ask about the life of a young adult emancipated from foster care. This information is considered confidential. Only representatives of your state or county social work agency will see the information. Your responses may help to make your agency's policies and services better for foster youths. If you have any questions about this assessment. please contact your agency social worker or independent living coordinator. Please choose the responses that best describe you. 3. How long has the youth lived there? • week O 1 Week O 2 Weeks O 3 Weeks O 1 Month O 2 Months O 3 Months O 4 Months O 5 Months O 6 Months O 7 Months O 8 Months O 9 Months O 10 Months O 11 Months 00000000000000 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years 6 Years 7 Years 8 Years 9 Years 10 Years 11 Years 12 Years 13 Years 14 Years 15 Years O 16 Years O 17 Years O 18 Years O 19 Years O 20 Years O 21 Years O 22 Years O 23 Years O 24 Years O 25 Years O 26 Years O 27 Years O 28 Years O 29 Years O 30 Year 4. Flow much school has the youth completed? O 1" grade 0 9r'�grade O 2n4 grade 0 10 grade O 3rr grade 0 11' grade O 4r grade 0 12'" grade O 5' grade 0 Trade school O 6° grade 0 In college O 7r' grade 0 Other O 8r' grade 5. What is the youth's gender? O Female 0 Male 6. What is the youth's age (years) ? 7. What Is the youth's race/ethnicity? C American Indian or 0 Korean Alaskan Native 0 Mexican or Mexican - O Asian Indian Amencan or Chicano O Black, Afrcan-American 0 Native Hawaiian O Chinese 0 Other Asian O Cuban 0 Other Pacific Islander O Filipino 0 Puerto Rican O Guamanian or Chamorro 0 Samoan O Hispanic. Latino or 0 Vietnamese Spanish 0 White O Japanese 0 Other Race o. If the youth is American Indian, Native American. or Alaska Native. please describe your Tribal or Community Affiliation: Demographics I. From what state would the youth get Chafee services? O Alabama C Alaska 0 Arizona O Arkansa C California C Colorado C Connecticut O Delaware O District of Columbia O Flonda O Georgia O Hawaii C Idaho 0 Illinois C Indiana C Iowa C Kansas 000000000000000000 Kentucky C Ohio Louisiana 0 Oklahoma Maine C Oregon Maryland 0 Pennsylvania Massachusetts C Puerto Rico Michigan 0 Rhode Island Minnesota C South Carolina Mississippi 0 South Dakota Missouri 0 Tennessee Montana C Texas Nebraska 0 Utah Nevada 0 Vermont New Hampshire 0 Virginia New Jersey C Washington New Mexico 0 West Virgin New York 0 Wisconsin North Carolina C Wyoming North Dakota 2. Where does the youth live? C On my own (alone or shared housing) O College dormitory O With my Birth (biological) parents O With my birth (biological) mother or father O Wdh my adoptive parent(s) O With my foster parent(s) who is/are unrelated to me O With relatives (not foster care) O With relatives who are also my foster parents O In a group home or residential facility O In a juvenile detention or corrections facility O With a friend's family (not foster care) O At a shelter or emergency housing O With my spouse, or partner. or boyfriend or girlfriend O Homeless O Other Unscored Items Backarounrl I. Does the youth have his or her own social security number? Yes 'Jc No, Sue 2. Is the youth taking or has he or she completed a Driver's Education class? C Yes C No C Not Sure 3. Is the youth receiving individual or group counseling? C Yes • No C Not Sure Connections Does the youth currently have a connection with or do they plan to connect with his or her biological family? Yes No Not Sve Health and Risk Prevention I. Does the youth take medications prescribed to them? ves = Nc Not Su -e 2. Has the youth had an assessment related to alcohol of drug abuse during the past year? 0. Yes C No C Not Sure 3. Has the youth had counseling related to alcohol or drug abuse during the past year? C Yes ▪ No O Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 4. Has the youth been homeless for at least one night during the past year? C Yes • No C Not Sure Marital and Parenting 1. Is the youth married? C Yes ▪ No C Not Sure 2. Has he ever impregnated a female? (Male specific question) C Yes • No C Not Sure 2. Has she ever been pregnant? (Female specific question) C Yes C No Not Sure 3. Is he a father? (Male specific question) C Yes • No C Not Sure 3. Is she currently pregnant? (Female specific question) C Yes C No C Not Sure Education. Vocation and Employment 1. Does the youth have a vocational certificate or license? C Yes ▪ No C Not Sure 2. Is the youth using a Chafee Education and Training Voucher? C Yes C No C Not Sure Scored Items Documents and Plans 1. Does the youth have an official copy of his or her birth certificate? • Yes • No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth have a Driver's License or ID card from the state? o Yes • No C Not Sure 3. Does the youth know how to get his or her medical records if he or she needs them? C Yes • No C Not Sure 4. Does the youth know how to get his or her school records if he or she needs them? C Yes • No O Not Sure 5. Did the youth participate in developing a plan for transition from foster care? O Yes • No C Not Sure 6. Does the youth have a written plan for transition from foster care? C Yes • No C Not Sure Connections and Housing 1. Does the youth feel safe where he or she lives? • Yes • No C Not Sure 45 3. Has the youth completed an internship in the past year? C Yes • No C Not Sure 4. Has the youth completed an apprenticeship in the past year? C Yes • No C Not Sure 5. Has the youth completed an on-the-job training in the past year? o Yes • No C Not Sure 6. Is the youth currently attending school when school is in session? O Yes • No C Not Sure Financial and Housing Asssistance 1. Is the youth receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) O Yes • No o Not Sure 2. Is the youth receiving food stamps? C Yes C No C Not Sure 3. Is the youth receiving housing assistance from a public agency? o Yes ▪ No • Not Sure 4. Is the youth receiving social security payments. scholarships or other grants? C Yes C No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth have at least one adult in the community. other than his or her caseworker that he or she can go to for guidance and support? O Yes No O Not Sure 3. Did the youth identify a place to live before he or she left foster care? .0 Yes ▪ No C Not Sure 4. Does the youth cook some of his or her own meals where he or she lives? Yes • No C Not Sure Health and Risk Prevention 1. Does the youth know where to call if he or she needs medical care? • Yes ▪ No O Not Sure 2. Does the youth know where to call if he or she needs dental care? o Yes • No O Not Sure 3. Does the youth know why he or she would take prescribed medications? O Yes • No • Not Sure lasial 1. Was the youth In jail or prison during the past year? • Yes • No O Not Sure TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Budget. Money Management and Insurance 1. Does the youth have any kind of bank account? C Yes C No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth save money on a regular basis? C Yes • No C Not Sure 3. Does the youth have Medicaid of other health insurance? C Yes O No C Not Sure 4. Does the youth have Medicaid or other insurance that pays for part of or all of his or her prescription drugs? • Yes • No C Not Sure Education, Vocation,and Employment I. Does the youth do any volunteer work? • Yes C No C Not Sure 2. Does the youth know about the education and training voucher program? C Yes C No C Not Sure 3. le the youth employed either full-time or part-time? C Yes C No C Not Sure 4. If "YES" to #3: How many hours per week does he or she work? 46 5. Is the youth going to school of getting vocational training full or part time? C Yes C No O Not Sure I . How did you like this assessment? C I liked it • It was OK I didn't like it 2. Does the youth belong to a foster youth or alumni association? C Yes • No O Not Sure 'if you would like to know more about an association dedicated to alumni of foster care, please contact Foster Care Alumni of America at www-fostercarealumni.orq or 1-888-258-6640. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL APPENDIX 11 - TT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOUTH IN CARE 47 TRANSITION TEMECULA APPLICANT INFORMATION Last Name Street Address City Phone State E-mail Address M.I. Date of Birth Apartment/Unit # ZIP EDUCATION INFORMATION School attend: 2010/2011 Grade Level IEP Type of school want to attend: ASVAB ❑ Freshman ❑ Sophomore ❑ Junior ❑ Senior Est. Graduation Date/Credits completed: ❑ Yes ❑ No TVUSD Community Service J Yes J No Requirement Complete? Community College ❑ 4 -year ❑ Trade School ❑ Other Have you completed the ASVAB interest survey with your high school counselor or career center? ❑ Yes ❑ No FAFSA Did you check the box indicating Have you applied for ❑ Yes T1 No Application ip-en f cte., rP7 FOSTER PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMATION Last Name I i r e: V I DLit, Street Address Apartment/Unit # City State ZIP Phone E-mail Address TRANSITION INFORMATION Social Worker Name: ILP Social Worker Name: Have you met with him/her? ❑ Yes ❑ No Most recent time was? Emancipation Coach Name: Have you met with him/her? ❑ Yes ❑ No Most recent time was? Have you attended ILP classes? ❑ Yes ❑ No Do you have plans in place for housing after emancipation? ❑ Yes LI No Do you have plans in place for a job after emancipation? ❑ Yes ❑ No Do you have a driver's license ❑ Yes ❑ No I.D. Card? ❑ Yes ❑ No What careers interest you? Are you interested in working with the CCS Partnership on emancipation issues? ❑ Yes ❑ No How many permanent stable adults do you have in your life? Are you interested in efforts at locating extended family members? ❑ Yes ❑ No What sectors of your transition plans need attention? ❑ Education ❑ Housing ❑ Career ❑ Support Network LI Transportation ❑ Financial Assistance 0 Other TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 48 APPENDIX 12 - GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONING (GAF) (American Psychiatric Association [DSM -IV -TR], 2000, P. 34) The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a numeric scale (0 through 100) used by mental health clinicians and physicians to subjectively rate the social, occupational, and psychological functioning of adults, e.g., how well or adaptively one is meeting various problems -in -living. The scale is presented and described in the DSM -IV -TR on page 34. The highest ratings are 91-100, "Superior functioning in a wide range of activities.. No symptoms" and the lowest ratings (besides a 0, for "Inadequate information") are 1-10, "Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others...OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death." Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale• Consider psychological, social, and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health -illness. Do not include impairment in functioning due to physical (or environmental) limitations. Code (Note: Use intermediate codes when appropriate, e.g., 45, 68, 72.) 100-91 Superior functioning in a wide range of activities, life's problems never seem to get out of hand, is sought out by others because of his/her many positive qualities. No symptoms. 90-81 Absent of minimal symptoms (e.g., mild anxiety before an exam), good functioning in all areas, interested and involved in a wide range of activities, socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems or concerns (e.g., an occasional argument with family members). 80-71 If symptoms are present, there are transient and expectable reactions to psycho -social stressors (e.g., difficulty concentrating after family argument); no more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., temporarily falling behind in schoolwork). 70-61 Some mild symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and mild insomnia) OR some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., occasional truancy, or theft within the household), but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful relationships. 60-51 Moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumstantial speech, occasional panic attacks) OR moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers). 50-41 Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) OR any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job). 40-31 Some impairment in reality testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times illogical, obscure, or irrelevant) OR major impairment in several areas, such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., depressed man avoids friends, neglects family, and is unable to work; child frequently beats up younger children, is defiant at home, and is failing at school). 30-21 Behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations OR serious impairment in communication or judgment (e.g., sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation) OR inability to function in almost all areas (e.g., stays in bed all day; no job, home or friends). 20-11 Some danger of hurting self or others (e.g., suicidal attempts without clear expectation of death; frequent violent; manic excitement) OR occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene (e.g., smears feces) OR gross impairment in communication (e.g., largely incoherent or mute). 10-1 Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others (e.g., recurrent violence) OR persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene OR serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death. TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 49 APPENDIX 13 - SAMPLE FYSIS COVER PAGE Riverside County PART OF THE YOUTH INSIGHTTM NETWORK Tech Support DistrictsSchoolsChildren View Search Recent Children Data Views s • Demographics • Contacts • Placement • History • Detail 0 13( • Education • Grades • Attendance • Discipline • Schools • Detail • Immunizations First Birth Name L Ethnicity White* Country LXXX CXXXX Child :: Profile F : 17 Middle A Language English B Active Last DOB: XXX XX, 1993Name C Birth City SSN: 614-XX-XXXX Imported: Sep 12, 2009 AKA Updated: Dec 01, 2010 1:5 FYI Form Edit Name Relationship Case Manager / Status Edu Phone ler Placing Agency Childrens/Social Services Fax County Riverside Address Contact SW: A G Last Edited By , Phone (951) 358-XXXX Fax Juv Court No. JUV097XXX Case Start Sep XX, 1999 Case End Case Closure Reason TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Appendix 14: TT Monthly Report Month: 50 STABILITY/PERMANENCY • # of TAY in TVUSD • # of emancipated TAY enrolled in program • # TAY moved out of district to more permanent placement • # TAY moved out of district to equivalent or less permanent placement • # TDMs attended # foster families in TVUSD boundaries • # in attendance at monthly recruitment forum • # in licensing process • # completing licensure # TAY in family fmding process • # completed family finding process SUPPORTIVE SERVICES # of staff visits/contacts provided to clients • initial 5 contacts • quarterly follow up contacts • other # of referrals provided to clients • education • employment • health and welfare services • mental health • housing • transportation • financial aid • permanent connections # of referrals follow-ups provided to clients ASSESSMENT # of assessments completed • initial Ansell-Casey • post 5 visit Ansell-Casey • initial GAF assessments • post 5 visit GAF assessments TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Appendix 15: TT Client File Audit Tool Select Client Files will be Assigned for Audit on First Team Treatment Meeting of the Month Date: Name of Auditor: 51 Evidence that a CaseYES Manager has been assigned to client case ❑ N 0 Comments and Initials Evidence of A -C & GAF assessment. Evidence areas of critical need are identified. ❑YES ❑ NO Evidence of Connection to Services. Evidence of connection to existing services/referrals. ❑YES ❑ NO Evidence of progress in areas of critical need through TT services and/or referrals. ❑ YES ❑ NO Evidence of regular staff/client contact ❑S ❑ NO Evidence of regular staff/community partner contact ❑ YES ❑ NO TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Client Name Appendix 16: TT File Review Schedule 52 Month Initial Contact Post 5 visit contact Quarterly contacts Staff Conducting Review January February March April May June July August September October November December TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL APPENDIX 17 — CLIENT PROGRESS NOTES TT Progress Notes Practitioner Contact Client Name 53 Date of Service: Amount of Time: Location of Service: • On-site • Off-site • Home Mode of Service: • Face to face • Phone Type of Service: • Director • Case manager • Outreach coordinator Area of Critical Need Addressed: • College readiness • Emotional health • Employment • Health and welfare services • Mental health services • Housing • Transportation • Financial aid • Permanent, stable adults Brief Client Assessment: Interventions: Stage of Change for each identified risk factor: • Pre -Contemplative • Contemplative • Preparation/Determination • Action • Maintenance • Relapse Referrals Made: •YES or NO •Record all activity related to referrals and referral follow-ups in Client Referral Management Log TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 54 APPENDIX 18 — CRITICAL NEED ASSESSMENT TT Critical Need Assessment At a Glance Use as a companion to Progress Notes after Client Contact and at Discharge (Record all Referral Activity in Client Referral Management Log) Client Name Date Critical Need NO YES RESOLVED College Readiness Emotional Health Employment Health and Welfare Services Mental Health Housing Transportation Financial Aid Permanent, Stable Adult relationships Other risk factors Total # Total # of Resolved TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Appendix 19: Research Design Timeline 55 Item Monitored/Measured Upon client entry (pre- test) and exit (post-test) a 04 as1:5 June 2011 July August cr October November e January CD March y go June 2012 # of clients enrolled/active in the program x x x x x x x x x x x x x # of visits/contacts provided to clients x x x x x x x x x x x x # of referrals provided to clients x x x x x x x x x x x x # of referral f/u provided to clients x x x x x x x x x x x x # of client service package completions x # of clients with identified critical areas of need x x x x x x x x x x x x # of clients who resolved concerns in identified critical areas of need x x # of clients who increased college readiness x x # of clients who increased emotional health x x # of clients who improved employment x x # of clients who increased access to health and welfare services x x # of clients who increased mental health access x x # of clients who increased access to safe and secure housing x x # of clients who increased access to transportation x x # of clients who increased access to financial aid x x # of clients who increased relationships with permanent, stable adults x x Cost-effectiveness of outputs and outcomes x Cost -efficiency of achieving outputs and outcomes x Does staff have required credentials? X x Does staff have required training? X x Does staff have interactions with community service providers? X x Does staff receive supervision to ensure Tx fidelity? X x TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL Appendix 20: TT Line Item Budget 56 Budget Line -Item Case Management Program (65%) Capacity Building/Outreach Program (35%) Indirect Cost Pool 1. Salaries and Wages Director 50,000.00 Admin. Assistant (20X11.50) 11,960.00 Case Managers 80,000.00 Outreach Coordinator 20x13.50 14,040.00 Total Salaries and Wages 80,000.00 14,040.00 156,000.00 2. ERE @ 25% 20,000.00 3510.00 39,000.00 3. Rent (12,000.00) TVUSD 4. Utilitites (1200.00) TVUSD 5. Equipment/Furnishings (8000.00) City 6. Supplies (1%) 800.00 140.00 1560.00 7. Telephone (600.00) TVUSD 8. Travel/Mileage (.55 mile/mo, cap of 100 miles) 1320.00 660.00 3300.00 9. Trainings 300.00 150.00 1000.00 10. Printing 1000.00 11. Other (3%) 2400.00 420.00 5520.00 Total Direct Costs 104,820.00 18,315.00 123,135.00 Allocated Indirect Costs 67,886.00 36,554.00 104,440.00 Total Direct & Indirect Costs 172,706.00 54869.00 227,575.00 Total In -Kind Contribution (9.6%) (21,800.00) Total Budget Cost 205,705.00 TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 57 APPENDIX 21 — ANSELL-CASEY BENCHMARK DATA INFORMATION ACLSA & Supplement Benchmark Data The links at the left lead to benchmark data files for the ACLSA assessments and supplemental assessments. Benchmarks are average scores in each domain area (Communication, Daily Living, etc.) and average Total Mastery and Total Raw scores, for groups defined by youth age, race/ethnicity, gender, and living situation. The benchmarks can help you interpret scores on ACLSA or supplemental assessments for youth you work with. Average or "mean" scores are typical scores on an assessment for youth (or their caregivers, in the case of caregiver versions) indexed by the youth's age, race/ethnicity, gender, or living situation group. The standard deviation indicates how widely the scores varied around the mean score, while the "N" allows you to see how many individuals were in the group on which the benchmark scores are based. Benchmark scores for groups of 50 or more individuals are considered representative for youth of that age, race/ethnicity, or living situation; benchmark scores for groups of less than 50 individuals are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution. Please note that "N"s in subgroups may not always sum up exactly to match the "N"s for larger groups due to missing data on some group -defining variables. Groups for which benchmarks are established are pre -defined. We have tried to include as many age, gender, race/ethnicity and living situation groups as possible in the benchmarks for each assessment. Unfortunately, we are not able to present benchmark information for all possible groups. Source: (Casey Family Programs, 2010) TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 58 APPENDIX 22 — JOB DESCRIPTIONS Position: Director (1.0 FTE) Reports to: City, County, School Partnership (CCS), Task Force on Foster Youth Hours: 40 hours/week Annual Salary: $ 50,000 Job Description: The executive director supervises the PPP program manager and acts as a boundary spanner between the program and the CHC Board of Directors. The executive director also promotes PPP in the community. Qualifications: • Master's Degree, preferably MSW with administrative emphasis, other acceptable: business, administration, leadership or social services • Two years experience with TAY preferred, other acceptable: child welfare Responsibilities: • Supervise TT staff • Plan and lead weekly team meetings o monitoring program and treatment model fidelity o provide feedback/support/supervision to program staff • Monitor program fidelity • Administer program budget • Coordinate program evaluation activities • Coordinate THP+ housing program with City of Temecula • Administer GAP fund • Represent TT to the CCS Partnership • Raise awareness of TT in the community (in meetings, conferences, etc) • Identify and secure budget funding • Work with administrative assistant to create evaluation and budget reports TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 59 Position: Administrative Assistant (.50) Reports to: Director Hours: 20 hours/week (1 1 am -3 : 30pm) Annual Salary: $11,960 Job Description: The administrative assistant will support TT by doing a variety of clerical duties. In addition, the assistant will assist in budget monitoring and evaluation efforts. Qualifications: • High school diploma • Ability to take direction and respond to the needs of the program staff • Good organizational and interpersonal skills • Basic computer skills/willingness to learn new programs as needed • Culturally sensitive Responsibilities: • Answer phones and take messages • Sort mail • Photocopy materials as needed • Enter and update client data on the computer on an as needed basis • Compile data from client charts onto various aggregate forms (monthly, quarterly) • Assist director in budget monitoring activities and reports • Maintain vital records repository TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 60 Position: Case Manager (1.0 FTE) Reports to: Director Hours: 40 hours/week, including one weeknight (flexible scheduling) Annual Salary: $40,000 Job Description: The care coordinator will work as part of a team, managing a client case load of 25-30 TAY. Clientele will consist of both in care and emancipated TAY. Each case manager will work one evening a week, and some weekend time when necessary. The case managers report at weekly meetings, perform file audit review, and administer case management services as proscribed by the program to address the identified areas of critical need. They screen, assess, counsel, mentor and make customized referrals for clients. Case managers form relationships with community service providers and closely monitor all referrals. The case manager will meet with clients in the office, in clients' homes and/or in the community. The case manager will collect data and assist in evaluation efforts. Qualifications: • BSW or bachelor's degree in social sciences • Valid California Driver's License • Basic computer skills/willingness to learn new programs as needed • Ability to work well as a member of a team • Ability to work autonomously • A strength -based perspective • Good organizational and interpersonal skills • Willingness to form relationships with community service providers • Culturally sensitive • 2 years experience working with TAY or in child welfare is preferred Responsibilities: • Develop and maintain relationships with community service providers to foster a referral system • Screen and assess clients to identify areas of critical need • Give referrals to community partners for all identified areas of critical need • Follow-up on all referrals made • Identify and rectify any barriers assigned clients have to services/resources needed • Ensure that each assigned client has a minimum of 5 visits with staff • Offer support and mentoring to assigned clients during visits and phone calls • Coordinate assigned cases to ensure the reduction of areas of critical need • Attend weekly team meetings/seek consultation on cases • Collect client data needed for evaluation and assist in other evaluation activities as needed TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 61 Position: Outreach Coordinator (.50 FTE) Reports to: Director Hours: 20 hours/week, including nights and weekends (flexible scheduling) Annual Salary: $14,040 Job Description: The outreach coordinator will work as part of a team, and is responsible, along with the director, for capacity building aspects of TT's mission. One night a month, the outreach coordinator will be responsible for a foster family recruitment forum. Other duties include training stakeholders in the impact of educational instability and college readiness, and the provisions of AB 12, distributing printed materials, conducting tours, doing outreach to identify services and community programs and documenting them for the case managers, representing TT, along with the director, at city, county, and school meetings. The outreach coordinator will report at weekly meetings and perform file audit review, as proscribed by the program to address the identified areas of critical need. The outreach coordinator will collect data and assist in evaluation efforts. Qualifications: • BSW or bachelor's degree in social sciences • Valid California Driver's License • Basic computer skills/willingness to learn new programs as needed • Ability to work well as a member of a team • Ability to work autonomously • A strength -based perspective • Good organizational and interpersonal skills • Willingness to form relationships with community service providers • Culturally sensitive • 2 years experience working with TAY or in child welfare is preferred Responsibilities: • Develop and maintain relationships with community service providers to foster a referral system • Conduct outreach to emancipated TAY through relationships with Riverside County Independent Living Program (ILP) coordinators, resident care providers, and high school counselors • Identify and document community resources for case manager reference • Foster family recruitment • Conduct training with stakeholders • Provide appropriate capacity building materials to stakeholders • Assist in sheltered employment and internship program • Coordinate Family Finding program • Coordinate driver's license program • Coordinate annual TAY retreat with community partners • Attend weekly team meetings/seek consultation on cases • Collect client data needed for evaluation and assist in other evaluation activities as needed 1 TT Outreach Coordinator TRANSITION TEMECULA: PROGRAM PROPOSAL 62 APPENDIX 23 - ORGANIZATIONAL CHART TRANSITION TEMECULA CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP (CCS) CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES APPOINTED CHAIR FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE BARBARA TOOKER CITY REPRESENTATIVE UNITED WAY OF THE INLAND VALLEYS/ROTARY COMMUNITY MEMBERS TT Case Manager i Elected officials 4' COUNTY DPSS REPRESENTATIVES TVUSD EDUCATIONAL LIAISON/CHILD WELFARE STAFF DIRECTOR, GROUP HOME/FFA BETTERWORLD TOGETHER Appointed by electeds or TT Case Manager Appointed staff Appointed by chair I Function as Board of Directors WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OUR TEMECULA KIDS Needs Assessment Results — Highlighting two important areas: Quantitative results already reported, in December, qualitative interviews were begun, and initial interviews demonstrate community efforts to connect youth and caretakers to existing resources and help facilitate and navigate agency systems is welcome and needed. Placement Stability • 64% of our youth have had 4-10 placements • 17% have had 11-20 placements The majority of our youth are in the category described in a 2002 CA Child Welfare report: A 2002 Report on foster youth outcomes in California noted, "The clearest consistent finding was that youth emancipating from the child welfare system who have had five or more placements were those who generally experienced the worst outcomes, suggesting both the need for targeted services to youth with multiple placements, and continued effort to improve placement stability for youth in care." (Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley) Education Outcomes • 45% have GPAs <2.0 • 41% have GPAs between 2-2.9 Many arrive in the district with strong academic needs, those needs are not identified upon arrival but take months to process. The needs are remedial, especially in math, and youth may not remain in our district long enough for us to have an impact. Many receive support while in TVUSD to graduate from HS, but are unprepared in a -g courses to enter 4 -year universities, and unprepared for community college work, needed remediation in math and English to pass the Accuplacer assessment for placement in courses receiving college credit. Summary, Services are underutilized by area foster youth. More outreach is needed to connect youth to what exists and to tailor services to their needs. The community can do much to supplement and enhance agency efforts. Indeed, budget cutbacks are creating an opportunity and demand for more community involvement at the same time best practices are calling for institutional change to foster more community involvement. Communities are well-suited and can be called on to build capacity in schools, recruit foster families to increase stability, provide volunteers to increase capacity in family finding, mentoring and educational rights holders, foster connections to job networks, enhance capacity of foster family agencies and other caretaker networks, and provide financial aid. Research and Best Practice Objectives Assumptions based on the last decade of academic research, including task forces and commissions, particularly the City, County, School Partnership Task Force at the state level (see reference list): • educational stability leads to academic achievement, • placement stability leads to emotional health, • supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness, incarceration, and substance abuse for transitional aged youth, • access to transportation promotes opportunity, • financial aid is necessary for post-high school training, • presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. Complicating Factors • out of county FFAs AND emancipation services Recommendations What can we do differently to create more placement stability, increase permanency, and improve academic skills for our foster youth? REFERENCES Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. (May 2009). California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care: Fostering a New Future for California's Children, Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. California Department of Social Services/University of California at Berkeley. (2010). Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. Retrieved September 2010, from Child Welfare Dynamic Report System Web site: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/ Casey Family Foundation. (2007). California Foster Youth Education Summit. Retrieved October 2010, from www.casey.org: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publication/ CaliforniaFosterYouthEducationSummitReport.htm Casey Family Programs. (2010). Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment Supplement: Chafee Assessment (Version 1 - Youth in Care). Retrieved October 2010, from Casey Family Programs Web site: www.casey.org/Resources/Tools/ CCS Partnership. (2008). California Foster Youth: We Can Make a Difference. CCS Partnership. (2007). Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, A Community Action Guide. Child Welfare League of America. (2005). CWLA Standard for Transition, Independent Living, and Self - Sufficiency Services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America. Clausen, J., Landsverk, J., Ganger, W., Chadwick, D., & Litrownik, A. (1998). Mental health problems of children in foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 283-296. Connelly, L. (2007, December 14). Prenatal Pride Program. Retrieved December 2010, from Blackboard Academic Suite @ San Diego State University: https://blackboard.sdsu.edu EdSource. (October 2010). Something's Got to Give. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Henderson. (2010). Fostering Foster Care . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , 11. Hook, J., & Courtney, M. (2010). Employment of foster youth as young adults: Evidence from the Midwest study. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Partners for our children, building a case for change. Retrieved November 2010, from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago: http://www.chapinhall.org/research/ areas/Child-Welfare-and-Foster-Care-Systems James, S. (Dec. 2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. The Social Service Review, 601-627. Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2008). Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness - Based Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of Human Service Programs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Macomber, J., Cuccaro Alamin, S., Duncan, D., McDaniel, M., Vericker, T., Pergamit, M., et al. (2008). Coming of Age: Empirical outcomes for youth who age out of foster care in their middle twenties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National and Local Statistics about Emancipating Foster Youth. (2010). Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.heysf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Needell, B., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Brookhart, A., Jackman, W., & Shlonsky, A. (May 2002). Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Executive Summary. Berkeley, CA: Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse & Neglect , 1363-1374. Patti, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Human Services Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Pecora, P. J. (2005). Improving family foster care: Findings from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey Family Programs. Pecora, P. K. (2006). Educational and employment outcomes of adults formerly placed in foster care: Results from the Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. Child and Youth Services Review , 1459-1481. Price, J. M., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J. B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a Foster Parent Training Intervention on Placement Changes of Children in Foster Care. Child Maltreatment , 64-. Riverside County Office of Education. (2010). Foster Youth Student Information Service. Retrieved September 2010, from FYSIS Web site: http://www. rcoe.k12.ca.us/studentProgra ms/fosterYouthServices/fysis.htm 1 Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2010). Program Evaluation. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. State of California. (2007). Community Care Licensing Division. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from California Department of Social Services Web site: http://ccld.ca.gov Strijker, J. K., & & Knot-Dickscheit, J. (2008). Placement History of Foster Children: A Study of Placement History and Outcomes in Long -Term Family Foster Care. Child Welfare , 107-124. Sullivan, M. J., Jones, L., & Mathieson, S. (2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 164-170. Temecula Unified Valley School District. (October 2008). Support Emancipating Foster Youth. Temecula. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco. (2010). Retrieved November 2010, from Transitional Age Youth San Francisco: www.taysf.org U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982-2006, 62.05 state. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). Expenditures/Employment, 62.01 fed. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=16 1 f APPENDIX 4 — CLIENT OUTCOME LOGIC MODEL FOR TRANSITION TEMECULA Assumptions: better emancipation outcomes for TAY can be achieved through community collaboration and support educational stability leads to academic achievement placement stability leads to emotional health Activities/Services Transcript review, counselor contact, youth information and case management,/ supportive services past the age of 18 ameliorate outcomes of joblessness, homelessness incarceration, and substance abuse for TAY Train all branches on impact of educational instability and college readiness Involvement in Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings Information and referrals to caregivers Designate FY high 1-11 school counselors Connect to RCOE tutoring Foster family recruitment access to transportation promotes opportunity financial aid is necessary for post -high school training presence of permanent, stable adults creates resiliency. Tours of college campuses and connection to guardian scholar programs Community College assessment and remediation begun during senior HS year Secure and maintain vital records CJI Priority placement141 summer jobs program Sheltered job and internship program Connect to emancipation services, bus passes Driver's license program GAP FUND Follow up on FAFSA, Chafee, Cal Grants, scholarships from community groups Connect to THP+ housing Fund and create Temecula area THP+ housing Train all stakeholders in ABI2 provisions Intermediate Outcomes College readiness Increased emotional health Increased employment Increased access to health and welfare services Increased mental health access Increased access to safe and secure housing Fund CASA, CASA Start program Family Finding Increased access to transportation Increased access to fmancial aid 3-5 relationships with permanent, stable adults Results 1 Increased graduation from post HS programs Reduction in homelessness, incarceration, and unemployment for TAY TAY who can achieve, compete, and thrive alongside their peers, contributing to the communities in which they reside Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes • • • • • • • • • • • Task force personnel School district facility DPSS TVUSD City of Temecula County of Riverside Intern Community groups RCC emancipation Foster, FFA, and group home providers Foster Youth • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Task force meetings with stakeholders Collaborative activities, i.e. back to school night, college trips, spring retreat, financial literacy Collection of data Send FY to RYLA Intern making linkages Facilitate transportation to ILP classes and events Identification of tvusd counselors to train on FY issues Create a GAP fund for FY Create safe place for back up FY documents Formation of files on all agencies Create backward calendar of fy resources and activities Prioritize FY acceptance into the youth summer job program Create city, county, and school internships Appoint FY to city youth advisory committee Add FY needs to agency strategic plans Connect FY and caregivers to county services, i.e. RCOE tutoring, ILP classes, emancipation coaches, ILP workers Inform and connect FY and caregivers to college/trade/career information, including financial assistance Press for FYSIS accuracy Assess every middle and high school FY for academic needs Inform FY of options Empower FY through education, connections and support to plan own outcomes Connect to BGC for volunteer hours Creation of TF documentation Recruit local foster families Begin a family finding program Recruit and train educational liaisons Start a CYC chapter Recruit local dentists/ orthodontists for FY treatment Create transitional housing Bolster CASA Help FY get driver's licenses Follow up on vital documents to youth by emancipation Ensure FY are connected to Medi -Cal upon emancipation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FY grade level in math and English within 12 months FY remain in TVUSD four years of HS FY placement stabilization FY emancipate with social security cards FY emancipate with birth certificates FY emancipate enrolled in Medi -Cal FY emancipate with CA I.D. card FY emancipate ready to take driver's test or with CDL FY know how and where to apply for welfare FAFSA/Chafee/Cal Grants apps complete FY emancipate with letter proving dependency FY emancipate with immunization records FY emancipate with HS transcript FY emancipate with 1-3 adults identified they can count on FY emancipate with a job FY emancipate enrolled in college, trade school, or apprenticeship FY emancipate with a place to live, preferably sheltered housing FY enroll in supported environments, i.e. guardian/ace scholars, THP+ housing Temecula FY will achieve, compete and thrive. APPENDIX A: FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Driving Forces Task Force push for better outcomes —► • State outcome measure demands • DPSS staff, community benefit from more successful FY —► emancipation CCS Partners desire better coordination Concerns of CCS elected officials —► Recognition by DPSS of outcome voids —► Evaluative data ► Intern ► Supportive community ► Funding cutbacks ► State demands for community involvement Current State 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Restraining Forces Closed system of DPSS Confidentiality issues Background check and contact demands Structural challenges of DPSS • Use of private contractors • Lack of clear role identification • Inadequate program design Lack of resources to hire local coordinator Size of county — Temecula's position on the southern tip Lack of EB management Desired State Certificate of Positive Participation "Lean into a 212° Life" 2013 Leadership Retreat for Juniors and Seniors March 25-26, 2013 A Program of the Temecula Murrieta Area City County School Partnership Foster Youth Task Force Jennifer Strout IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand this twenty-sixth day of March, 2013. Chair, Foster Youth Task Force ', ; �` Barbara Tooker 1989 0 ined Schoidt)b" Planning your Future This binder is to help you with some resources. You will also find empty page protectors, use these for your Birth Certificate, I.D. card, and any important papers you have. Never be afraid to ask for help. Aging out of Foster CareP Fostering Connections to Success Act, AB 12, effective 01-01-12, gives emerging adults the option to remain in foster care and receive services and support until age 20 ! You decide if you wEnt Foster Care! It's up to you! The program is voluntary. • What benefits can I get with Extended Foster Care? 'You can get: ', * Clothing allowance * Support and guidance °* Placement and housing assistance A' Independent Living Program (ILP) services *Where you can live: * relative's home * non -related extended family member's home • foster home * group home, if needed * supervised independent living placement (for example apartment, dorm, room for rent) i to stay in Extended •Do I qualify for Extended Foster Care? Yes, if you meet the following requirements: Effective 2012, you were in out - of -home placement on your 1e birthday and * working at least 80 hours a month or ' participating in a activity/ program/ that teaches you skills or * enrolled in school. The school can be a • high school or an equivalent prograrn o College or community college o Vocational education prograrn * Unable to do any of the above because of a medical or mental health condition *What your responsibilities are: To be part of the program, you will need to: * meet with your social worker each month * agree to maintain communication with your social worker * attend a court hearing every six months * sign and follow the mutual agreement * agree to work with your social worker to meet the goals of your Transitional Independent Living Case Plan (TILCP) and Transitional Independent Living Plan (TiLP) * maintain eligibility for Extended Foster Care * continue to reside in appropriate housing You car, change your mind! If you decide to leave foster care, YOU can return! What do I do, if I want to return to Extended Foster Care? You must quality for Extended Foster Care. * Call the Riverside County Kinship -Youth WarmLine at (800) 303-0001. A Children's Services Division staff person will help you complete the necessary paperwork to re- enter. You must complete the JV -456 Request to Return to Juvenile Court Jurisdiction and Foster Care. .. If you want your address to be kept confidential, also complete the JV -468 Confidential Information - Request to Return to Juvenile Court Jurisdiction and Foster Care. The JV -466 can be found at www courts. ca. qov unuar formsrules You must attend the scheduled Court hearing. o You will receive a notice in the mail with the date, /line and location. o The judge will review information you provided on the JV -466. The Court will decide if you qualify for Extended Foster Care. if the Court denies your request, you can file another request if your situation changes. You must meet the requirements for Extended Foster Care. Extended Foster Care is to help you Develop Permanent Connections and Prepare for Your Future! I� What benefits can I get with extended foster care? You can get: • case management services by a social worker • clothing allowance • Independent Living Program (ILP) services You can live at a • relative's home • non -related extended family member's home • foster home • group home if need to because of a medical condition • supervised independent living setting (for example an apartment or a college dorm) Do I qualify to return to foster care? Yes, if you meet the following requirements: Effective 2012, you were in foster care on your 18`h birthday and • working at least 80 hours per month or • enrolled in program that teaches you skills yo,, need to get a job or • enrolled in sr ,loot. Your school can be a Benefits of Extended Foster Care (for Youth between the ayes of 18 and 21) high school or a high school equivalency program college or community college vocational education program If you can not work or attend school because of a medical disability, you rnust have proof of the disability. Your responsibilities: You must • be placed in a supervised foster care setting ( a relative's home, foster home, dorm, apartment or other approved home, etc.) • sign and follow the mutual agreement • agree to maintain communication with social worker • complete a 1 ransitionat Independent Living Case Plan (TILPCP) and Transitional Independent Living Pian (TILP), and • maintain eligibility for extended foster care. What do I do if I leave foster care but return at a later date? • Call the Riverside County Child Abuse Hotline at (800) 442-4918. A Children's Services Division (CSD) staff person will help you fill DPSS 4165 (12/11) Benefits of Extended Foster Care out the paperwork needed to reenter foster care. • There will be a court hearing. You will receive notice about the date time and location. The judge will review the information and decide your case. If the court decides you meet the requirements, you will return to court every six (6) months to tell the court how you are doing. Your social worker and lawyer will most likely go with you to the hearing. If the court denies your request, you can file your request again if your situation changes and you meet the requirements. PV°19 tw` HRIV t orksh,pr 4:30 `6:30 ptvi A.n Oak Grove independent Living Program uesdays @ Riverside Rubidoux YOC 5656 Mission Blvd Riverside, CA 92509 Wednesdays @ Murrieta Oak Grove Center 24275 Jefferson Ave Murrieta, CA 92562 Wednesdays @ PHS Desert Hot Springs FRC 14-201 Palm Dr., Suite 108 Desert Hot Springs, CA. 92240 1 Thursdays @ Perris Oak Grove at The Ranch 1251 North A Street Perris, CA 92570 5 : Physical Health, & Hygiene 12th: Social Skills 19th: Recreation 26th: Special Event l 6 : Physical Health & Hygiene 13th: Social Skills 20th: Recreation 27th: Special Evert 6 ': Physical Health u Hygiene 13`h: Social Skills 20th: Recreation 27th: Special Event 7 Physical Health & Hygiene 14th: Social Skills 21th: Recreation 28th: Special Event 9 : Special Event 16th: WK 10 Graduation YAY! You did it! 23'd: High School Options Cr: Career Aptitude Assmnt 10 : Special Event 17th: WK 10 Graduation YAY! You did it! 24th: High School - What are Your Options? 10 : Special Event 17th: WK 10 Graduation YAY! You did it! 24th: High School •- What are Your Options? 18th: WK 10 Graduation YAY! You did it± 25th: High School - What are Your Options? 1": Career Aptitude Assessment 7th: College. vs. Vocational School 8th: College vs. Vocational School 14` Wnat' . a FAFSA? 15th: What's a FAFSA? 21" : Resumes & Job Apps 22°": Resumes & Job Apps 28th: How to Find & Keep a lob 29t". How to Find & Keep a lob 1": Career Aptitude Assessment 8th: College vs. Vocational Scnool 15th: What's a FAFSA? 22": Resumes & Job Apps 2S`h• How to Find & Keep a Job 14 : interviewing Practice if: Special Event 18'h: Special Event 25th: WK 20 Graduation YAY! You did it! 5 : interviewing Practice 12th: Special Event 19th: Special Event 26th: WK 20 Graduation YAY! You did it! Pert: Oak Grove atTheRanch 1251 Nath A Street Perris, CA92570 Mondays 3.430 pm Murrieta Oak Owe Center 24275 Jefferson Ave Murrieta, CA92562 Tuesdays 3.430 pm 5 °: interviewing Practice 12th: Special Event 19th: Special Event 26th: WK 20 Graduation YAY! You did it! 2"°: Career Aptitude Assessme 9`h: College vs. Vocational Sch 16th: What's a FAFSA? 23": Resumes & Job Apps 30th: How to Find & Keep a Jo 6 : Interviewing Practice 13th: Special Event 2e: Special Event 27th: WK 20 Graduation YAY! You did 6 .. 1 h.it.a r .J h NirenoValle..o-yCo,fl. eg...e 16130 Lasalle Street Moreno Valley, CA 92551 Call Tabi @ 951440.0386 Norm College 2001 Thrd Street Norm, CA 92860 Cali Brittany @ 951440.6625 1-800-3e/1.--(1601 2.4 -How Hotiune IJKE US ON FACEROO < AND FSE EN?xREP INTO A Di2AWIN4 FOR A GIFT CS J2:7N tmAnu.faeebook.coniltiwive-artaal einveindepertdentfnri Myr genwi lop 7en Gt 5 fo 7 -urn your Errerc On WZzy*i 1) Reduce or eliminate caffeine . The ups and downs of caffeine include dehydration and blood sugar ups and downs, making mood swings more frequent. 2) Drink water • Most Americans are chronically dehydrated. Before you go to sugar or caffeine, have a glass of water and wait a few minutes to see what happens. • Caution: Soft drinks are now America's number one source of added sugar. 3)Eat dark leafy green vegetables • Green is associated with spring, the time of renewal and refreshing, vital energy. • Greens are full of vitamins and nutrients and great for improving circulation, lifting the spirit, purifying the blood and strengthening the immune system. • Broccoli, collards, bok choy, kale, mustard greens, broccoli rabe, arugula and dandelion greens are some of the many to choose from. 4) Use gentle sweets • Avoid sugar and chemicalized artificial sweeteners! • Use gentle sweeteners like honey, maple syrup, brown rice syrup, and stevia. • Eat sweet vegetables such as yams, carrots and beets. • Eat fruits and use fresh squeezed fruit juice such as orange juice to sweeten dishes. 5) Get physical activity • Start with simple activities, like walking or yoga—start with 10 minutes a day and increase regularly as your body allows it. Listen to your body's cues and pain responses. Don't do an activity just because you used to be able to do it. Your body has changed. 6) Get more sleep and rest and relaxation • When you are tired or stressed, your body will crave energy. • These cravings are often a result of being sleep -deprived, going to bed late, waking up early, for months and years on end. 7) Evaluate the amount of animal food you eat • Eating too much meat, dairy, chicken and eggs can lead to low energy. So can eating too little! Experiment. Respect your body's individuality. 8) Take time for yourself • Find activities that restore your energy, such as a walk, a bath, a museum, a movie or whatever you enjoy, and schedule a weekly date with yourself to do these things! 9) Get in touch with your spirituality • We are spiritual beings in a physical world. • Find ways to get in touch with your spiritual side, be it meditating, dancing, drawing, going to church or temple or being in nature. 10) Get rid of relationships that drain you • People can drain you of your energy. It doesn't mean that they are bad, but it is good to notice who drains you and why. • See if you can transform those relationships by communicating and setting boundaries, or end the relationship. For more articles and tips go to: http:f/lesliekeegan.corri – Leslie Keegan, CHHC – Iesliekeegan@ymail_com – 951.588.3240 141424x {,0.11" x,412" T 1 Faae4 v 51. Je4,lv,t.c 4 Ceta%r4,-4whc ke v✓.4T - 7uti e•. 1 El L.4 112 CI 74 graphic design by Jacqueline Bohlinq jacquelinebohling(Dgmail.com A LEADERSHIP RETREAT FOR FOSTER YOUTH JUNIORS AND SENIORS / Jackie Bohling-'Graphic Designer jackiebohling@gmail.com 'ONE EXTRA DEGREE MAKES ALL THE "TO GET WHAT WE HAVE NEVER HAD, WE MUST DO WHAT WE HAVE NEVER DONE" TEMECULA MURRIETA FOSTER YOUTH TASK FORCE If you are a senior, what are your plans after high school? Full-time work trade/tech education community college 4 -yr university Other If you are a senior, and applied for college/university, who helped you with your application (circle all that apply) Caregiver group home staff HS counselor AVID Social Worker ILP worker emancipation coach college staff other I do not plan to attend college If you are a senior, and completed a FAFSA. did you receive assistance from: (circle all that apply) Caregiver group home staff HS counselor AVID Social Worker ILP worker emancipation coach college staff other I do not plan to attend college I am not aware of FAFSA If you are a senior. and applied for the Chafee grant, did you receive assistance from: (circle all that apply) Caregiver group home staff HS counselor AVID Social Worker ILP worker emancipation coach college staff other 1 do not plan to attend college 1 am not aware of Chafee If you are graduating from high school, do you have a job in place for after graduation? Yes No If so. did you receive assistance to secure that job? (circle all that apply) Caregiver group home staff HS counselor Social Worker ILP worker emancipation coach other If you are graduating or emancipating, do you have housing in place for after graduation/emancipation? Yes No If so. did you receive assistance to secure that housing? (circle all that apply) Caregiver group home staff HS counselor Social Worker ILP worker emancipation coach other After graduation/emancipation, 1 plan to live in: Current placement apartment dorm family friends I don't know After graduation/emancipation. my transportation plan is Lcircle all that apply): I have a driver's license I have a driver's license and a car I have a driver's license, a car, and car insurance Buses Bicycle Walking Don't know I have identified permanent. stable adults I can count on to help me after 1 graduate/emancipate - these can be family members, teachers. friends. caregivers. etc.? 0 1 2 3 4 5+ I am graduating/emancipating this year and have, or have been told I will get upon graduation/emancipation (circle all that apply) Social Security card CA ID CA DL birth certificate Medi -Cal card Current Grade or Last Grade completed Frosh Soph Junior Senior Age: 14 15 16 17 18 Which County is your case heard in? Riverside San Diego San Bernardino Imperial Other Which School do you attend CHS Excelsior Acad GOHS RVHS TVHS Other: Do you have an IEP? Yes No Placement (circle one) Relative, who is my Guardian Relative, in a foster care placement Foster Family Foster Family in an FFA* Non -Relative Guardianship Group Home FFA = Foster Famiiy Agency Who is your: Social Worker Name Independent Living Skills (ILS) Emancipation Coach Social Worker Name Name Do you attend Independent Living Skills (ILS) classes? Yes No If yes, how often? I've attended 1-5 classes 5-10 classes More than 10 classes Where do you attend? Lake Elsinore Hemet Other If the answer is no, why don't you attend ILS classes? I am not aware of the inconvenient location not interested Other Are you aware of the AB12 legislation. allowing you to remain as a non -minor dependent in the child welfare system, past the age of 18? Yes No If you are aware of AB12, who has given you information about it (circle all that apply Social Worker FFA Social Worker ILS Social Worker Emancipation Coach Field Trip to CSUSM HS Counselor Other On a scale of 1-10, do you feel you understand AB12 and your options as a non -minor dependent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 If you are turning 18 this year. do you plan on remaining in care as a non -minor dependent? Yes No California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care FOSTERING A NEW FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN MAY 2009 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN 6c THE COURTS About the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care On March 9, 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care and appointed Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno as its chair. The commission was charged with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on the ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness for children and families who find themselves in the child welfare system. This report con- tains the commission's recommendations for improving California's juvenile dependency courts and foster care system and the commission's action plan for implementation. The commission includes members from a variety of disciplines including judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and others providing leadership on the issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. The establishment of the commission builds on recent Judicial Council efforts to improve California's juvenile courts and is consistent with goals and objectives recently adopted by the Judicial Council. The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care seeks to achieve four results: 1. A comprehensive set of achievable recommendations for how courts and their part- ners can improve the child welfare system, including an implementation plan; 2. Improved court performance and accountability in achieving safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness for all children and families in the child welfare system; 3. Improved collaboration and communication between courts and child welfare agencies and other stakeholders, and the development of permanent local county commissions that support ongoing efforts involving foster care; and 4. Greater public awareness of the court's role in the foster care system and the need for adequate and flexible funding. California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care FOSTERING A NEW FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure, and Permanent Home FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN MAY 2009 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN & THE COURTS Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 www.courtinfo.ca.gov Copyright © 2009 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies are distributed at or below cost and credit the copyright holder. For more information on the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care or to view the report and its supporting documents online, please visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. To order copies of the report, please call 415-865-7739. Printed on 100 percent recycled and recyclable paper. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding for the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Statewide Summit was provided by the generous contributions of the: • Stuart Foundation • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Court Improvement Program • van Liken Sels/RembeRock Foundation • Walter S. Johnson Foundation The Blue Ribbon Commission would also like to thank and acknowledge The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care for its pioneering national work on improving outcomes for children in foster care and its encouragement of state level commissions; the Pew Charitable Trusts for its support of our commission's work; and Carol Emig, President of Child Trends, for her help in shepherding our commission through critical decisions in developing our recommendations. Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Chief Justice Ronald M. George Chair of the Judicial Council William C. Vickrey Administrative Director of the Courts Ronald G. Overholt Chief Deputy Director Center for Families, Children & the Courts Diane Nunn Director Charlene Depner Assistant Director Lee D. Morhar Assistant Director Carolynn Bernabe Staff Analyst Chris Cleary Attorney Megan Lafrenz Administrative Coordinator David Meyers Senior Attorney Chantal Sampogna Attorney Sonya Tafoya Senior Research Analyst Don Will Manager Leah Wilson Manager Christopher Wu Supervising Attorney Executive Director to the Commission Renee Wessels and Joanne Edgar, Consultants Renee Wessels & Associates iii Members of the California Blue Ribbon Commission Children in Foster Care, 2006-2009 Hon. Carlos R. Moreno Chair Associate Justice Supreme Court of California Ms. Robin Allen Executive Director California CASA Hon. Michael D. Antonovich Member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Fifth Supervisorial District Hon. Lucy M. Armendariz Judge State Bar Court, State Bar of California Ms. Mary L. Ault Deputy Director Riverside County Department of Public Social Services Hon. Karen Bass Speaker of the Assembly California State Assembly Hon. Richard C. Blake Chief Judge Hoopa Valley Tribal Court Mr. Lawrence B. Bolton Deputy Director/Chief Counsel California Department of Social Services Mr. Curtis L. Child Director AOC Office of Governmental Affairs Ms. Miryam J. Choca Senior Director California Strategic Consultation Casey Family Programs Mr. Joseph W. Cotchett Attorney at Law Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy Mr. Michael S. Cunningham Chief Deputy Director Program Services Division California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Hon. Kathryn Doi Todd Associate Justice Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two Dr. Jill Duerr Berrick Professor School of Social Welfare Co-director, Center for Child and Youth Policy University of California at Berkeley Hon. Leonard P. Edwards (Ret.) Judge -in -Residence AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts Mr. Raul A. Escatel Tax Counsel California Franchise Tax Board Ms. Deborah Escobedo Staff Attorney Youth Law Center iv on Hon. Terry B. Friedman Judge Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Mr. Robert E. Friend Director California Permanency for Youth Project Hon. Richard D. Huffman Associate Justice Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One Hon. Susan D. Huguenor Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Ms. Teri Kook Senior Program Officer, Child Welfare Stuart Foundation Ms. Miriam Krinsky Lecturer University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Affairs Ms. Amy Lemley Policy Director John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes Mr. Will Lightbourne Director Santa Clara County Social Services Agency Hon. Bill Maze Former Member California State Assembly Ms. Donna C. Myrow Executive Director L.A. Youth Hon. Michael Nash Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Mr. David Neilsen Deputy Director Program Services Division California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Ms. Diane Nunn Director AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts Mr. John O'Toole Executive Director National Center for Youth Law Mr. Ken Patterson Managing Director Child and Family Services Casey Family Programs Mr. Derek Peake Partner Costly Grace Mr. Jonathan Pearson Former foster youth Ms. Linda Penner Chief Probation Officer Fresno County Probation Department Mr. Anthony Pico Legislative Assistant Office of Assembly Member Fiona Ma Former foster youth Ms. Patricia S. Ploehn, LCSW Director Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Ms. Pat Reynolds -Harris Family to Family Permanency Consultant Founder, California Permanency for Youth Project Ms. Jennifer Rodriguez Staff Attorney Youth Law Center Former foster youth Ms. Maria D. Robles, R.N. Sacramento Dr. David Sanders Executive Vice President for Systems Improvement Casey Family Programs Mr. Gary Seiser Senior Deputy County Counsel San Diego County Office of the County Counsel Mr. Alan Slater Special Consultant AOC Southern Regional Office v Mr. Joseph L. Spaeth Public Defender Marin County Office of the Public Defender Hon. Todd Spitzer Former Member California State Assembly Hon. Darrell S. Steinberg President pro Tempore California State Senate Hon. Dean T. Stout Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, County oflnyo Mr. John Wagner Director California Department of Social Services Ms. Jacqueline Wong Consultant Foster Youth Services Program California Department of Education EX OFFICIO Hon. John Burton Former President pro Tempore of the California State Senate John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes Contents Message From the Chair 1 Introduction: Our Children Deserve Better 3 The State of the Courts 4 Background on the Blue Ribbon Commission 5 The Process of Developing Our Recommendations 6 Highlights of the Commission's Recommendations 7 Implementing the Recommendations 8 Chapter 1: California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations 10 Four Overall Recommendations 10 Recommendation 1: Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency 11 Recommendation 2: Court Reform 14 Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Their Child Welfare Partners 20 Recommendation 4: Resources and Funding 23 Chapter 2: A Road Map to Reform: The Blue Ribbon Commission's Action Plan 29 Recommendation 1: Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency 30 Recommendation 2: Court Reform 35 Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Their Child Welfare Partners 40 Recommendation 4: Resources and Funding 45 Chapter 3: Conclusion: Looking to the Future 49 Epilogue: Brighter Futures 52 Appendices 55 A. Judicial Council Resolution Creating Blue Ribbon Commission ..57 B. Judicial Council Resolution on Data Sharing .58 C. Local Team Planning Workbook 60 D. Summit Statistics From 50 Local County Teams 80 E. Twenty-six Recommendations Within the Purview of the Judicial Branch 81 F. Operational Framework for the Blue Ribbon Commission 84 G. Overview of the Blue Ribbon Commission 86 H. Facts at a Glance: California Dependency Courts ..87 I. Backgrounder: California Dependency Courts and the Hearing Process ...89 J. Chronology: California Dependency Courts .91 K. Highlights of Commission Recommendations and Action Plan 95 vii Message From the Chair I am pleased to present this final report from the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. The report includes the commission's recommendations and action plan, which are the result of an unprecedented three-year collaborative effort to help California's overstressed juvenile dependency courts do a better job of safeguarding children, reducing the need for foster care, and improving the foster care system. As a relative caregiver and foster parent myself, I know from my own family's experience how important it is to provide children in foster care with the love, stability, and security that all children need. Fostering the success of our state's most vulnerable young people is vital to planning for the future of our state. Our commission is California's first statewide effort to look at the role of the courts in child welfare reform. The courts, along with their child welfare partners, have legal responsibility for the safety and well-being of children in foster care, in effect serving as their "parent." The weight of that responsibility informed our work as a commission throughout the three-year process. Our recommendations promise to significantly change the lives of our state's children and youth. Under the system we envision, there will be fewer children in foster care, leading to substantial savings for the child welfare system that can be reinvested to continue strengthening this state's most vulnerable families. I invite you to read this full report—our recommendations, our action plan, and about implementation efforts that are already underway. In particular, I invite you to read the "stories" at the end of the report where we describe what we hope will be brighter futures for California's children, youth, and families. The true measure of our commission's success will be the real difference we make in their lives. On behalf of the commission, I thank all of the individuals and organizations that advised us throughout our process. I also extend a heartfelt thanks to each of our commissioners for their invaluable contributions and extraordinary commitment to improving the lives of California's children and families. And I thank, too, our talented and dedicated staff whose tireless efforts significantly eased the burden of our challenge as a commission at every step. Finally, I thank Chief Justice Ronald M. George; William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of the Courts; and the Judicial Council for giving us the extraordinary opportunity to present our blueprint for significant reform of the juvenile dependency courts and the child welfare system and for making that reform a high priority for California's judicial branch. xue"l Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California Chair, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 1 Introduction: Our Children Deserve Better The courts are often the unseen partners in child welfare, but every child and parent in the foster -care system knows that the courts are where critical decisions are made, including such life -changing issues as where and with whom a child will live. When dependency court judges and attorneys are not acquainted with "100 percent" of the child, when there is inadequate time or not enough information to make informed decisions, hearings are likely to be rushed or delayed. Children and families suffer. The courts and their child welfare partners share responsibility for the safety and well-being of children while they are in foster care, in effect, serving as their "parent" until a child either safely returns home, moves to another permanent home, or becomes an adult and leaves the system. Dependency court judges, attorneys, and child welfare workers work collaboratively so the judge can make the best decision for each child and family. They share a belief that all children are entitled to a safe, permanent family that will love, nurture, protect, and guide them. The courts and their partners agree that even when children must be removed from their homes, foster care should be a short-term refuge, not a long- term saga. Timely reunification with their family or placement in another permanent home is always the goal. But time moves slowly through the eyes of children, especially those who have been removed from their homes, through no fault of their own, and placed into the mysterious world of dependency courts. Finding a permanent home for a child sometimes takes years. Youth who grow up in foster care too often "age out" of the system ill-prepared to live as adults. These young people face increased risk of dropping out of school, unemployment, homelessness, mental illness, substance abuse, and involvement with the criminal justice system. There are more than 75,000 children in foster care in California, more than in any other state in the nation. Most – almost 80 percent – have been removed for neglect. Nearly half – 45 percent – have been in care for more than two years; 17 percent of them for more than three years. We know that the longer children remain in care, the less likelihood they have of reunifying with their parents. We also know that African- American and American Indian children are disproportionately represented in the system. When I was 12 years old—in a court hearing I was not invited to, and that I did not even know about—a decision was made that I was not appropriate for a foster family but needed to be in group homes. That decision was made in only a few minutes, with most of the people in the room having never met me, not knowing my hopes and dreams, only knowing one or two of the facts that represented 1 percent of the 100 percent child I was. —Jennifer Rodriquez Staff attorney, Youth Law Center; Former member, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care The State of the Courts California's dependency courts are overstressed and underresourced, burdened by crowded dockets and inadequate information. For example: • Fewer than 150 full-time and part-time judicial officers preside over the entire dependency court system. • Full-time juvenile dependency court judges carry an average caseload of 1,000, which directly affects the amount of time and attention given to any one case. • Juvenile dependency court attorneys, who represent children and parents in court, have an average caseload of 273, which far exceeds the recommended caseload standard of 188 recently adopted by the Judicial Council. In some counties, attorney caseloads rise to 500 or 600. • Children and parents sometimes do not meet their attorneys until moments before their hearings, which not only limits their opportunity to speak in court, but means attorneys often have inadequate information about a child's life. • The median time for a hearing is only 10-15 minutes, far less than the recommended 30-60 minutes. • Judges are often assigned to juvenile court for short rotations, instead of the recommended three-year assignments. • Families are often involved with more than one system, yet courts and other agencies do not easily share data or information that may be critical to the families' circumstances. Overwhelming caseloads and crowded dockets in the courts sometimes prevent even the best of judges and attorneys from addressing the whole of each child and family member who come before their courts. In addition, the courts do not work in isolation. Communication between juvenile dependency courts and the other agencies charged with helping families is inconsistent and often ineffective. All of these factors taken together means the system is not always a very good "parent" to these children. With these concerns in mind, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care in March 2006, and appointed Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno as its chair. The Chief Justice charged the commission with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness for children and families in the child welfare system. After an unparalleled three-year collaborative effort, we submit this final report with our recommendations for improving California's juvenile dependency courts and child welfare system, and our action plan for 4 implementing these recommendations. We believe our recommendations and action plan represent a blueprint to fundamentally change a system that too often fails our state's children and their families despite the efforts of hardworking and dedicated professionals. Background on the Blue Ribbon Commission The Blue Ribbon Commission is a multidisciplinary, statewide body providing leadership on issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. The commission includes judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and more. A roster of commission members is included at the front of this report. The establishment of the commission builds on other Judicial Council efforts to improve California's juvenile courts and is consistent with the goals and objectives recently adopted by the Judicial Council. These efforts include a number of programs that are designed to improve the operations of the juvenile dependency courts, including 1) expansion of the Court Improvement Project to increase the number of training programs and to enhance development of data exchanges to improve communication between the courts and child welfare agencies; 2) expansion of the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) program to include specific projects related to improving compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and increasing the number of permanent placements for children in foster care; and 3) establishment of the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) program relating to attorney representation of parents and children in juvenile dependency court. There was national impetus behind our formation as well, including the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, which was established in 2003. The Pew Commission was charged with developing nationally focused recommendations to improve outcomes for children in foster care. Former U.S. Representatives Bill Frenzel and William H. Gray III served as chair and vice -chair respectively. William C. Vickrey, California's Administrative Director of the Courts, was one of 18 members representing a broad cross-section of organizations involved in foster care issues. In 2004, the Pew Commission issued its recommendations, which focused on federal child welfare funding mechanisms and improving court oversight of child welfare cases. The recommendations called for the courts and public agencies to collaborate more effectively by establishing multidisciplinary, broad-based state commissions on children in foster care. In 2006, the Chief Justice of California established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. Commission's Mandate The commission's charge was to develop recommendations focused on four areas: How courts and their partners can improve the child welfare system, including an implementation plan; Improved court performance and accountability in achieving safety, permanency, well- being, and fairness for all children and families in the child welfare system; Improved collaboration and communication among courts and child welfare agencies and others, including the development of permanent local county commissions that support ongoing efforts; and 4. Greater public awareness of the court's role in the foster -care system and the need for adequate and flexible funding. Principles and Values Our commission was guided by a set of overarching principles, which we adopted early in our deliberations: 1 All children are equal and deserve safe and permanent homes; 1 Efforts to improve the foster care system must focus on improving safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness outcomes for children, and services should be integrated and comprehensive; 1 Collaboration is essential for achieving the best possible outcomes for children and families; 1 Courts play an important statutory role in overseeing children, families, and services in the dependency system; 1 Children and families should have a say in decisions that affect their lives; and 1 Government agencies need adequate and flexible funding to provide the best outcomes for children in the foster care system. A set of values informed our work throughout. We believe in: 1 Collaboration; 1 Shared responsibility; 1 Accountability; 1 Leadership; 1 Children and families; 1 Child safety; 1 Inclusion; 1 Permanency; and 1 Youth voice. The Process of Developing Our Recommendations We deliberated over the course of two years, holding public meetings, hearings, focus groups and other activities. We attended site visits to see programs and courtrooms firsthand. We heard from a variety of juvenile court and child welfare experts and from social workers, families, children, and youth who have been in the child welfare system. Their experiences and their suggestions for reform proved invaluable as we developed our recommendations and action plan. We also drew from significant research provided by the County Welfare Directors Association of California; the Center for Social Services Research at the University of California at Berkeley; Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago; Child Trends; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; and the Urban Institute. After nearly two years of information gathering, we developed draft recommendations for public comment in March 2008. We held public hearings on the proposed recommendations in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In response to the public comment and testimony, we reviewed the recommendations at a June 2008 commission meeting. Our final recommendations fall under four broad categories: 1. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2. Court reform; 3. Collaboration among courts and partnering agencies; and 4. Resources and funding. The full set of recommendations can be found in Chapter 1 of this report. They include our four overall recommendations and 79 specific recommendations. Of the specific recommendations, 26 of them are within the purview of the Judicial Council and can be accomplished within our judicial branch of government. The remaining recommendations require collaboration with child welfare and other agency partners. Highlights of the Commission's Recommendations 1. Reasonable Efforts To Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency • Increasing the Number of Placements With Relatives (Kinship) That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case, and the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when necessary. • Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African- American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System That the courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. • Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth That the Judicial Council urge the California Legislature to extend the age for children to receive foster -care assistance from 18 to 21. 2. Court Reform • Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers That the Judicial Council work to reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys, and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. • Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court -Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. • Ensuring That All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court - Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Are Adequately Trained and Resourced That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards, and the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. 3. Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners • Facilitating Data and Information Exchange That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families 7 they serve. The Judicial Council should implement court - performance measures to improve foster -care outcomes as mandated by state law. • Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child -welfare concerns and to help implement the commission's recommendations and related reforms. • Improving Indian Child Welfare That the courts, child welfare agencies and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families receive the services for which they are eligible. 4. Resources and Funding • Prioritizing Foster Care That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. • Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child -Abuse Prevention and Services That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child -abuse prevention and eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child - abuse prevention and services. • Expanding Educational Services That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all of its related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. Implementing the Recommendations On August 15, 2008, the Judicial Council unanimously accepted our final recommendations and directed the Administrative Director of the Courts to refer to the appropriate advisory committee 26 of the recommendations that could be acted on by the judicial branch alone.' Work on implementing those recommendations has begun. The Judicial Council also directed that we develop an action plan for recommendations that require collaboration with court partners, including child welfare and other agencies and organizations that serve children and families. ' See Appendix E for a list of the 26 recommendations within the sole purview of the judicial branch. 8 The commission met again in October 2008 to prioritize the recommendations and adopt an action plan to implement them. While our commission is strongly committed to ensuring that each one of our 79 recommendations becomes a reality, we focused our initial action plan on a practical set of recommendations that are fiscally responsible, realistic first steps that will lay a critical foundation for implementing the remaining recommendations. In December 2008, we brought together teams from 50 counties to a summit meeting to begin the process of developing local foster care commissions to take the work home. The commission is aware of the current fiscal realities in our state and the nation. However, we strongly believe that our abused and neglected children must be given the same priority in state and federal budget deliberations that responsible California families give their own children. More than half of our recommendations are cost neutral and call for using existing resources differently, implementing policies that are already in place, or phasing in proposals over time in order to reduce reliance on new funds. Some recommendations have little fiscal impact, focusing on structural issues within the courts. Other recommendations call on Congress to give states more flexibility in how they use federal child welfare funds. Most of all, we must remember that when our recommended changes are implemented successfully, there will likely be fewer children in foster care or in other more costly out -of -home placements. Money saved on placements can be reinvested in the child welfare system to more effectively serve children and families who need supportive prevention and reunification services. It is not enough, however, to just use current funds more effectively and efficiently and reinvest the money that is saved. We know that additional resources will be required to fully implement our recommendations. Current budget restraints may affect the timing of securing additional resources, but we believe that improving the lives of our foster children must remain a priority. The bottom line is that our recommendations represent the changes, both short-term and long-term, that must be made to improve the juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems and to ensure a better future for our most vulnerable children and families. 9 Ours has been an unprecedented effort to focus attention on the central role that the courts play in foster care. We have an absolute obligation to do right by the children and families who come into our court rooms. With these recommendations, we propose changing the way that juvenile dependency courts do business, and we idents the ways in which courts and agencies can more effectively collaborate to meet the needs of foster children and their families. —Diane Nunn Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts; Member, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Chapter 1: California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations The Blue Ribbon Commission believes that all children in California deserve a safe, nurturing, and permanent family where they can grow up and learn to become productive adults. We drafted these recommendations as a blueprint for achieving that goal. In developing our recommendations, we sought to build on the momentum for child welfare reform that is already changing how the courts, the state, and counties serve children and families. We recognize that California is in the midst of a statewide effort to improve child welfare practices across the board, with an end goal of safer and more stable families and fewer children in foster care. We see this as an opportunity for real change in the systems that serve our state's most vulnerable children and families. None of the efforts to improve child welfare practices thus far have focused on the courts. We believe that it is essential for the courts to play a leadership role in building a better system for children and families given the courts' critical role in the child welfare system. As a legal "parent" to children in foster care, the courts share with their child welfare partners responsibility for the welfare of our state's children. Every day judges make decisions that are often life -changing for children and their parents. But, the courts, like the rest of the child welfare system, are overwhelmed and underresourced. Four Overall Recommendations Our final recommendations point to what the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partners can do to help children grow up in safe, nurturing, and permanent homes. The recommendations cover four key areas: 1. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2. Collaboration among courts and partnering agencies; 3. Court reform; and 4. Resources and funding. In the rest of this chapter we have organized our recommendations as follows: within each of our four overall recommendations, we include 1) a summary of some of the main issues that speak to the reforms needed, 2) our principal recommendations, and 3) specific recommendations that flow from each principal recommendation. 10 Recommendation 1: Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency As the commission met during the last three years, we learned much about the various stakeholders in the child welfare system and the realities they face every day. We know that the courts and their child welfare partners are unified in a fundamental belief that all children deserve a safe, stable family in which to grow up and thrive. And there is a universal acknowledgment that interrupting a child's bond to a parent, even when necessary and temporary, is a destabilizing event. But while child welfare agencies aspire to offer more services to prevent placement in foster care, funds to support preventive services have not been given a priority at the local, state, or federal level. A recent national study sponsored by the nonprofit organization Kids Are Waiting found that states are allowed to use only 10 percent of federal child welfare funding for prevention or reunification services. This means dependency court officials, faced with serious gaps in necessary services, are often forced to advocate for more funding for services to support vulnerable children and families. We know that every one of the children in foster care in California has multiple hearings before a juvenile court. Yet we found that despite the efforts of judicial officers doing their best to make the right decision for each of these children, placement does not necessarily ensure an improved situation for them or for their families, even when removal is required. Far too many of these foster children experience multiple placements; changes in schools; and separation from siblings, friends, and other family members. We found that African-American and American Indian children are disproportionately in the system. They are more likely than other children to be reported for abuse, more likely to be removed, and less likely to be reunified or adopted. And we learned that as many as 5,000 youth in California reach the age of 18 every year without reunifying with their own families or being placed in another permanent family. National research shows that young people who "age out" of the system are more likely to drop out of school, to have serious mental health needs, to experience homelessness and unemployment, and to end up in the criminal justice system. These are the children who have all too often languished in a foster care limbo. This first set of recommendations is the commission's road map to respond to the challenge posed by these problems. Recommendation 1 Because families who need assistance should receive necessary services to keep children safely at home whenever possible, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council, the California Department of Social Services, and local courts and child welfare 11 I was in foster care for eight years. I was removed from my mother when I was ten years old. I was placed in seven different foster homes during that first year. When I turned 11, I was placed in a group home. When I first moved in, the director toured me around the place and said, "I'm not here to be your mother. I'm here to get you through the system." It was a wake-up call for me to realize that in the foster care system you do not have a parent. You do not have somebody who you can count on, who is there for you when you fall off your skateboard – you know, somebody to hug you and say, "Are you OK? " —Tony Thompson Former foster youth agencies implement improvements to ensure immediate, continuous, and appropriate services and timely, thorough review for all families in the system. Recommendation 1A Children and families need access to a range of services to prevent removal whenever possible. All reasonable efforts should be made to maintain children at home in safe and stable families. The courts should make an informed finding as to whether these efforts actually have been made. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The courts and partnering agencies tailor resources to make sure they have sufficient information and time to establish that all reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal. • All children and families receive timely and appropriate mental health, health care, education, substance abuse, and other services, whether children reside with their own parents or with relatives, foster parents, guardians, or adoptive parents or are in another setting. • At the earliest possible point in their involvement with the family, child welfare agencies engage family members, including extended family wherever they may live, to support the family and children in order to prevent placement whenever possible. Child welfare systems should develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members. • The courts and partnering agencies work to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system. • Judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals who serve foster children and their families increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce. • The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to advocate for greater flexibility in the use of federal, state, and local funding for preventive services. Recommendation 1B If foster care placement is necessary, children, families, and caregivers should have access to appropriate services and timely court reviews that lead to permanency as quickly as possible. Service delivery and court review should ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to return children home, to make sure families and workers comply with case plans, and to achieve timely and stable transitions home or, if necessary, to place with relatives or in another permanent, stable family. 12 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to advocate for changes in law and practice to increase and encourage more relative placements, including: o Addressing funding disparities; o Developing greater flexibility in approving relative placements whereby relatives would not, by virtue of federal law, be held to the same standard as nonrelatives; and o Formulating protocols to facilitate swift home assessments and placement with family members when appropriate. • The courts and child welfare agencies expedite services for families and ensure that foster children maintain a relationship with all family members and other important people in their lives. • The courts ensure that children who cannot return home receive services and court reviews to enable them to successfully transition into a permanent home and into adulthood. This includes paying attention to each child's language, development, and cultural needs in making decisions about home and school placements, visitation, education, and mental health needs. It also means making sure they have consistent community ties and help from supportive adults, such as mentors, as they grow up. • All court participants continuously review and make extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co -placement. • Children and families receive continuous and comprehensive services if a child enters the delinquency system from foster care. • The Judicial Council and the state Department of Social Services work together to urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies to ensure that THP -Plus programs for transitional housing sustain a level of funding sufficient to maintain and expand program capacity to meet the demonstrated need of youth aging out of the foster care system. • The Judicial Council work with federal and state leaders to support or sponsor legislation to extend the age when children receive foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. This change should apply to those children who at age 18 cannot be returned home safely, who are not in a permanent home, and who choose to remain under the jurisdiction of the court. If the court terminates jurisdiction before a youth's 21st birthday, the youth should have the right to reinstatement of jurisdiction and services. • The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to develop practices, protocols, and enhanced services to promote both placement and placement stability of children and youth in family -like, rather than institutional, settings. 13 Overwhelming caseloads, crowded dockets, and inadequate information mean that the best of judges and attorneys struggle to meet the needs of each child and parent who come before the bench. Because of these challenges, children and parents do not always participate meaningfully in court, and we are often not able to meet our federal and state mandates for timely hearings. —Hon. Leonard P. Edwards Retired Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara; Member, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Recommendation 2: Court Reform We know that California's dependency court system is overstressed and underresourced. Because of staggering caseloads, judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers are often forced to limit the time and attention they give to each child. Even if they do give each case a thorough review, we learned they often cannot meet the statutory timeline for the case.2 Either way, children and their families lose. Dependency cases represent the most intrusive form of governmental intervention into the lives of families, so we believe that it is essential for the court system to have sufficient resources to appropriately oversee these cases. It is also essential that the local trial courts make these cases a priority and allocate the resources that are needed. We learned that many families and children appear at the courthouse but wait for hours before their hearing, only to receive a few minutes with the court and with their attorneys. In fact, the median time for a juvenile dependency hearing in California is just 10-15 minutes, far short of the recommended 30-60 minutes needed to give appropriate attention to a case. Dependency court attorneys, who represent foster children and their families, and social workers, suffer from similar time and caseload pressures. These systemic problems inhibit the courts' ability to meet their statutory requirements, as well as their obligation to ensure that all participants in the hearings understand their rights and responsibilities and the decisions made in court. We found that dependency courts are able to gather only limited data on their ability to meet statutory timelines for hearings and requirements regarding safety, permanency, and well-being. Currently, uniform statewide court data is limited to the number of filings and dispositions. Without more advanced data systems and court performance measures, the courts are not able to track children's progress, measure compliance with statutes, and identify sources of delay and other areas of reform needed in juvenile dependency court cases. After hearing from many stakeholders through testimony, focus groups, written comments, and other means of communication, the commission crafted the following blueprint for reform of the court system. We believe that implementation of these recommendations will bring fundamental change to a court system charged with serving our state's most vulnerable children and families. 2 See Appendix I, Backgrounder: California Dependency Courts and the Hearing Process 14 Recommendation 2 Because the courts are responsible for ensuring that a child's rights to safety, permanency, and well-being are met in a timely and comprehensive manner and that all parties are treated fairly in the process, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council and the trial and appellate courts make children in foster care and their families a priority when making decisions about the allocation of resources and administrative support. Recommendation 2A The trial and appellate courts must have sufficient resources to meet their obligations to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Consistent with Judicial Council policy, judges—not subordinate judicial officers—hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate judicial officers to juvenile court. • The Judicial Council work with bar organizations, the Governor's office, and state and local leadership to ensure that juvenile law experience is given favorable consideration during the judicial appointment and assignment process and well- qualified subordinate judicial officers and attorneys with juvenile law experience are encouraged to apply for vacant judicial positions. • Presiding judges follow standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration and assign judges to juvenile court for a minimum of three years and give priority to judges who are actively interested in juvenile law as an assignment. • The Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The study should take into account the court's unique oversight and case management responsibilities and address the use of case managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. • Pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and statutory requirements. • The Administrative Office of the Courts helps courts comply with the judicial standard outlining the knowledge, commitment, 15 and leadership role required of judicial officers who make decisions about children in foster care (see standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration). Presiding judges of the superior courts should receive training in the role and duties of juvenile court judicial officers as outlined in the standard. Recommendation 2B All participants in dependency hearings and subsequent appeals, including children and families, should have an opportunity to be heard and meaningfully participate in court. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Judicial officers identify and engage all parties in each case as early as possible. A particular emphasis should be placed on finding fathers and identifying Indian tribes where applicable. • Judicial officers and other stakeholders remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caregivers from attending hearings. This includes addressing transportation and scheduling difficulties, as well as exploring telephonic appearances and other technological options. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders develop and implement laws and policies to promote relative finding, funding, assessment, placement, and connections. • The Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. • The Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. Recommendation 2C Judicial officers should ensure that local court practices facilitate and promote the attendance of children, parents, and caregivers at hearings. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Hearings be available at times that do not conflict with school or work or other requirements of a family's case plan. • To the extent feasible, hearings be set for a specific date and time. Delays should be minimized, and hearings should be conducted on consecutive days until completed. • A concurrent criminal proceeding not delay a dependency case. • All parties, including children, parents, and social workers, have the opportunity to review reports and meet with their attorneys before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings. 16 • Hearings be timely and meet all federal and state mandated timelines. Continuances be minimized, and the reasons for systemic continuances be addressed by the local court and child welfare agency. • All participants leave court hearings with a clear understanding of what happened, why decisions were made, and, if appropriate, what actions they need to take. • The Administrative Office of the Courts provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, that takes into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. • The same judicial officer hear a case from beginning to end, when possible. • Courts explore telephonic appearance policies and new technology options to ensure participation in juvenile court hearings. Recommendation 2D The court's ability to make fair, timely, and informed decisions requires attorneys, social workers, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who are well qualified and have the time and resources to present accurate and timely information to the courts. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including a stable funding source, necessary to implement the council's recently adopted attorney caseload standards, to implement caseload standards for social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. • The Judicial Council take active steps to promote the advancement of juvenile law as a sought-after career. Accomplishing this recommendation requires: o Fair and reasonable compensation for court-appointed attorneys; o Adoption and implementation of a methodology for determining attorney effectiveness; o Forgiveness of student loans for attorneys who commit a substantial portion of their careers to juvenile law; o That public and nonprofit law offices hire and retain attorneys based on their interest in the field and encourage them to build careers in juvenile law; and o Collaboration with State Bar of California leaders to include juvenile dependency law as a mandatory area of 17 study for the California Bar exam and create a State Bar juvenile law section. • The Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. Training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. • The Judicial Council continue to support the development and expansion of CASA programs and to help make available CASA volunteers for all foster children in the dependency system. State funding for CASA programs should be expanded to allow for appointments in all cases. • Local or regional legal advocacy resource centers be established to ensure that the nondependency legal needs of dependent children and their parents are appropriately addressed. This includes education, immigration, tribal enrollment or other requirements to receive the benefits of tribal membership, tort issues, and other issues. Recommendation 2E All courts should have nonadversarial programs available as early as possible and whenever necessary for children and families to use to resolve legal and social issues when appropriate. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution be available in all courts at any time in the proceedings. • Families in all counties have access to other types of court proceedings—drug, mental health, and unified courts, for example—that can help them remain together or, if the children are removed, to stabilize and reunify the family as soon as possible. • Presiding judges work with agencies to ensure that families in all counties have access to specific nonadversarial child welfare– based practices such as family group conferencing, team decision-making, and family team meetings. 18 Recommendation 2F The Judicial Council should establish and implement a comprehensive set of court performance measures as required by state law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16545). The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council adopt and direct the Administrative Office of the Courts to work with local courts and state agencies to implement a rule of court that embodies the commission's following recommendations: o Court performance measures include those for safety, permanency, timeliness of court hearings, due process, and child well-being; o Court performance measures align with and promote the federal and California Child and Family Services Review outcome measures and indicators; o The California Court Case Management System collect uniform court performance data and have the capability to produce management reports on performance measures; and o Trial court performance measures be included in a separate Judicial Council -approved Administrative Office of the Courts Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. • These performance measures and management reports be used for the following: o To promote court accountability for ensuring fair and timely hearings and to inform improvements in local case processing; o To provide stakeholders and the public with an aggregate picture of the outcomes for children before the court and to increase the public's understanding of the court's role in the child welfare system; and o To measure compliance with statutory mandates and effective practices. • The Judicial Council work with the Child Welfare Council and local courts and state agencies to develop uniform child well- being performance measures. Based on these measures, the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts should work with local courts to develop and implement educational tools that help courts improve child well-being outcomes. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate at the federal, state, and local levels for the funding necessary to implement recommended court performance measures. 19 Collaboration can be very difficult. There are such different cultures across state and county departments and agencies, and there is such a scarcity of resources that collaboration alone is not enough. We need real transformation. That will mean forming meaningful partnerships and looking at things in new ways. —Phillip Crandall Director of Health and Human Services, Humboldt County Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Their Child Welfare Partners In California, the courts share responsibility for the safety and well-being of children and youth in foster care with a range of agencies, including child welfare, education, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health, public health, and Indian tribal councils. This means that families are often involved with more than one agency at a time. These agencies have independent and sometimes conflicting policies and regulations that inhibit communication and sharing of data and information. We learned that because of this problem, judges and attorneys sometimes lack full knowledge of a child's health, mental health, education, language, or citizenship. This means the courts must sometimes make decisions without a complete or accurate picture of the child and his or her family. We found that this leads to a situation where court-ordered services to benefit families and children sometimes conflict with other court orders or mandated services from other agencies. And the courts and child welfare agencies do not always know what services exist in the community. Often there is limited availability of essential services. The commission adopted the following recommendations to solve this problem. We believe that collaboration is a critical piece of the foster care puzzle. We know that together we can serve children and families more effectively. Recommendation 3 Because the courts share responsibility with child welfare agencies and other partners for the well-being of children in foster care, the courts, child welfare, and other partnering agencies must work together to prioritize the needs of children and families in each system and remove barriers that keep stakeholders from working together effectively. Recommendation 3A The Judicial Council, trial courts, and California Department of Social Services should work cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decision-making that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council continue its efforts to fully develop and implement the California Court Case Management System and other data exchange protocols, so that the judicial branch, the California Department of Social Services, and other trusted 20 partners will be able to exchange essential information about the children and families they are mandated to serve. • California Case Management System permit judicial officers in dependency courts to access information about children and families who are involved in cases in other courts. • California Case Management System and the state Child Welfare Services/Case Management System promote coordinated data collection, data exchange, and filing of documents, including electronic filing, between the courts, social service agencies, and other key partners and track data that permits them to measure their performance. • The Child Welfare Council prioritize solutions to federal and state statutory and regulatory policy barriers that prevent information sharing between the courts and their partners and that cause delays in the delivery of services and, hence, delays in permanency for children. • Data systems in the various agencies evolve to capture the growing complexity of California demographics, including issues such as limited English proficiency, use of psychotropic medications, and disabilities. Recommendation 3B The presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and resolve local system concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • These multidisciplinary local commissions include participation from the courts; local government officials; public and private agencies and organizations that support children and families; children, parents, and families with experience in the system; caregivers; and all other appropriate parties to the process. • These commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including: o Undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency; o Identifying and resolving barriers to sharing information among the courts, agencies, and schools; o Communicating local needs and concerns to the Child Welfare Council; and 21 o Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in their communities. • The Administrative Office of the Courts support local commissions in their efforts to collaborate and to avoid duplication with other efforts to achieve positive child welfare outcomes (including county efforts to develop system improvement plans as required by state law). • All participating agencies prioritize children in foster care, and their families, when providing services. Recommendation 3C Courts, child welfare agencies, and other agencies should collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that the rights of children, families, and tribes are protected and that Indian children and families have access to all appropriate services for which they are eligible. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Administrative Office of the Courts work with state trial courts and tribal courts to establish protocols for identifying and sharing jurisdiction between state and tribal courts and for sharing services, case management, and data among superior courts, tribal courts, and county and tribal service agencies. The protocols established should encourage a mutual understanding of and respect for the procedures in both the state and tribal courts and the challenges that all communities face in providing services for children and families. The Administrative Office of the Courts collaborate with the state to develop and offer judicial education and technical assistance opportunities to tribal court officers and staff and legal education to tribal attorneys, lay advocates, and service providers. • The Administrative Office of the Courts work with the California Department of Social Services to offer ongoing multidisciplinary training and technical assistance to judges, court staff, attorneys, social workers, and other service providers on all of the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. • Indian children and families have access to the same services as other families and children regardless of whether their cases are heard in state court or tribal court. 22 Recommendation 4: Resources and Funding During our three-year investigation, we found that financial support for children and families in the child welfare system is built on a patchwork of funding streams, each with its own rules and restrictions. In addition to state and county funding, child welfare dollars come from at least a half-dozen federal sources, some of which require matching funds from state, county, and local agencies. Delays in services result when providers, social service agencies, and the courts struggle to determine the pertinent funding source for services. Delays are compounded when a child is moved to a new county or state. Even when services are available, agencies and the courts do not always give priority to foster children and their families in the delivery of these services. For example, children have a right to certain educational and transition -to -independent -living services but often are not able to benefit from these services because there are no resources or funding supports to help these children access the services. This lack of prioritization of, and accountability to, children and families in the delivery of services deprives them of the comprehensive and concentrated services that are critical to family reunification and permanency. The commission offers the following recommendations to respond to the challenge of resources and funding. Recommendation 4 In order to meet the needs of children and families in the foster care system, the Judicial Council, Congress, the Legislature, the courts, and partnering agencies should give priority to children and their families in the child welfare system in the allocation and administration of resources, including public funding – federal, state, and local – and private funds from foundations that support children's issues. Recommendation 4A The Judicial Council should urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies – including agencies and organizations that provide health, mental health, education, substance abuse, domestic violence, housing, employment, and child care services – to prioritize the delivery and availability of services to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Congress and the state Legislature fund dissemination of evidence -based or promising practices that lead to improved outcomes for foster children and their parents. Examples include therapeutic foster care and drug courts. 23 Simply put, current federal funding mechanisms for child welfare encourage an over -reliance on foster care at the expense of other services to keep families safely together and to move children swiftly and safely from foster care to permanent families, whether their birth families or a new adoptive family or legal guardian. —Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care Recommendation 4B States and counties should be given permission to use federal funding more flexibly. Flexible funding should be used to address the needs of children and families in a timely manner that recognizes the child's developmental needs and relationship with his or her parents, guardian, and extended family. The commission supports key financial recommendations of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and encourages innovative funding strategies at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council urge Congress to adopt the following federal financing reform recommendations, based on those advocated in 2004 by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a national panel of experts that issued proposals around financing child welfare and court reforms: o Creation of an incentive model for permanency. Based on the adoption incentive, this model would encompass all forms of permanency, including reunification and guardianship, and would offer equal payment levels; o Federal adoption assistance for all children adopted from foster care; o Federal guardianship assistance for all children who leave foster care to live with a permanent, legal guardian; o Elimination of the income limit for eligibility for federal foster care funding; o Flexibility for states and counties to use federal funds to serve children from Indian tribes and children living within U.S. territories; o Extension of federal title IV -E funding to children in Indian tribes and the U.S. territories; o Reinvestment of local, state, and federal dollars saved from reduced foster care placements into services for children and families in the child welfare system; o Reinvestment of penalties levied in the federal Child and Family Services Review process into program improvement activities; and o Bonuses when the state demonstrates improved worker competence and lighter caseloads. Recommendation 4C No child or family should be denied services because it is unclear who should pay for them. Funding limitations that prohibit or delay the delivery of services to children and families should be addressed through coordinated and more flexible funding. 24 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding for services and to develop solutions. • The Judicial Council should urge Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. Recommendation 4D The Judicial Council, along with other stakeholders, should work to improve the foster care system by supporting those who provide care to dependent children. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for increasing foster care rates and supports to enable foster parents to care for their foster children. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for funding and other resources to provide statewide legal and informational support for caregivers so they understand the dependency process and know what to expect in court. Recommendation 4E The Judicial Council, the executive and legislative branches of federal and state government, local courts, businesses, foundations, and community service organizations should work together to establish a fund to provide foster youth with the money and resources they need to participate in extracurricular activities and programs to help make positive transitions into adulthood. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Children in foster care and partnering agencies have access to reliable funding to support their access to extracurricular activities and transitional programs. These activities should include music and dance lessons, sports, school events, and independent living activities. • Systemic barriers that prevent foster children from participating in the above events be eliminated, including transportation, licensing restrictions, and confusion regarding waivers and consents. 25 Recommendation 4F Educational services for foster youth and former foster youth should be expanded to increase access to education and to improve the quality of those services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Courts and partnering agencies ensure that foster children receive the full education they are entitled to, including the support they need to graduate from high school. This includes tutoring and participation in extracurricular activities. The courts should require other agencies to justify any denial of such services to foster youth in school. • The Judicial Council urge Congress and the state Legislature to strengthen current education laws to explicitly include all foster children and to fill funding gaps, such as the lack of support for transportation to maintain school stability. • The Child Welfare Council prioritize foster children's educational rights and work with educators to establish categorical program monitoring to oversee compliance with education laws and regulations that support foster youth in school. • The California Department of Education designate foster youth as "at -risk" students to recognize that foster care creates challenges and obstacles to a child's education that other children do not experience and to increase the access of foster youth to local education programs. • Foster Youth Services grants be expanded to include all children age five or older, including those in kinship placements, because close to half of foster children are placed with kin and Foster Youth Services is not currently funded to serve those children. • The Judicial Council urge legislative bodies and higher education officials to expand programs, such as the Guardian Scholars, statewide to ensure that all current and former foster youth who attend college have access to housing and other support services and to waive tuition and other educational fees for current and former foster youth. 26 BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION PLAN HIGHLIGHTS Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal & Achieve Permanency Increase Kinship Placements Opt into federal legislation Improve protocols Support family finding Reduce 1 Disproportional Representation ✓ Support funding for tribes ✓ Provide training ✓ Involve local courts Extend Youth Support to 21 ✓ Opt into new federal legislation • Ensure adequate funding for transitional housing Collaboration Between Courts & Child Welfare Partners Exchange Data, & Information 1 • Implement court performance measures / Develop data exchange programs i Remove barriers Create Local Commissions ✓ Set up local commissions ✓ Implement recs & other reforms ✓ Provide support Support Indian Child Welfare • Facilitate local commissions' work with tribes • Develop models & protocols for collaboration between state and tribal courts Court Reform Reduce Caseloads • Continue judicial caseload study • Use case managers Advocate for resources Assess current resource allocation Ensure A Voice in Court ✓ Assess barriers 1 Provide for flexible hearing times Ensure youth in court Provide Adequate Training Continue key programs ✓ Advocate for resources ✓ Develop educational programs Resources & Funding Prioritize Foster Care 1 Support courts leading by example ✓ Implement existing mandates / Identify other programs for foster care priority Increase Flexible Funding Opt into new federal legislation Advocate for increased flexibility in spending fed. funds Expand Education Eliminate local barriers Ensure full educational rights 1 Expand programs for "aged out" foster youth Chapter 2: A Roadmap to Reform: The Blue Ribbon Commission's Action Plan Commissioners kept implementation in mind throughout our deliberations. We were determined from the beginning that our recommendations not sit on a shelf gathering dust, but be implemented as soon as possible in the hope of improving the lives of children and families, and bringing some relief to the state's chronically overstressed juvenile court and child welfare systems. When the Judicial Council unanimously accepted our fmal recommendations on August 15, 2008, it directed that work get underway immediately on the 26 specific recommendations that are under its purview. It also directed us to develop an action plan in keeping with our principles and values for those recommendations that required collaboration with court partners. We met in San Francisco on October 21, 2008 to begin work on the action plan that is included in this chapter. The commission believes that each one of our recommendations is important and indispensible to the sweeping reform of the foster care and dependency court systems that we envision. For this initial action plan, we took a pragmatic approach, identifying practical first steps that we believe are fiscally responsible and realistically achievable. We also believe that these initial reforms will provide an important and improved foundation for the remaining recommendations and reforms that will follow. We organized our action plan around the key recommendations in each of the four overall categories of recommendations: 1. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2. Court reform; 3. Collaboration between the courts and their child welfare partners; and 4. Resources and funding. We have highlighted key recommendations within each of these categories and outlined our action steps to make them a reality. We realize that our recommendations have financial implications. That goes without saying. And we acknowledge that our state is experiencing difficult financial times. But not everything needs to happen at once. We are taking the long view. These recommendations, when implemented, will bring significant change to our juvenile court and child welfare system, to the benefit of California's most vulnerable children and families. —Hon. Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California; Chair, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care I was placed in foster care when I was six years old and had multiple placements in the first three years. Growing up, it was really difficult because you would have to make family trees in school, and on my family tree it was just me and my brother. I had no idea who my parents were. I had no idea of any genetics or any family history. I had no idea of who I was until I was 17. With the limited information I had, I searched on the Internet for my family and was able to locate my grandmother who said she had not been contacted when I was placed in foster care. —Sean Guthrie Former foster youth REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PREVENT REMOVAL AND ACHIEVE PERMANENCY Increasing the Number of Relative Placements (Kinship) Nearly half of the children in foster care have been in care for over two years, 17 percent for three years or more. Too often these children are in foster care limbo, shifted from placement to placement, separated from siblings, friends, and schools. Often they could be placed with relatives if the system knew who and where the relatives were. Key Recommendations • That, at the earliest possible point in their involvement with the family, child welfare agencies engage family members, including extended family wherever they may live, to support the family and children in order to prevent placement whenever possible. Child welfare systems should develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members. • The Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to advocate changes in law and practice to increase and encourage more relative placements, including: o Addressing funding disparities; o Developing greater flexibility in approving relative placements whereby relatives would not, by virtue of federal law, be held to the same standard as nonrelatives; and o Formulating protocols to facilitate swift home assessments and placement with family members when appropriate. • That all court participants continuously review and make extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co -placement. Action Steps To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, we urge that the following steps be taken to improve the availability of relatives to care for foster children: • That the Judicial Council work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, the California Department of Social Services, and other appropriate partnering agencies to evaluate and determine whether California should opt into the kinship provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (hereinafter "Fostering Connections to Success Act"). These provisions would provide more support for relative caregivers. If it is determined that California should opt in, the Judicial Council should support appropriate legislation. • That local and statewide child welfare agencies develop and improve internal protocols for finding, engaging, and supporting family relationships. The efforts and forthcoming recommendations of the Child Welfare Council Permanency 30 Committee and the implementation of California's Program Improvement Plan will support this work. • That local foster care commissions support the expansion of family finding in their counties by developing information - sharing protocols among public and private agencies to enhance the ability of the child welfare agency to locate family members. The Blue Ribbon Commission's local teams committee and Administrative Office of the Courts staff will provide support for this effort. Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African Americans and American Indians in Foster Care African-American children constitute 6% of the state's child population, but represent more than 26% of the children in foster care. More than three times as many American Indian children are in the foster care system compared to the state's population of American Indian children. These statistics sharply profile the enormity of the problem of disproportionality in California's foster care system. We recommend a strong, determined response to this systemic inequity. Key Recommendations • That the courts and partnering agencies work to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system, and • That judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals who serve foster children and their families increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce. Action Steps We recommend addressing the problem on multiple fronts through the following steps: • That the Judicial Council and partnering agencies support as appropriate Indian tribes opting into the provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act to get federal title IV -E funds and to access grants. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts provide training and support to trial courts on how these courts may contribute to the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indian children and provide tools for eliminating this effect. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts and other statewide stakeholders, including Casey Family Programs, set up a task force to develop the basics of a training template to reduce disproportionality that can be provided to each county. • That the Judicial Council, partnering agencies, and local commissions work collaboratively to develop a strategy to increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce at every level. 31 I started my work in child welfare services over 20 years ago, providing group care to neglected teenagers. And I have to say that the most troubling aspect of that experience was 18th birthdays. I watched far too many young people celebrate their 18th birthday with nowhere to go because their funding for foster care services was terminated on that day. —Professor Mark Courtney Ballmer Chair in Child Well -Being, School of Social Work, University of Washington; Former social worker • That the California Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members to help avoid nonrelative placement whenever possible. • That courts and partnering agencies identify how policies and practices interact to create disproportionality and work to ameliorate this effect. • That the Judicial Council support efforts to involve courts in local collaborations to reduce disproportionality, including in counties that are participating in Casey Family Programs' California Disproportionality Project. • That the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, trial courts, and county child welfare agencies develop a statewide dependency court standard for determining predetention reasonable efforts to find alternative placements or provide intensive services to prevent detention. Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth The fact that more than 5,000 of our youth in foster care "age out" of the system every year without reunifying with their own families or being placed in other permanent families is an enormous problem for this state. We know that these young people are more likely to drop out of school, have serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal justice system. We recommend aggressive action to provide needed support for transitioning youth. Rey Recommendation • That the Judicial Council work with federal and state leaders to support or sponsor legislation to extend the age when children receive foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. This change should apply to those children who at age 18 cannot be returned home safely, who are not in a permanent home, and who choose to remain under the jurisdiction of the court. If the court terminates jurisdiction before a youth's 21st birthday, the youth should have the right to reinstatement of jurisdiction and services. Action Steps Implementation of this recommendation is imminently possible because the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act, passed in 2008, now permits states to use federal funding to extend foster care assistance to age 21. We urge that the following steps be taken to ensure that California opts in to the provisions in this act that would permit federal funding for foster care through age 21: • That the Judicial Council work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, California Department of Social Services, and the 32 Legislature to ensure that California is able to secure federal funding to extend foster care to age 21. • That the Judicial Council develop rules of court as necessary to implement the federal and/or state legislation, and provide continuing court oversight for youth transitioning to adulthood. • That the California Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies develop protocols for working with transitioning youth who may want continued services beyond age 18. • That the Judicial Council and trial courts develop protocols to address any changes to caseloads for the courts and attorneys that are created by extending juvenile court jurisdiction to age 21 • That the Judicial Council and partnering agencies work with state and federal leadership to ensure adequate funding for transitional housing. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts, in the absence of new legislation, provide training to trial courts on the authority of courts to order services to youth to age 21 under current law. 33 Hailed as the most significant federal legislation for foster youth in more than a decade, the Fostering Connections to Success Act provides important new resources for foster youth and the families who care for them. Spotlight on Early Implementation: Fostering Connections to Success Act Late in 2008, Congress passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351). Hailed as the most significant federal legislation for foster youth in more than a decade, the new law provides important new resources for foster youth and the families who care for them. The new law is directly responsive to 20 of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations, which were shared with members of Congress prior to the new law's passage. Commission recommendations addressed by the new law include: Increased supports for relative caregivers (kin); Improved outreach and communication with relatives who may be able to assist with care for foster youth; More flexible use of federal funds to support child abuse prevention efforts; Supports for foster youth until age 21, including housing and other transitional services; Requirements that siblings be placed together; Requirements that child welfare agencies coordinate with educational agencies to ensure that children are enrolled in school full-time and can remain in the same school whenever possible; Extension of federal funding for foster care to tribal governments; and Use of federal child welfare training funds for court personnel, attorneys, relative caregivers and others working with children in the child welfare system. State legislation to implement a number of these provisions has already been introduced in California. Commission members are helping to support these efforts under the auspices of the Judicial Council. Once enacted in state statute, local foster care commissions will be able to assist with implementation. 34 COURT REFORM Reducing Caseloads for Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers Staggering caseloads for attorneys and judicial officers in juvenile dependency court sharply limit the time and attention that either an attorney or the court can give to any one case. When the average hearing time devoted to each case is 10 to 15 minutes instead of the recommended 30 to 60 minutes, it is no wonder that parents and children consistently report that they did not understand what happened in court. We believe that lowering caseloads is a necessary first step towards implementing our recommendations for more meaningful hearings. (This section discusses judicial caseloads. Attorney and social worker caseloads are addressed later in the section on Resources and Funding.) Key Recommendations • That the Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The study should take into account the court's unique oversight and case management responsibilities and address the use of case managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. • That, pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and statutory requirements. Action Steps The first step in addressing judicial caseloads is to determine the appropriate caseload for judicial officers. This determination will then enable the courts to determine the appropriate allocation of judicial resources to juvenile courts and will give the judicial branch the ability to advocate more effectively for additional resources. We recommend the following implementation steps: • That the Judicial Council continue its ongoing statewide assessment of judicial needs based on caseload data and continue to seek the resources to implement recommendations from the study. • That the Judicial Council, in conjunction with the trial courts, undertake a judicial juvenile court caseload study tailored to take into account the court's unique oversight, case management and community responsibilities. • That the Judicial Council explore the use of case managers to support judges with their caseloads and consider the effect of case managers when determining the appropriate caseload. 35 The dependency system is blessed with many caring and dedicated social workers, attorneys, and judicial officers. However, no one, no matter how dedicated and caring, can do a complete and thorough job if they have four times as many cases as they should. Clear standards for each of these professions and a source for funding to ensure that there are enough social workers, attorneys, and judicial officers are essential. —Hon. Margaret Henry Judge of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles Spotlight on Early Implementation: Youth Participation in Hearings that Affect Their Lives Ensuring that foster youth have a voice in court — a key commission recommendation — was the impetus behind recently signed state legislation. Assembly Bill 3051 requires courts to ensure that children over age 10 have the opportunity to attend hearings on their dependency case (including provision of transportation, if necessary) and that they are permitted to address the court when they are present at a hearing. Some counties, most notably Los Angeles, have already made great strides in this area. And, several of the newly forming local foster care commissions have targeted getting children to court as one of their top priorities. Our commission frequently heard from foster youth who expressed a sincere and real desire to be present when decisions are made regarding their young lives. Often youth are not aware of hearings, and even if they are, transportation and scheduling issues can present major roadblocks. Related commission recommendations call for removing other barriers that prevent both youth and parent participation in hearings, including scheduling hearings that do not conflict with school and work, setting hearings for specific dates and times, and exploring telephonic and other new technology options to ensure full participation. Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings As we studied the juvenile court process, we sought first-hand accounts from participants about their experiences in dependency court through a variety of settings: focus groups, public forums, formal testimony at commission meetings, public hearings, youth summits, and social worker symposia. We learned that participants have an earnest desire to be heard and understood by the judge and to offer their personal perspectives to the court on the issues that could have a profound impact on their future. Whether they appear in person at a hearing, submit written information, or are effectively represented by an attorney, participants want to tell their side of the story. The desire to share their own voice -- their concerns, aspirations, and personal perspectives -- was echoed by all participants in the legal process. This finding echoed a 2005 Survey of Trust and Confidence in the California Courts and identified the opportunity to be heard as a critical component of procedural fairness. In response to the legislation and the clear message we heard about the desire for meaningful participation in court hearings, we prioritized the following recommendations for early action. Key Recommendations • That judicial officers and other stakeholders identify and remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caregivers from attending hearings. • That the Judicial Council provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, and that this take into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. • That the Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. • That the Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. Action Steps To implement these recommendations, we must engage the Judicial Council, trial courts, local foster care commissions, appellate courts, local child welfare agencies, appellate representation projects, attorneys representing parents, children and agencies and other partnering agencies. The Judicial Council has already referred appellate counsel and expedited appeal recommendations to appropriate internal committees for the development of rules of court. We believe the following additional steps should be taken to ensure dependency court participants a voice in court: • That local foster care commissions identify and assess county barriers to parties' attendance at hearings and tailor local strategies to overcome these barriers. This is one of the four 36 priority areas that the Blue Ribbon Commission asked local commissions to consider at the local summit meeting in December 2008. The Administrative Office of the Courts staff will provide support for these efforts. • That state level child welfare stakeholders develop strategies to reduce barriers to participation, including legislation as necessary, and support local foster care commission efforts to remove the barriers to attendance and participation at hearings. The Child Welfare Council should provide leadership and support in this area. • That trial courts make use of established procedures to increase parties' attendance and participation at hearings, including the setting of time certain hearings that are available at times that do not conflict with school, employment or other case plan or court obligations. Trial courts should also act to reduce unnecessary delays and cancellations of hearings. • That the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court implementing the Assembly Bill 3051 (Jones) to facilitate attendance of children at hearings. The rule of court will include information on implementation steps that will ensure meaningful participation. • That the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court providing for alternative ways for parties to participate in court, such as telephonic appearances, and standards by which these alternatives may be used. This step has already been referred to the Judicial Council's Rules and Projects Committee. Ensuring Adequately Trained and Resourced Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court -Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Making sure that parties can attend hearings is only the first step toward meaningful hearings. Once in court, participants in dependency court are mystified by the process — they often feel frustrated, overwhelmed or rushed as they attempt to navigate the court system, to understand their rights, and to participate in a meaningful way in court. The commission saw these issues as crucial and slated for initial action recommendations to increase resources to reduce caseloads and expand training. Key Recommendations • That the Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including stable funding, to implement caseload standards for attorneys and social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. 37 I didn't know that we could write a letter to the judge. I didn't know that we could do something to let our voice be heard and let the judge see that there was a family... approved and waiting for him. —Foster parent and focus group participant San Francisco Spotlight on Early Implementation: New Training Resource for Courts, Attorneys, & Social Workers In line with Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations calling for improved training for the courts, juvenile dependency attorneys, and social workers, the Administrative Office of the Courts' Center for Families, Children & the Courts recently launched the California Dependency Online Guide, a free technical assistance Web site for juvenile dependency judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals working in child welfare or related fields. This new training resource provides a variety of legal and educational resources including a searchable dependency case law database, a conference calendar, sample briefs, motions and writs, county -by - county listings of service providers and experts, and a large number of publications and training materials. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommended improved training for court and other personnel because the court's ability to make fair, timely, and informed decisions requires well qualified attorneys, social workers, and other child welfare professionals who can present accurate and timely information to the courts about the children and families in the child welfare system. Those wishing to subscribe to this important new resource should visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/dependency onlineguide. Contact: dependencyguide@jud.ca.gov, or call AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 415-865- 4563. Action Steps To implement these recommendations we need the help of the Judicial Council, trial courts, tribes and/or tribal courts, state legislative leadership, local child welfare agencies, dependency court attorneys, CASA, and other partnering agencies or organizations. We urge the following steps be taken to implement our recommendations: • That the Administrative Office of the Courts continue its Court Appointed Counsel Study and Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding & Training (DRAFT) project to reduce caseloads and provide training for attorneys representing parents and children in juvenile dependency proceedings. • That the Judicial Council work with partnering agencies and other state leadership to advocate for resources to implement existing caseload standards for all attorneys who provide representation in juvenile court and for social workers. • That the Judicial Council work with trial courts, partnering agencies, and local foster care commissions to determine what type of multidisciplinary training and support is needed in local jurisdictions and the opportunities that exist to provide the training and support. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts develop educational programs and technical support for judicial officers that address the efficient and optimal use of existing resources. • That the Judicial Council establish pilot projects in small, medium, and large courts to test various approaches to making hearings more meaningful and use the lessons learned to develop policies and practices that can be implemented statewide. 38 Spotlight on Early Implementation: Early Support for Court Performance Measures Early in the commission's three-year process, we embraced the collection and reporting of performance measures in juvenile dependency court and developed draft court performance measures that were adopted in 2008. Several factors contributed to our momentum: • The courts were already in the process of developing a California Case Management System and were beginning to design the juvenile dependency court module. • The California Department of Social Services was about to redesign and upgrade their statewide Child Welfare Services automated case management system. • The California Legislature also expressed its support for court - based performance measurement through passage of the Child Welfare Leadership and Performance Accountability Act of 2006, Assembly Bill 2216. This bill directed the Judicial Council to adopt performance measures that enable the courts to establish benchmarks and track their progress "in improving safety, permanency, timeliness and well-being of children and to inform decisions about the allocation of court resources."3 In one of our first actions, the commission drafted a resolution about the need for gathering better and more complete data related to dependency cases and for the electronic sharing of appropriate information between the courts and child welfare agencies. This resolution was adopted by the Judicial Council at its October 20, 2006 meeting. (See the resolution in Appendix B.) Two of our committees then developed draft court performance measures, which were incorporated into a draft rule of court, which was circulated for comment as part of the Judicial Council's rule making process. On October 24, 2008, the Judicial Council adopted rule 5.505 of the California Rules of Court and its companion guide: Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures, with an effective date of January 1, 2009. With the adoption of performance measures for California, the Judicial Council took a significant step to implement our recommendation calling for the Judicial Council to "establish and implement a comprehensive set of court performance measures." When the California Case Management System goes online with its family and juvenile law case module, the performance measures will begin to help the courts improve outcomes for the state's most vulnerable families. 3 CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 16545 (West 2008). 39 The implementation of performance measures will help California's courts improve outcomes for our most vulnerable families. If attorneys are not trained in everything from child development to understanding children's' linguistic stages to special education to mental health to health to substance abuse to domestic violence – all of those things – they cannot do a good job as attorneys in dependency court. There is a lot more that you need besides a Bar card to really represent children well in this system. And very little of it is taught in law school. —Leslie Heimov Executive Director, Children's Law Center of Los Angeles COLLABORATION BETWEEN COURTS AND THEIR CHILD WELFARE PARTNERS Facilitating Data and Information Exchange One of the greatest challenges to reforming the juvenile dependency and foster care systems is the difficulty of exchanging data and information among courts and their partner agencies. The difficulty results from a variety of factors, including confidentiality laws, and in many instances the way in which they are interpreted and implemented; automated case management systems that are unable to communicate with each other; and a lack of communication and collaboration among agencies and between agencies and the courts. Key Recommendation • The Judicial Council, trial courts, and the California Department of Social Services should work cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decision-making that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. Action Steps To achieve that goal, we focused on the following implementation steps: • That the Judicial Council continue to develop and implement the California Case Management System, which will include information -sharing capabilities with other partners' data systems. • That statewide stakeholders work to reduce or remove barriers to sharing information, through Memoranda of Understanding or through legislation, where needed. Support is being provided for this work through the ongoing efforts of the Child Welfare Council Data Linkage Committee. • That the Judicial Council and partnering agencies, in conjunction with the Child Welfare Council, hold a summit of agency and county counsel to identify and resolve barriers to sharing information. • That local commissions develop tailored strategies to reduce or remove local barriers to sharing information. • When information -sharing capabilities have progressed sufficiently to warrant coordinated implementation, that the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court addressing information and data sharing and provide support with an implementation guide. 40 Collaboration in Action: Helping Foster Youth through Data -sharing One of the Blue Ribbon Commission's central recommendations focuses on sharing information and data among the courts and agencies that serve foster children and their families. The commission heard repeatedly about the problems, delays and other consequences of agency systems not communicating with one another, whether it was a judge not having all of the relevant information about a youth in order to make informed decisions on his or her behalf, foster youths' educational records not following them from one school to another, or a foster parent encountering repeated roadblocks when trying to ensure adequate medical care for a young person who is in their charge. We also heard about several good examples of local agencies and officials tearing down administrative barriers to information and data -sharing, and applaud the efforts of those who are "just making it happen." One good example at the local level is in San Diego County, where the Office of Education spearheaded the collaboration of nine agencies and the juvenile court to set up a system to share foster youths' education and health records. They created an interagency agreement that permits participant agencies to access foster youth information on a web -based secure database. The database receives daily and weekly downloads from child welfare and education offices, including all 42 of San Diego's school districts, ensuring that the information is current for those who need access to it. Data include foster youths' grades, attendance, unofficial transcripts, immunization records, school placement history, and various test scores and other data. Strong leadership from the county's juvenile court paved the way for this level of information and data sharing, which enables all stakeholders to have the information necessary to comply with legislative mandates that require a foster child's health and educational records follow the child when there are school transfers or foster care placement changes. Collaborative partners in San Diego include health and human services, child welfare services, the juvenile court, probation, CASA, the public defender, the alternate public defender, education, and the county school districts. 41 The issue of sharing information as a barrier is self-imposed. There are no real barriers to the sharing of information. Honestly, it is a little tiny fence that can be kicked over. Make it work. —Hon. Colleen Nichols Judge of the Superior Court, County of Placer The courts can no longer afford to be silent partners, or unheard partners in the child welfare system. The court can and should be a moving force in collaboration... we all jointly share responsibility for making the system better. —Frank Ospino Supervising Attorney, Public Defender's Office, Orange County Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions Though we are a statewide commission, we realize that change for children and families in the foster care system will take place only if there are changes at the county level and in the local juvenile courts. Key Recommendation • That the presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and address local systemic concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. Action Steps The local commissions are designed to provide leadership on foster care issues in their communities. They will also be a forum for addressing systemic barriers to improving the lives of foster children and for establishing communication protocols among individuals, agencies, and courts. We agreed on the following implementation steps to get the local commissions up and running: • That the Judicial Council will convene a summit of county teams to start the process of establishing local commissions. (This step is complete. The summit, held in December 2008, is discussed on page 43.) • That county teams develop concrete steps to set up local commissions or identify existing committees or workgroups that could be expanded to become local commissions and adopt action plans to address local concerns and Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. (This step is underway. See page 43 for more information.) • That local commissions assess, develop, and coordinate the delivery of services; identify barriers to information sharing; communicate with the California Child Welfare Council; and, raise public awareness of foster care issues and the needs of children in foster care. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts provide support to local commissions. These local foster care commissions will likely be the keystones to statewide implementation of our recommendations. We see them as crucial partners in meeting the challenge of better safeguarding our children, reducing the need for foster care, and improving the foster care system. 42 Spotlight on Early Implementation: Summit Launches Local Foster Care Commissions The Blue Ribbon Commission believes that the key to effective implementation of our recommendations lays in the counties, where families live, where our judges preside in dependency courts, where services are delivered and major decisions made. We know that bringing our recommendations to life requires teamwork and collaboration between the courts and the local public and private agencies that serve foster children and their families. That's why the creation of local foster care commissions is one of our central recommendations. To encourage the quick formation of these local commissions, we hosted a summit on December 10, 2008 and invited the presiding judge and the child welfare director from each county in the state to send a team. More than 400 participants from 50 counties enthusiastically rose to the challenge of developing local foster care commissions focused on identifying and addressing local child welfare systemic concerns, addressing and implementing the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and building the capacity to provide a continuum of services. (A copy of the county team workbook used to focus team discussions is attached as Appendix C.) The summit's success was exciting. With nearly all California counties and juvenile courts participating, there was consensus among the courts and their partner agencies that foster children and their families deserve better services from the courts and the agencies that serve them. Following the summit, most county teams have now taken concrete steps to create their own local commissions or retool existing collaborations to address foster care issues. These newly formed local commissions have targeted a number of Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations to focus on, including: access to services, visibility of foster care as an issue, getting children to court, information sharing, disproportionate representation of minorities, and educational opportunities. Formation of these local foster care commissions is a critical step in implementing many of our recommendations and making reform of the juvenile court and foster care systems a reality. Our children, our families, and our communities will all benefit from the dedication and hard work of these new local commissions. 43 Formation of local foster care commissions is a critical step in implementing many of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations and making reform of the juvenile court and foster care systems a reality. One key to collaboration is real participation – not just consultation, but culturally appropriate partnerships. And for Indian communities that means equality. You cannot do it on a big brother, little brother basis – that simply will not work. You build a history of working together in a way that each person at the table knows that they are valued. —Hon. William Thorne Associate Presiding Judge, Utah Court of Appeal; Tribal court judge Improving Indian Child Welfare As noted earlier, there is a significant disparity between the percentages of American Indian children in foster care compared to the percentage of American Indians in the general population in California. In addition, there is often a chasm in terms of resources, policies, trust, and communication between tribes or tribal courts and the state trial courts. Hon. William Thorne, the Associate Presiding Judge of the Utah Court of Appeal and a tribal court judge, noted in testimony before the commission that "[t]he only children in the country who are not covered by title IV -E are Indian children in tribal court custody, so that there is a tremendous difference in resources, especially for the poor tribes, about what services are available..." In many counties there is an historic distrust between tribes and child welfare agencies and trial courts. Much of this distrust is due to a lack of understanding or mutual respect for each other's cultures and institutions. American Indian children and their families suffer because of the lack of resources and the lack of trust and coordination between tribes and counties and state courts. The recent passage of the Fostering Connections to Success Act provides a timely boost of resources in this area by offering Indian tribes, for the first time, direct access to title IV -E funds, which provide federal assistance through the federal foster care and adoption assistance programs; hundreds of thousands of other children have had access to these federal funds for years. The act also requires the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance and implementation services to help tribes set up child welfare services that qualify for title IV -E funding. Key Recommendation The commission selected the following recommendation for early action in this area: • That the Administrative Office of the Courts work with state trial courts and tribal courts to establish protocols for identifying and sharing jurisdiction between state and tribal courts and for sharing services, case management, and data among superior courts, tribal courts, and county and tribal service agencies. The protocols established should encourage a mutual understanding of and respect for the procedures in both the state and tribal courts and the challenges that all communities face in providing services for children and families. The Administrative Office of the Courts should collaborate with the state to develop and offer judicial education and technical assistance opportunities to tribal court officers and staff and legal education to tribal attorneys, lay advocates, and service providers. 44 Action Steps We identified the following implementation steps to improve communication and collaboration between tribal courts and state trial courts: • That local foster care commissions work with tribes, tribal courts, and tribal service agencies in their jurisdictions to determine the needs of tribal children and families and the resources available to meet their needs. • That teams, both local and statewide, work together to develop models and protocols for sharing jurisdiction, data, and services. • That the Judicial Council evaluate current projects in the judicial branch for opportunities to address Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations related to tribal issues. • That the Administrative Office of the Courts provide education on Indian child welfare issues where needed. RESOURCES AND FUNDING Prioritizing Foster Care One of the most compelling values that drove our work as a commission was the strong, powerful voice of the children and youth whose lives have been shaped by California's foster care system. Those individual voices were convincing and cannot be ignored. The commission believes that foster children and youth in this state must be able to count on our courts, child welfare agencies, and other stakeholders to care for them as they would be cared for in any loving family. We must take early action. Key Recommendation • In order to meet the needs of children and families in the foster care system, the Judicial Council, Congress, the Legislature, the courts, and partnering agencies should give priority to children and their families in the child welfare system in the allocation and administration of resources, including public funding – federal, state, and local – and private funds from foundations that support children's issues. Action Steps Implementation of this recommendation can be accomplished by the following steps: • That the Judicial Council and trial courts lead by example, by o Assigning judges (not subordinate judicial officers) to hear dependency cases, o Setting 3 -year minimum judge's rotations in dependency courts, 45 I learned that I just could not expect a nurturing home while I was in the system. Social workers are overloaded, attorneys have too many clients, the judges are getting tired at the end of the day, and it feels like there is really no time for anyone to talk to the child about how it's going. —Lunette Scott Former foster youth Under what circumstance is any expenditure deserving of higher priority than the care of the court's own children, for whom they are legally and morally responsible? —Children's Advocacy Institute May 13, 2008 o Implementing performance measures and using them to determine resource allocation to juvenile dependency court, o Implementing the California Case Management System for dependency court, and o Conducting a judicial juvenile court workload study and setting caseload standards for judges based on the workload study. • That partnering agencies identify existing mandates where services to families in dependency are already prioritized and ensure that they are being followed. • That local foster care commissions and partnering agencies identify additional programs where foster youth and families should be given priority for services. Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Services Financial support for children and families in the child welfare system is built on a patchwork of funding streams, each with its own rules and restrictions. In addition to state and county funding, child welfare dollars come from at least a half-dozen federal sources, some of which require matching funds from state, county, and local agencies. Delays in services result when providers, social service agencies, and the courts struggle to determine the pertinent funding source for services. Key Recommendations • That the Judicial Council work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding for services and to develop solutions. • That the Judicial Council urge Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. Action Steps The passage of the Fostering Connections to Success Act carries with it some options for changing the way federal funds are used. In light of this new legislation, we identified the following implementation steps: • That the Judicial Council join the Child Welfare Council and partnering agencies to continue to assess the Fostering Connections to Success Act and identify which Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations should be met by implementation of the legislation in California. • That the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, Child Welfare Council and other stakeholders work with the executive branch and state legislative leadership to enact appropriate provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act. 46 • That the Judicial Council continue to work with statewide stakeholders to advocate for increased flexibility in the use of federal funds. When we can successfully coordinate federal funding among our local and statewide agencies and can appropriately target our federal foster care funds for maximum impact, we will be well on the way to successfully implementing many of the commission's service and funding -related recommendations. Expanding Educational Services We know that too many of our children who "age out" of foster care drop out of school, struggle with serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal justice system. Education of our foster children and youth is critical to ensure a bright future for them. For that reason, our education recommendations are a top priority for early action. Key Recommendations • That courts and partnering agencies ensure that foster children receive the full education they are entitled to, including the support they need to graduate from high school. This includes tutoring and participation in extracurricular activities. The courts should require other agencies to justify any denial of such services to foster youth in school. • That the Judicial Council urge Congress and the state Legislature to strengthen current education laws to explicitly include all foster children and to fill funding gaps, such as the lack of support for transportation to maintain school stability. • That the Child Welfare Council prioritize foster children's educational rights and work with educators to establish categorical program monitoring to oversee compliance with education laws and regulations that support foster youth in school. • That the California Department of Education designate foster youth as "at -risk" students to recognize that foster care creates challenges and obstacles to a child's education that other children do not experience and to increase the access to local education programs for foster youth. • That Foster Youth Services grants be expanded to include all foster children age five or older, including those in kinship placements. Close to one third of foster children are placed with kin, and the Foster Youth Services program is not currently funded to serve those children. • That the Judicial Council urge legislative bodies and higher education officials to expand programs, such as Guardian Scholars, statewide to ensure that all current and former foster youth who attend college have access to housing and other 47 In order to improve academic outcomes and level the playing field for our students in foster care, we must focus on their education once we have ensured that they are safe and free from harm. —Michelle Lustig Foster Youth Services Coordinator, San Diego Office of Education support services and to waive tuition and other educational fees for current and former foster youth. Action Steps These recommendations can be implemented through the following steps: • That trial courts, local foster care commissions, local education agencies, and other stakeholders collaborate to assess and eliminate barriers to ensuring full educational opportunities for foster children. • That the Judicial Council, together with other stakeholders, advocate with state and federal leaders to strengthen the educational rights of foster children and secure resources for implementation of existing education laws for all foster and former foster children. • That the Judicial Council work with stakeholders, including the California Child Welfare Council and educators, to ensure compliance with laws and regulations supporting foster youth in school. • That the Judicial Council work with the Child Welfare Council and other stakeholders to develop a plan to implement each individual recommendation in this area where work has not already begun. Successful implementation of these recommendations will have a profound effect on both foster and former foster children. When our foster children can be assured that they will receive the type of education to which they are entitled, we will have taken major steps toward making sure that foster children have the same opportunities as our own children to become self-sufficient and productive members of our communities. 48 Chapter 4: Conclusion: Looking to the Future In his opening speech at the first Blue Ribbon Commission meeting in March 2006, our chair, Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, reminded us that California was one of the first states in the country to take on child abuse, some 150 years ago. The first documented case of court intervention, in a case that would be considered child abuse today, involved three girls from the Marquesas Islands in French Polynesia, who were lured onto a schooner bound for San Francisco. They were held against their will and treated with "great cruelty" on the voyage. They continued to be held after arriving in San Francisco. After they made an unsuccessful attempt to escape, a deckhand filed a writ of habeas corpus petition on their behalf. The girls and the captain were brought before the California Supreme Court. The court freed the girls and sent them back to their home in the Marquesas. California's history of support for abused children and youth progressed over the years, and we have often been a leader in the country in child welfare reform. But we know that too many children are still at risk of abuse and neglect in our state, and that families sometimes do not get the services they need to provide safe and stable homes for them. We also know that too many children languish in our foster care system for years, separated from siblings and relatives, schools and communities. And we know that our juvenile dependency courts and child welfare agencies do not always have the resources to do the jobs they are charged to do. That's why Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the commission. Now, three years later, we have our recommendations, our action plan, a much stronger understanding of the needs of this state's foster children and their families, and an even stronger commitment to make the needed changes to our overstressed juvenile dependency courts and child welfare system. We have been gratified by the enthusiasm that has greeted our recommendations. As we prepare to cease our formal existence as a commission, we are heartened by the work that we have helped to bring about as a commission and pleased to report the work that has occurred since our recommendations were unanimously accepted by the Judicial Council in August 2008: • The Judicial Council directed that work begin and/or continue on implementing the commission's recommendations that are within the purview of the judicial branch to implement. The Council also directed the commission to develop an action plan for our remaining recommendations that require collaboration with court partners, which we have done and included in this report. 49 Our foster care system clearly needs improvement. We must provide the courts with the tools necessary to ensure that the best interests of abused and neglected children are served by our child welfare system. The state assumes parental responsibility for these children when they enter the foster care system, and the courts are charged with overseeing their care. Children are our future. Reform is a matter not only of legal obligation, but of moral obligation as well. —Chief Justice Ronald M. George State of the Judiciary Address to the California Legislature, March 10, 2009 Many of the commission's recommendations are already being implemented, bringing needed relief to California's overstressed juvenile dependency courts and child welfare system. • The Judicial Council made implementation of the commission's recommendations on foster care one of its top four legislative priorities for 2009, signaling its commitment to supporting key reforms and mobilizing the judiciary to help implement our recommendations. The Judicial Council also appointed several commissioners to its legislative workgroup to help advance foster care legislation in line with the commission's recommendations. • Federal legislation — the Fostering Connections to Success Act— has been passed that directly advances 20 of the commission's recommendations, including increased support for relative caregivers, continued supports for foster youth until age 21, and increased educational and other supports. • A key commission recommendation — ensuring youth participation in court — has begun to be addressed through passage of AB 3051 and a number of local foster care commissions are working to support its implementation. • Court performance measures, another of the commission's key recommendations, have been approved and will be implemented in courts across the state. • The Administrative Office of the Courts recently launched the California Dependency Online Guide, a free technical assistance Web site for juvenile dependency judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals working in child welfare or related fields. • Local foster care commissions are forming in counties throughout the state to implement the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations and other related reforms at the county level. To begin the process of formation, more than 50 counties attended a December summit to get planning and formation efforts underway. • The Blue Ribbon Commission formed a public education committee to give support as needed, including a speaker's bureau, to the newly forming local foster care commissions. • The Child Welfare Council has discussed the implementation of many of the commission's recommendations. Blue Ribbon Commission Chair Justice Carlos R. Moreno, co-chairs the Council with Kimberly S. Belshe, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will help to ensure that the commission's recommendations are addressed by the Council. • The Judicial Council will continue to monitor the status of all commission recommendations. 50 When the Blue Ribbon Commission began our work, we made a promise to the children and families in our state's foster care system. We were inspired by the hundreds of people — foster youth, parents, caregivers, social workers, judges, attorneys, CASAs, and many more — who shared their stories and their suggestions for improvement. We pledged to develop fiscally responsible, realistically achievable recommendations to improve outcomes related to safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness. We believe we have done that. Our recommendations offer a coordinated plan for reform that ties together state and federal foster care initiatives with local commissions to implement them. Our action plan offers a blueprint for collaborative success. Formally, as a commission, we now turn our work over to the Judicial Council and its chair, Chief Justice Ronald M. George who appointed us. The Judicial Council has ongoing responsibility for our recommendations and specifically is overseeing implementation of the commission's 26 recommendations that are under its purview. The Council also has oversight for the commission's other recommendations that involve collaboration with court partners and will receive annual updates on the status of these recommendations. We also turn a portion of our work over to the Child Welfare Council, which was created after the inception of the Blue Ribbon Commission and has important ongoing responsibility for ensuring collaboration among the state agencies that serve children and their families. The Council is in a powerful and unique position to help coordinate many of the reforms we are recommending. Under the shared leadership of Blue Ribbon Commission Chair Carlos R. Moreno and California Health and Human Services Agency Secretary Kimberly S. Belshe, we know and trust that our recommendations will move forward. We also take heart in the fact that many of our commissioners sit on the Council and will continue to press for these and other needed reforms. Finally, we also turn our work over to the local foster care commissions that are forming in counties across California. We know that it will be at the local level — with courts and child welfare agencies and other stakeholders working together — where much of our commission's true reform will occur. We are excited about early efforts to form local commissions and eager to hear about their progress in fostering a new future for California's children. Our commissioners will stay engaged. Many of us in our individual roles will continue to assist with implementation efforts. We feel confident that California can continue to be a national leader when it comes to child welfare reform in general and most particularly when it comes to reform of our juvenile dependency courts. 51 The Judicial Council has ongoing responsibility for the commission's recommendations and will continue to monitor their implementation status. EPILOGUE: BRIGHTER FUTURES The Blue Ribbon Commission believes in our recommendations and in their ability to bring about significant change in the lives of children and families served by our courts and child welfare system. The real measure of our success, however, will be the changes that they do, in fact, bring about once they are implemented. Here are three stories that we believe demonstrate the impact of our recommendations once they are implemented: Jimmy's Story Jimmy was placed in foster care at age 2. His father was incarcerated. Jimmy had been physically abused by his mother, a substance abuser with mental health challenges, who told social workers that all of his relatives were deceased. Apparently no one asked the father. But Jimmy had an uncle who had been close to him as an infant. This uncle, his father's brother, did not even know Jimmy was in foster care for almost five years. When he found out, he and his wife brought the boy into their home, where he has lived for close to ten years. But Jimmy is still struggling with problems that developed when he was removed from his mother. Our Recommendations The Blue Ribbon Commission believes that every child deserves a permanent, safe and nurturing family in which to grow and thrive. When our recommendations are fully implemented, Jimmy would be assured of a well qualified attorney and a CASA to help him make his way through the system. He could be assured that his mother would receive services at the front end in an attempt to prevent Jimmy's removal from her home, and there would be immediate and intense family finding efforts so that if removal was necessary Jimmy's uncle would have been identified as a potential placement. The recommendations, when implemented, ensure a brighter future for children who face problems similar to Jimmy's. Maria's Story Maria, an American Indian woman, tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine while breastfeeding her baby, a significant danger to the infant's health and well-being. Maria was brought before the Hoopa tribal court for child neglect. Although Maria lived on the Hoopa reservation, she was not from that tribe, so the Hoopa tribal court judge could not order Maria into a Hoopa social services plan and, because Maria's tribe did not have a tribal court or social services, he had to transfer the case to the county superior court, 70 miles from the reservation. Because of a lack of communication between the state court 52 system and the tribal court, the county child welfare agency did not understand that it had jurisdiction, so it refused to take Maria's case. In the meantime, the mother and her baby failed to receive badly needed services. Only when the Hoopa judge took the initiative to contact the superior court judge and iron out the jurisdictional complications did the family get help. Our Recommendations When the commission's recommendations are implemented, tribal courts and state courts all over the state will collaborate to solve such jurisdictional issues and will develop formal protocols for sharing jurisdiction in cases like Maria's. This process is already beginning in some counties through their newly formed local foster care commissions. As communication gaps are filled through greater understanding of the two systems, both the tribal courts and the state courts will work effectively together to coordinate services for Indian families and children. Rochelle's Story Rochelle was only two when she was removed from her mother and placed in care. She was also separated from her older sister. The court ordered parenting, anger management, and substance abuse services for the mother, but the wait for services was more than five months. By this time, Rochelle was already in her third placement. One of her foster parents had physically abused her, and she began to exhibit serious behavioral problems. The mother was unsuccessful in her reunification plan, and the agency was unsuccessful in finding a potential adoptive family. By the time Rochelle "aged out" of the foster care system at 18, she had been in 31 different placements over 16 years. She was reading at a fifth grade level. She had no job and became homeless. She had no contact with her birth family, nor did she have a close relationship with any of her foster families. Our Recommendations The commission is committed to preventing the dismaying outcomes that Rochelle experienced in her long history with foster care and her difficult transition to adulthood. We believe families should not have to wait for services. Our recommendations call for greater flexibility in funding to help parents like Rochelle's mother get needed services quickly. We also recommend keeping siblings together whenever possible and maintaining family relationships while children are in care. Finally, we know that few teenagers are prepared to live productively on their own at age 18. Thus under our recommendations, Rochelle would be able to continue receiving foster care assistance until age 21. As the commission comes to an end, we look ahead to a brighter future — a new future — for California's children in foster care. 53 APPENDICES fr �.�rri1.G APPENDIX A JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS esdution Blue V6on commission on ChiWren in foster Care Whereas all children need safe, permanent families that love, nurture, protect, and guide them; Whereas, although foster care is absolutely critical to protecting children who cannot stay safely in their own homes, it is intended to he a short-term refuge rather than a long-term saga; Whereas, on an average day, California has approximately 97,000 children in foster care; Whereas, although the number of all children in California account for approximately 13 percent of all children in the United States, California children in foster care comprise approximately 19 percent of the total United States foster care population; Whereas in California, of the more than 491,000 referrals to social services of child abuse or neglect, approximately 110,000 or 22 per- cent, were substantiated by child welfare staff; Whereas youth who leave the foster care system are often ill pre- pared for what follows—more than half are unemployed, almost a third become homeless, and one in five will be incarcerated within two years; Whereas the California Judicial Council recognizes that the safety, permanency, and well-being of children under court supervision is paramount; Whereas the Judicial Branch is dedicated to improving the qual- ity of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, and families in California by building partnerships with other local and statewide agencies and professions that work with children and families throughout our state; Whereas, although there have been individual efforts to see that children are safe in faster care, and efforts to improve the judicial process, systemic improvements are needed to meet the needs of children in foster care and in the child welfare system, and these improvements can best be achieved through collaboration between the courts, child welfare, educa- tion, medical, and mental health partners, and other public and private agencies and individuals; Whereas institutionalization of this collaboration will ensure that systemic improvements are sought and achieved beyond the terms of office of individual members of the judiciary, agency directors, and elected officials; Whereas the state's ability to respond to the needs of vulnerable children is primarily financially supported by federal funding and whereas federal guidelines on the use of funds limits California's ability to invest those limited resources in smarter and more effective ways to benefit chil- dren and families; Now, therefore, be it resolved That a Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care is estab- lished as a high-level, multidisciplinary body to provide leadership and recommendations to improve the ability of the federal government, Cal- ifornias state and focal agencies, and the courts to protect children in California by helping them to become part of a permanent family that will provide a safe, stable, and secure home; That, in its deliberations, the Commission shall develop recommendations • Creating a set of comprehensive strategies and effective approaches to reduce the number of children in foster care by reducing the number of children entering foster care and reducing the length of time in foster care while ensuring they have safe, secure, and stable homes • Successfully implementing the Judicial Council's goals and objec- tives, including those on ensuring appropriate judicial and staff resources and establishing stable funding for juvenile courts • Successfully implementing the recommendations of the Pew Com- mission on Children in Foster Care, as adopted by the judicial Council, including those on strengthening court oversight, improving collabora- tion, and ensuring flexible funding • Advocating effective approaches to secure greater Flexibility for federal funding so that California can meet the critical objective of per- manency through prevention, early intervention, reunification, guardian- ship, and adoption • Ensuring that all children receive sufficient mental health, health care, education, and other services whether they reside with family, foster parents, relatives, adoptive parents, or in other placements • Institutionalizing a pertnanent collaborative model that will ensure that systemic improvements are sought and achieved beyond the tenure of this Commission • Proposing other initiatives it deems appropriate; That the Commission, led by Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the Cali- fornia Supreme Court, shall conduct its inquiry in a manner that broadens public awareness of and support for meeting the needs of vulnerable chil- dren and families; That at the conclusion of the Commission's investigation and delib- erations, the Commission will host a statewide conference for multidisci- plinary teams from each county far the purpose of establishing permanent foster care commissions in each county; and That the Commission shall file an interim and final report with rhe California Judicial Council, recommending appropriate action to serve and meet the needs of children and families in California's foster care and child welfare system. Signed at San Francisco, California, this ninth day of March, 2006 RONALD M. GEORGE Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council of California WILLIAM C. VICKREY Administrative Director of the Courts ij li { APPENDIX B Judicial Council Resolution on Data Sharing Whereas the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care recognized that in order for courts to fulfill their responsibility to secure safety, permanence and well-being for foster chil- dren they must be able to track children's progress, identify groups of children in need of atten- tion, and identify sources of delay in court proceedings, and that state judicial leadership should use data to ensure accountability by every court for improved outcomes for children and to in- form decisions about allocating resources across the court system; Whereas the California Judicial Council, as well as the National Conference of Chief Jus- tices, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Bar Association and others have all embraced the Pew Commission court reform recommendations and commit- ted to bring about their implementation; Whereas the California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment recommended that the Judicial Council encourage the development and use of case manage- ment systems that collect and analyze standardized information on the dependency caseload, generate performance measures, and interface with other stakeholders' case management sys- tems; Whereas the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care endorsed the use of longitudinal child -tracking data and recommended the adoption of the court performance measures created and pilot -tested by the three leading legal/judicial organizations - the American Bar Association Center on Children and Law, National Center for State Courts, and the National Council of Ju- venile and Family Court Judges; and that said organizations stated in their joint publication, Building a Better Court, that to achieve long-term court improvement, courts must have the ca- pacity to engage in ongoing performance measurement and judicial workload assessments; Whereas the Resource Guidelines issued by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and endorsed by the Judicial Council in section 24.5 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration state that the courts should operate a computerized data system capable of spotting serious delays in dependency cases and of measuring court progress in case flow management; Whereas the statewide court data currently available regarding dependency cases in Cali- fornia is limited to the number of filings and dispositions and does not permit analysis of patterns in timeliness and outcomes of court proceedings; Whereas the Administrative Office of the Courts is currently engaged in the development of the California Case Management System, a statewide data collection and case management system for the courts; Whereas the information collected by the California Child Welfare Services/Case Manage- ment System has not previously been accessible to judicial officers and does not specifically address the impact of court procedures or policies; Whereas the California Department of Social Services is currently redesigning and updating its Child Welfare Services/Case Management System; Whereas Congress recently allocated additional fiscal support through new grants available to the courts that will help support the creation and development of dependency court data tracking and case management systems; Whereas the simultaneous information -systems design processes within the judicial branch and child welfare agencies afford the unique opportunity for data -sharing; Whereas the courts cannot institute performance-based outcome measures or make in- formed decisions regarding improvements to and resource allocations within the juvenile courts without reliable data regarding dependency case management processes; 58 Whereas dependency cases differ significantly from other case types in the court system and therefore present unique requirements for data gathering and analysis; Now, therefore, be it resolved That the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care strongly endorses the need for better and more complete data gathering in dependency cases and recommends that the Judicial Council and other government and child welfare leaders work together to en- sure That the California Case Management System incorporate data gathering mechanisms spe- cifically designed to allow analysis of court procedures, any court-based delays, and child and family outcomes in dependency cases consistent with the national standards established by NCJFCJ, the ABA, and NCSC in Building a Better Court; and That the development of the dependency component of the California Case Management System and the redesign of the California Child Welfare Services/Case Management System, to the extent possible, be jointly developed to allow for appropriate data exchange that maximizes the information available regarding how the courts and the child welfare system are serving children and families and meeting the federal outcome measures specified in the Child and Family Services Reviews and the California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System. Executed at San Francisco, California, this day of , 2006 59 60 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Chidreri in Foster Care APPENDIX C BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION LOCAL TEAM PLANNING WORKBOOK County 4 Recorder 4 DECEMBER 10, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO Check if recorder's copy Recommendation 3B of the final recommendations of California's Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care reads: The presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and resolve local system concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: ■ These multidisciplinary local commissions include participation from the courts; local government officials; public and private agencies and organizations that support children and families; children, parents, and families in the system; caregivers; and all other appropriate parties to the process. • These commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including: o Undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency; o Identifying and resolving barriers to sharing information among the courts, agencies, and schools; o Communication of local needs and concerns to the Child Welfare Council; and o Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in their communities. • The AOC support local commissions in their efforts to collaborate and to avoid duplication with other efforts to achieve positive child welfare outcomes (including county efforts to develop system improvement plans as required by state law). • All participating agencies prioritize children in foster care, and their families, when providing services. 61 USING THIS WORKBOOK This workbook is designed to help you leave today's Summit with a plan for the first meeting of your local county team, including: • Who is on the team • Who is responsible for convening and staffing the first post -summit team meeting • What are the key topics for the team to address This workbook leads you through the following discussions and decisions: Time 12:45 — 1:00 1:00— 1:15 1:15-2:00 2:00 — 2:15 Task Review the workbook and choose a recorder Review the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission for local county teams and choose 2 or 3 key topics to address Review and brainstorm approaches to at least two of the key topics you chose • Meaningful participation in court • Exchanging data and information • Raising the visibility of foster care • Availability of necessary services • Other topics Break Page 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 2:15 — 3:00 Create a meeting agenda from the topics you discussed 16 3:00 — 3:30 Choose the membership and structure for the team 18 20 3:30 — 3:45 Create a plan for holding the first local meeting 12:45 '1:UU 62 FOCUS OF THE LOCAL TEAM The Blue Ribbon Commission identified a set of systemic issues that local teams are especially well placed to address. Review those issues, listed below, and the other issues in your community to identify broadly the issues the local team will begin to address. These are systemic issues whose resolutions require a commitment to collaboration and the time necessary to make changes. Do not hesitate to choose or identify just one or two issues at this time. ❑ Fostering the meaningful participation of children, parents, caregivers and others in court ❑ Exchanging data and information among courts, agencies and others ❑ Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in the community ❑ Ensuring that necessary services are available in the community 0 0 0 0 0 0 'J : J J 5 fp 63 FOCUS OF THE LOCAL TEAM Creating Approaches Now use the following section of the workbook to review and brainstorm approaches to at least one of the key topics you chose. • Meaningful participation in court 6 • Exchanging data and information 8 • Raising the visibility of foster care 10 • Availability of necessary services 12 • Other topics 14 1 FOSTERING THE MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN, PARENTS, CAREGIVERS AND OTHERS IN COURT The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends: (2B) Judicial officers and other stakeholders remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caretakers from attending hearings. This includes addressing transportation and scheduling difficulties, as well as exploring telephonic appearances and other technological options. Review and identify the challenges to attendance and participation in your county: ❑ Children not transported to court ❑ Incarcerated parents not transported to court ❑ Relatives and caregivers reside out-of-state or out -of -country ❑ Problems providing notice ❑ Hearing times conflict with school, jobs, and case plan requirements ❑ Lack of time for adequate preparation of court participants ❑ Lack of time for adequate participation of court participants ❑ Lack of time for explanation of court process and orders List other challenges: List other challenges: aida) FOSTERING THE MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN, PARENTS, CAREGIVERS AND OTHERS IN COURT Approaches for local team to address meaningful participation E L 0cn C i 3us ✓ Non-traditional (evening or weekend) court hours ✓ Time -certain hearings ✓ Educational videos for parents and children on the court process ✓ Plain language in court proceedings ✓ Time and space available for attorneys to meet with clients before hearings ✓ Collaborative agreements with county sheriff for transportation of incarcerated parents ✓ Telephonic appearances ✓ Children's waiting rooms Brainstorming (add your own approaches): EXCHANGING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION AMONG COURTS, AGENCIES AND OTHERS The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends: (3A) The Judicial Council, trial courts, and state Department of Social Services should work cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decisionmaking that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. Review and identify the challenges to information sharing in your county: ❑ Court reports and case plans are incomplete because partners will not share information O Children experience health and education problems because key information is not shared ❑ Local partners do not share information and exchange data because of concerns about confidentiality O Lack of information on legal provisions addressing information sharing and data exchange ❑ Court and other agency case management systems do not support _ data exchange O Lack of infrastructure to support information sharing — no agreements gii about the who, what, when, where, and how of information sharing List other challenges: gad110 0 0 EXCHANGING DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION AMONG COURTS, AGENCIES AND OTHERS Approaches for local team to address information exchange E i O .1.0H ■ 68 1 Daily electronic exchange of petition and calendar information between court and child welfare 1 Data warehouse in county for information on children involved in juvenile court 1 Local rules facilitating sharing of information ✓ County statistical reports covering all agencies involved with children in foster care 1 Interagency agreements addressing releases of information and barriers to information sharing 1 Multidisciplinary education on legal provisions that address information sharing 1 1 1 Brainstorming (add your own approaches): RAISING THE VISIBILITY AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF FOSTER CARE ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that local commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including ... Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in their communities. Review and identify the challenges to raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care in your county 1 ❑ Lack of participation of court and other stakeholders on policy making bodies ❑ Lack of quality information and statistics on foster children to distribute to policy makers, the press and the public ❑ Lack of partnerships with non-profit agencies and foundations ❑ Lack of community participants to serve as foster parents, CASAs, mentors and in other roles List other challenges: RAISING THE VISIBILITY AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF FOSTER CARE ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY Approaches for local team to address foster care issues visibility ✓ Use materials from the Administrative Office of the Courts (such as the Adoption and Permanency Guide) or Department of Social Services (technical assistance for System Improvement Programs) to guide raising visibility ✓ Hold Adoption Saturday or Foster Care Awareness Month ✓ Form or support a local foster youth council ✓ Form alliances with community foundations and service clubs to broaden community commitment to children in foster care ✓ Hold a media training for stakeholders ■ � ✓ Brainstorming (add your own approaches): 1 ENSURING THAT NECESSARY SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that local commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including ... undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency. Review and identify the challenges to increasing service availability: d ❑ Funding restrictions and caps on in-home services ❑ Lack of coordination among agencies, including tribes, assessing and providing services for foster children ❑ Lack of communication with local funders, including board of supervisors and philanthropic community ❑ Inefficient information sharing on new and existing service providers ❑ Lack of research on which services are evidence -based practice ❑ Continual turnover of service providers List other challenges: i> 0 ENSURING THAT NECESSARY SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY Approaches for local team to address service availability 0 ■ ✓ Identify services available in the community ✓ Make assessment information available to team participants to support reasonable efforts, reasonable services and case plan development. ✓ Establish service information kiosk or electronic bulletin board ✓ Develop appropriate services not currently available. Identify 2-3 areas of concerns in your county that require development of services. ✓ Coordinate local service needs with available tribal services and transitional services ✓ Develop infrastructure for the timely identification and explanation of service needs and requirements at all stages of proceedings Brainstorming (add your own approaches): ✓ SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL TOPICS Name the topic: Review and identify the challenges: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■ SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL TOPICS Name the topic: Approaches for local teams: E v iiii. ✓ O PLANNING THE DISCUSSION AT THE FIRST COUNTY TEAM MEETING Use the table below to create concrete agenda items for your first county team meeting, addressing the topics you have identified r) a 75 EXAMPLE TOPIC I Blue Ribbon recommendation: Meaningful participation Specific topic: Ensuring the participation of incarcerated parents at hearings Subject matter experts and key stakeholders to invite: Juvenile Presiding Judge County sheriff County counsel Child protective services Department of corrections Presenter at meeting: Juvenile Presiding Judge Suggested outcomes: MOU with sheriff, CPS and court detailing responsibilities in notice and transportation of parents Background material: Rules of court Current notice forms Statistics on hearing delays r) a 75 PLANNING THE DISCUSSION (continued) :15.3:U0 pin 76 TOPIC II TOPIC III Blue Ribbon recommendation: Specific topic: Subject matter experts and key stakeholders to invite: Presenter at meeting: Suggested outcomes: Background material: :15.3:U0 pin 76 YOUR LOCAL TEAM Your local team can be a newly formed commission, or an existing commission (see next page). In either case, the members of the team should be the decisionmakers in the court, agencies and other bodies who have the ability to bring stakeholders to the table and break down barriers to collaboration. Use this checklist to identify who should be on your local team. From the court: ❑ Presiding judge ❑ Presiding juvenile judge ❑ Judges and commissioners ❑ Other From health and human services: ❑ Agency director ❑ Child welfare director ❑ Other From local government ❑ County supervisors ❑ City council ❑ Other Stakeholders: ❑ Youth in foster care ❑ Parents or parents' advocates ❑ Caregivers or advocates ❑ Other 3:U1 "J;iu Legal representatives ❑ County Counsel ❑ Parent's counsel ❑ Child's counsel O Other Other key participants ❑ Tribes O CASA ❑ Probation ❑ Community foundations ❑ School boards ❑ Other IDENTIFY EXISTING PARTNERSHIPS Most counties have existing teams and commissions working on issues related to children. Courts and agencies may also have effective committees and working groups. Identify the existing partnerships that will have a role on local team — either through coordination or through taking on the role of your local team. Name of group Check all that apply Should May use this Need more coordinate group as information with this local team rou System Improvement (AB 636) Team 0 0 0 Child Abuse Prevention Council 0 0 0 First 5 Commission 0 0 0 Citizens Review Panel 0 0 0 Juvenile Justice Commission 0 0 0 Juvenile Court Systems groups 0 0 0 Other (list below) 78 o 0 ❑ O 0 0 O 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ CONVENING THE LOCAL TEAM Challenge yourselves to make a concrete plan for the first meeting of the local team. Take a minute to review the steps to form your team and hold the first meeting. Who will convene the meeting? ❑ Presiding judge ❑ Presiding juvenile judge ❑ County Human Services Director ❑ Other: Target date for the first meeting: Where will the meeting be held? Who can staff the local team? • Keep membership contact information • Invite members and other participants to meetings • Provide information to the public and press • Keep and distribute the minutes Other points on team structure and logistics What is the proposed agenda for the first meeting: :LI • 3: 35 pin 79 APPENDIX D Summit Statistics from 50 Local County Teams On December 10, 2008, local teams representing 50 California counties came to San Francisco for the local Blue Ribbon Commission Summit. Over 400 participants met in teams and began planning their local responses to the Commission recommendations. The tables that follow present some key statistics collected at the meeting on the new local teams and the topics they intend to address. Table 1. Composition of the typical local team will include: Percent of teams (Number of teams) Judicial officers 100% (40) Human services and child welfare 98% (39) directors Attorneys 90% (36) Chief Probation officers 85% (34) Youth 78% (31) Court Appointed Special Advocates 70% (28) Foundations 40% (16) Other 78% (31) Table 2. At the Summit, local teams reported that their plan for the first meeting was: Percent of (Number of teams teams) Complete or nearly complete 75% (33) Needed more work 20% (9) Needed much more work 5% (2) Table 3. The main topics local teams chose to address were: Percent of (Number of teams teams) Exchanging data among partners 65% (26) Improving the availability of necessary 62% (25) services Raising the visibility of foster care 55% (22) issues Meaningful participation in court 52% (21) Other 15% (6) Table 4. Local teams planned to have their first local meeting in: Percent of (Number of teams teams) January 2009 49% (21) February 2009 30% (13) March 2009 6% (6) Other 3% (3) 80 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care APPENDIX E 26 Recommendations Within the Purview of the Judicial Branch To Implement without Collaboration with Partner Agencies Recommendation 2: Court Reforms 1. Consistent with Judicial Council policy, judges—not subordinate judicial officers—hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate judicial officers to juvenile court. 2. Presiding judges follow standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration and assign judges to juvenile court for a minimum of three years and give priority to judges who are actively interested in juvenile law as an assignment. 3. The Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The study should take into account the court's unique oversight and case management responsibilities and address the use of case managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. 4. Pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and statutory requirements. 5. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) help courts comply with the judicial standard outlining the knowledge, commitment, and leadership role required of judicial officers who make decisions about children in foster care (see standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration). Presiding judges of the superior courts should receive training in the role and duties of juvenile court judicial officers as outlined in the standard. 6. Judicial officers identify and engage all parties in each case as early as possible. A particular emphasis should be placed on finding fathers and identifying Indian tribes where applicable. 7. The Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. 81 8. The Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. 9. Hearings be available at times that do not conflict with school or work or other requirements of a family's case plan. 10.To the extent feasible, hearings be set for a specific date and time. Delays should be minimized, and hearings should be conducted on consecutive days until completed. 11.A concurrent criminal proceeding should not mean delay of a dependency case. 12.A11 parties, including children, parents, and social workers, have the opportunity to review reports and meet with their attorneys before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings. 13.Hearings be timely and meet all federal and state mandated timelines. Continuances should be minimized, and the reasons for systemic continuances should be addressed by the local court and child welfare agency. 14.A11 participants leave court hearings with a clear understanding of what happened, why decisions were made, and, if appropriate, what actions they need to take. 15.The AOC provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, that takes into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. 16.The same judicial officer hear a case from beginning to end, when possible. 17. Courts explore telephonic appearance policies and new technology options to ensure participation in juvenile court hearings. 18.The Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including a stable funding source, necessary to implement the council's recently adopted attorney caseload standards, to implement caseload standards for social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. 19.The Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. Training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. 20.The Judicial Council continue to support the development and expansion of CASA programs and to help make available CASA volunteers for all foster children in the dependency system. State funding for CASA programs should be expanded to allow for appointments in all cases. 21.Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution be available in all courts at any time in the proceedings. 22.Families in all counties have access to other types of court proceedings—drug, mental health, and unified courts, for example—that can help them remain together or, if the children are removed, to stabilize and reunify the family as soon as possible. 82 23.The Judicial Council adopt and direct the AOC to work with local courts and state agencies to implement a rule of court that embodies the commission's following recommendations: o Court performance measures include those for safety, permanency, timeliness of court hearings, due process, and child well-being; o Court performance measures align with and promote the federal and California Child and Family Services Review outcome measures and indicators; o The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) collect uniform court performance data and have the capability to produce management reports on performance measures; and o Trial court performance measures be included in a separate Judicial Council—approved AOC Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. 24.These performance measures and management reports be used for the following: o To promote court accountability for ensuring fair and timely hearings and to inform improvements in local case processing; o To provide stakeholders and the public with an aggregate picture of the outcomes for children before the court and to increase the public's understanding of the court's role in the child welfare system; and o To measure compliance with statutory mandates and effective practices. Recommendation 3: Collaboration Between Courts and Partnering Agencies 83 25.The Judicial Council continue its efforts to fully develop and implement the California Court Case Management System, as well as other data exchange protocols, so that the judicial branch, the California Department of Social Services, and other trusted partners will be able to exchange essential information about the children and families they are mandated to serve. 26.CCMS permit judicial officers in dependency courts to access information about children and families who are involved in cases in other courts. 3 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care APPENDIX F OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Summary of Commission Charge The charge of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care is to provide recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on the ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness outcomes for children and families. The commission focused its recommendations in three key areas: • The role of the courts in achieving improved outcomes for children and families • Court collaboration with partner organizations and agencies • Funding and resource options for child welfare services and the courts Commission Outcomes The commission seeks to achieve the following outcomes as a result of its work: • A comprehensive set of politically viable recommendations for how courts and their partners can improve child welfare outcomes, including an implementation plan with key milestones • Improved court performance and accountability in achieving child welfare outcomes of safety, permanency, well-being and fairness • Improved collaboration and communication between courts, child welfare agencies, and others, including the institutionalization of county commissions that support ongoing efforts • Increased awareness of the role of the courts in the foster -care system and the need for adequate and flexible funding Commission Principles and Values The commission believes that: ■ All children are equal and deserve a safe and permanent home • Efforts to improve the foster -care system must focus on improving safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness outcomes for children, and services should be integrated and comprehensive • Collaboration is essential for achieving the best possible outcomes for children and families • Courts play an important statutory role in overseeing children, families, and services in the dependency system. Children and families should have a say in decisions that affect their lives • Government agencies need adequate and flexible funding to provide the best outcomes for children in the foster -care system The commission's values: • Collaboration ■ Shared responsibility • Accountability • Leadership • Children and families • Child safety • Inclusion • Permanency • Youth voice Rev. 4.30.04 84 Commission Subcommittees Four subcommittees supported the work of the commission and helped develop recommendations for the commission's consideration. The subcommittees and their areas of focus included: ■ Court Oversight—Issues related to policies and procedures in the trial and appellate courts and the overall role of the juvenile court in the child welfare system. • Funding and Resources—Measures to ensure that adequate resources are available to reach the goals for families set by the courts, child welfare agencies, and the commission. • Accountability for Better Outcomes—Current and future initiatives to ensure accountability by courts and agencies throughout the foster -care system on both the local and state levels. ■ Case Management and Data Exchange Systems—Case management and data needs in courts and agencies and effective communication and sharing of data between systems. 85 Page 2 of 2 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care APPENDIX G OVERVIEW California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care More than 75,000 children live in foster care in California, removed from their parents for reasons of abuse or neglect. For these children, the State of California in effect functions as their "parent" and is legally responsible for their safety, permanency, and well-being. Courts, child welfare and other government agencies share responsibility for these youth, all of whom deserve a permanent family and a system that deals with them fairly. The Need for Court Reform In California, every child who enters or leaves foster care must come before a dependency court judge. Courts and the legal process oversee critical and often life -changing decisions in that child's life. Yet judges and lawyers face numerous obstacles in a system that does not always receive adequate support to allow for the best decisions for children and families. For example: • Courts are understaffed and dockets are overcrowded. As a result, hearings may be rushed and courts may have only a matter of minutes to consider key decisions that impact children and families. Delays and continuances occur too often. • Every child is assigned legal counsel, but due to high caseloads children and parents may not be routinely involved in decisions that affect them. Foster youth sometimes do not meet their attorneys until the day of their hearing. ■ Communication and information sharing with child welfare and other agencies working with families is challenging. Judges sometimes do not receive adequate information to make informed decisions. Doing Better By California's Children in Foster Care In 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George appointed a high-level Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care to provide recommendations on how courts and their partners can improve child welfare and fairness outcomes. Chaired by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the commission is charged with developing recommendations and an implementation plan covering three main areas. Areas of focus include: • Improved Court Performance and Accountability ✓ Manageable caseloads, allowing sufficient time for more substantive hearings. ✓ Greater involvement of youth and families in decisions that affect their lives. ✓ More training for judges and attorneys. ✓ Better measures of progress around safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness. • Improved Collaboration among Agencies that Work with Families ✓ Streamlined communication and enhanced information -sharing between courts, child welfare, and other relevant agencies, including education, public health, mental health, and juvenile justice. • The Need for Adequate and Flexible Funding ✓ Flexible use of funds so that money can be used to support the services that families need when they need them. ✓ More funds for preventive services to help parents keep children in the home safely. To learn more about the Blue Ribbon Commission and to read its recommendations for reform, visit www, courtin fo. ca'b l u eri bbon. 86 Rev. 4.30.09 FACTS -AT -A -GLANCE California Dependency Courts California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care APPENDIX H Foster Care Background' • There are more than 75,000 children in foster care in California. This includes children whose care is overseen by both child welfare agencies (68,475) and probation departments (7,112). • Nearly half (45%) of the children in foster care have been in care for more than two years. • African-American and Native American children are more likely than children of other races to be reported for abuse, more likely to be removed from their homes, and less likely to be reunified or adopted than children of other races. African-American children constitute 6% of the state's child population, but represent 26% of the children in foster care. Native American children are .47% of the state's child population, but represent 1.52% of the children in foster care. Dependency Court Hearings ■ All children who enter or leave foster care come before a dependency court to determine if they will be removed from their home and placed in foster care, if they will reunify with their parents, and where and when they will have a permanent home. • The case of each child in foster care is before a judge at least four times. Children in foster care for longer than a year experience at least two more appearances for each year they are in care. ■ In 2004, the average time spent in a single hearing was approximately 10 to 15 minutes per case, well below recommended guidelines." • Courts struggle to meet statutory hearing timelines: in a recent study, fewer than 25% of cases completed the jurisdictional hearing within 15 days of the detention hearing."' Judges, Attorneys, and Caseloads • There are less than 150 full and part-time judicial officers presiding over California's entire dependency court system." • The average caseload per full-time dependency judicial officer is approximately 1,000." • Many judicial officers serve a relatively short period in dependency court. The median length of service for judges is 2.8 years."' • Nearly 75% of judicial officers have prior professional experience in juvenile matters, usually as attorneys in juvenile court."" Attorney caseloads in California counties range from a low of 131 to a high of 616. "'The average caseload statewide is 273, far exceeding the recommended 188 clients per attorney for attorneys who have appropriate support staff. The optimal caseload is 76.1' Court Programs and Facilities • Several state programs assist children and families through the court process. ✓ About 10% of the children in foster care have a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) who provides critical infonnation about a specific child to a judge, enhancing the decision-making process.' ✓ Courts in 22 counties have juvenile dependency mediation programs that help resolve contested issues in a non -adversarial way.' Rev. 4.30.09 87 There are dependency drug courts in 26 counties to assist substance abusing parents in reunifying and/or maintaining custody of their children at home.' ■ Most California dependency courts do not have a designated place where children and families can meet with their attorneys or wait for their hearings. Sources: ;v VII IR Needell, B., Webster, D., et. aL, (2009). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved [January 2, 20091 from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research Web site. URL: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare. Children in child welfare and probation supervised placements on July 1, 2008. This number may be inflated due to data quality issues surrounding the probation counts. California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment, Administrative office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, June 2005 (does not include trials). California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment, Administrative office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, June 2005. http: //www. courtinfo. ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Delinq-Res UpdJO2006. pdf. Private Communication, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Court Improvement Project, March 2007. http: //www. courtinfo. ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Delinq-Res UpdJO2006. pdf. California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families. Dependency Counsel Caseload Study and Service Delivery Model Analysis, June 2004, prepared for the Administrative Office of the Courts, by The American Humane Association, Denver, Colorado, the Spangenberg Group, West Newton, Massachusetts. Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) Pilot Program, Administrative office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, October 2007 report to the Judicial Council. Private Communication, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Court Improvement Project, March 2007. Ibid. Ibid. 88 Page 2 of 2 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUNDER California Dependency Courts and the Hearing Process DEPENDENCY COURT • Decides allegations of abuse and neglect. • Seeks safety, well-being, and permanence for children and families who come before the court. • Orders services for every child who enters or leaves foster care, including placement, education, medication, and visitation. • Is a department of the Superior Court of California in each county. • Is one of two branches of Juvenile Court; the other is Delinquency Court. If the court removes a child from the home, the court will: ■ Order services for the family to improve the home conditions so the child can return home. • Ensure that someone has custody of the child and that the child gets the care and structure needed to be safe and protected. THE HEARING PROCESS Dependency court judges and officials preside over at least four hearings in the course of an average case. Other hearings are also involved, depending on the nature of the case. The various hearings include: Initial/Detention Hearing This hearing takes place after a petition is filed following an investigation by a social worker which indicates the child's safety is jeopardized. The worker files the petition to declare the child a dependent of the court. If the child is removed from parents or guardians, the hearing takes place the day after the petition is filed. The court must decide if: ■ The child can stay safely at home or should live somewhere else temporarily. Jurisdictional Hearing If the child is removed, the court must decide within 15 days if the allegations of abuse or neglect are true. The county child welfare agency must prove the allegations are true. If the parents or guardians dispute or contest the allegations, the court holds a trial. Dispositional Hearing Within 10 days of the Jurisdictional Hearing, the court must decide what should happen with the child. The judge can: • Dismiss the case and the child will remain at or return home. • Let the child live with a parent on "family maintenance," which means a social worker and the court supervise the child. • Place the child with a nonoffending parent while offering the offending parent "family reunification" services. • Remove the child from the parents' care and place with a relative, foster parent, or group home, while offering the parents "family reunification" services. • Not order reunification services and set a permanency hearing to determine the most appropriate permanent plan for the child. Rev. 4.30.09 89 The court may decide not to offer the parents family reunification services in a number of circumstances, including: • The child or a brother or sister has been seriously abused or killed. • The parent had another child taken away by the court. • The parents tried family reunification services previously and they were unsuccessful. • The parents have serious drug problems that are not being treated. Six -Month Review Hearing The court must review all cases every six months to see: • How the child is doing. • How the parents are doing with court-ordered services. • If the child lives with a parent, the court can: 1) Dismiss the case. 2) Keep supervising the child with family maintenance. ■ If the child does not live at home, the court can: 1) Reunify the family while continuing family maintenance services or dismiss the case. 2) Keep the child in placement and order continued family reunification services. Permanency Hearing Within 12 months of the date the child enters foster care, there must be a hearing in which the court decides: ■ If the child will be able to return home safely in the near future or to continue reunification services for another six months. • If the court determines the child cannot return home, reunification services will be terminated and a hearing will be set to determine the most appropriate permanent plan for the child, which may be adoption, legal guardianship, or another planned, permanent living arrangement. Selection and Implementation Hearing ■ If reunification services have been terminated, a selection and implementation hearing must be held within 120 days. This includes an assessment of whether the child is likely to be adopted and identifies any prospective adoptive parent or guardians. ■ At this hearing, the court can terminate parental rights if the child is likely to be adopted. Ongoing Review Hearings The court must continue to review all open cases at least every six months to monitor the child's progress and needs. This continues until the child is adopted, legal guardianship is established, or the case is dismissed for some other reason. The information for this fact sheet was adapted from "Caregivers and the Courts: A Primer on Juvenile Dependency Proceedings for California Foster Parents and Relative Caregivers," published by the Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Administrative office of the Courts, Judicial Council of California Web site: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/caregive.pdf and from the Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara Self Service Center's Web site: www.scselfeservice.org/juvdep/nature.htm. 90 Page 2 of 2 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care CHRONOLOGY California Dependency Courts APPENDIX J California has a rich history of judicial support for children and families dating back to 1903 when the state's juvenile court was first established. This reverse chronology highlights key court events, laws, and activities around issues of child welfare. It also relates California milestones to laws and funding from the U.S. Congress. 2009 The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care issues its final report and action plan. The final report builds on the success of a statewide summit that launches the formation of local foster care commissions in counties throughout the state and details action steps for implementation of the commission's key recommendations. The report also notes areas where early implementation efforts are already underway. 2008 Congress passes the "Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act," (Public Law 110-351) which is hailed as the most significant foster care legislation in more than a decade. The Act will assist hundreds of thousands of children and youth in foster care by promoting permanent families for them through relative guardianship and adoption and improving education and health care. The Act also extends federal support for youth to age 21 and offers important federal protections and support to American Indian children. 2008 The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care releases sweeping recommendations for "changing the way juvenile dependency courts do business" and improving collaboration among courts and agencies that serve children and families. The Judicial Council unanimously accepts the recommendations and directs the commission to develop an implementation plan. 2008 Assembly Bill 3051 requires courts to ensure that youth age 10 and older have the opportunity to attend and speak at hearings that affect their lives. 2007 The California Child Welfare Council holds its first meeting. The Council is a high-level advisory body of leaders from all branches of government and other stakeholders who will focus on coordination across agencies and government systems. 2006 Assembly Bill 2480 requires the Judicial Council to specify when attorneys should be appointed for children on appeal. Assembly Bill 2216 requires the Judicial Council to establish performance measures for juvenile courts. 2006 Chief Justice Ronald M. George appoints a high-level California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care to provide recommendations on how courts and their partners can improve child welfare and fairness outcomes. The commission is California's first-ever examination of the courts' role in foster care and is chaired by Supreme Court Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, a relative caregiver and foster parent. 91. Rev. 4.30, 09 2006 Congress establishes two new grants available for each state's Court Improvement Project. The first grant must be used to enhance data collection and analysis. The second grant must provide multidisciplinary training for judges, attorneys, and child welfare staff. These grants are given to the states for projects that improve juvenile courts. 2005 The Judicial Council's Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC) Court Improvement Project releases its Reassessment Report, which provides a comprehensive review of California's dependency courts and makes recommendations for further improvements. The Reassessment Report is a follow-up report to the first Court Improvement Project report that was issued in 1997. 2005 In collaboration with the California Department of Social Services, CFCC initiates the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Project and its Permanency Project to provide education and technical assistance to local courts, child welfare agencies, attorneys and others on ICWA compliance and expanding approaches to permanency for dependent children. 2004 The Judicial Council creates the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) pilot program, which focuses on improving the quality of attorney representation for parents and children in dependency cases by testing caseload standards, providing attorney training, adopting attorney performance standards, and improving attorney compensation. 2004 The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a national, bipartisan panel of experts, issues a report with recommendations for improving the nation's foster care system, including expanding federal court improvement grants and strengthening court oversight of juvenile cases. 2001 Assembly Bill 636 requires the California Department of Social Services and the counties to measure and improve outcomes for children in California's child welfare system. 2001 The Judicial Council adopts a rule of court that specifies that an attorney should be appointed for a child in dependency court unless the court finds that a child would not benefit. In those few cases in which an attorney is not appointed a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) must be appointed as the child's Guardian Ad Litem. 2000 Senate Bill 2160 directs the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court that specifies when an attorney should be appointed to be a child's Guardian Ad Litem in juvenile dependency cases. 2000 The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) creates the Center for Families Children & the Courts (CFCC) through a merger of the AOC's Statewide Office of Family Court Services and its Center for Children and the Courts. 1998 Assembly Bill 2773 directs California to implement the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act and shortens timeframes for reunification. 1997 The Administrative Office of the Courts creates the Center for Children and the Courts. Juvenile court projects, including the Court Improvement Project and the Juvenile Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) project, are part of the center. 1997 U.S. Congress adopts the Adoption and Safe Families Act which emphasizes child safety and provides financial incentives to states to promote permanency planning and adoption. 92 Page 2 of 4 1997 The Administrative Office of the Courts releases the Court Improvement Project Report based on California's initial court improvement assessment that took place in 1995-1996. The report includes recommendations to improve California's juvenile court system. An improvement plan is created to implement the recommendations. 1995 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establishes the Court Improvement Project. Congress created a grant program in 1994 in recognition of the expanded role of courts in achieving stable, permanent homes for children in foster care. Grants are made available directly to courts for court improvement programs. 1995 In collaboration with the California Department of Social Services, the Administrative Office of the Courts creates the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) project in response to California's failure of the 1992 Title IV -E audit. The JRTA team provides training and technical assistance to judicial officers, court staff, attorneys, and child welfare department staff to improve compliance with Title IV -E requirements. California passes the subsequent Title IV E federal audit and the report cites the work of the JRTA project as a strength that contributed to the state's compliance. 1994 The 1994 Amendments to the Social Security Act authorizes HHS to establish Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). 1992 California does not pass the Title IV -E federal audit of foster care cases. Federal auditors determine that 39 percent of the cases reviewed were not eligible for Title IV -E funding, and California faces a potential sanction of $51.7 million. 1988 Legislation is enacted encouraging the development of Court Appointed Special Advocate programs (CASA) in all counties. The Judicial Council is directed to provide grant funds to these programs. 1987 Senate Bill 243 implements recommendations from the Senate Select Committee on Children and Youth including providing for termination of parental rights in juvenile dependency proceedings. The legislation also establishes specific jurisdictional definition for court intervention. SB 243 was double joined to a trial court funding bill, which made court appointed counsel for parents and children a court cost rather than a county cost. 1982 Senate Bill 14 requires the state, through the California Department of Social Services and county welfare departments, to establish a statewide system of child welfare services. 1980 Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act provides funding stream for out -of -home care and establishes a preference to maintain and reunify families. 1978 The Los Angeles Superior Court establishes the first Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program in California. CASA provides volunteers to work with children in the dependency system and provide reports back to the court. 1974 Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) mandates states to establish child abuse reporting laws, defines child abuse and neglect, and defines when juvenile courts can take custody of a child. 1961 Congress establishes foster care payment under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) to help states pay for children who live in foster care. 93 Page 3 of 4 1937 Prior California juvenile court law is rolled into the newly created Welfare and Institutions Code, creating a more fully developed mechanism for declaring a child free from the custody and control of his or her parents. 1930 California Supreme Court holds that the juvenile court cannot withhold the custody of a child from the parents without a specific finding of abuse or neglect as required by the relevant statutes. 1909 Laws establish that a child has a right to a private hearing in dependency and delinquency matters, and a child cannot be taken from a parent or guardian without consent, unless the court makes a finding that the custodian is incapable, or has failed or neglected to provide for the child properly. 1903 California establishes its juvenile court. The law applies to children under 16 and defines dependent and delinquent children. 94 Page 4 of 4 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care APPENDIX K HIGHLIGHTS Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations & Action Plan The California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care has issued recommendations that call for sweeping reforms of the state's juvenile dependency courts. Included are four overall recommendations and 79 specific recommendations. Twenty-six of the specific recommendations are under the purview of the judicial branch of government and the remaining recommendations require collaboration with court partners. The Judicial Council unanimously accepted the commission's recommendations on August 15, 2008, and directed that efforts get underway immediately to implement those recommendations that are under the courts' purview. The Council also directed the commission to develop an action plan for the remaining recommendations, which the commission has done and included in its final report to the Council. Listed below are the commission's four categorical recommendations, along with highlights of specific recommendations targeted for early implementation and a summary of action steps recommended by the commission. To read the full set of recommendations and the commission's final report to the Judicial Council, visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. 1) Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency ■ Increasing the Number of Placements with Relatives (Kinship) Recommendation: That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case and that the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when removal from the home is necessary. Action Steps: ✓ Key stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, are working to support appropriate legislation to opt into new federal benefits to support kinship placements available in the 2008 federal Fostering Connections for Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (Public Law 110-351). ✓ Local and statewide child welfare agencies will develop and improve internal protocols for finding, engaging, and supporting family relationships. ✓ Local foster care commissions will support the expansion of family finding in their counties by developing information -sharing protocols among public and private agencies. • Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System Recommendation: That courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. Action Steps: ✓ The Judicial Council and partnering agencies will support Indian tribes opting into funding and grants available under the Fostering Connections to Success Act. ✓ The Administrative Office of the Courts will provide training and support to trial courts on how to eliminate the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indian children. Rev. 4.30, 09 95 1 The Judicial Council will support efforts to involve courts in local collaborations to reduce disproportionality. • Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth Recommendation: That the age for children to receive foster -care assistance be extended from 18 to 21. Action Steps: 1 The Judicial Council is working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, California Department of Social Services, and the Legislature to ensure that California is able to secure the federal funding to extend foster care to age 21, as authorized in the 2008 federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. 1 The Judicial Council and partnering agencies are working with state and federal leadership to ensure adequate funding for transitional housing. 2) Court Reform ■ Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers Recommendation: That the Judicial Council reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. Action Steps: 1 The Judicial Council will assess judicial needs based on caseload data and seek resources to implement recommendations from this study. 1 In conjunction with the trial courts, the Judicial Council will undertake a judicial juvenile court caseload study. 1 The Judicial Council will work with partnering agencies and other state leaders to advocate for resources to implement existing caseload standards for all attorneys who provide representation in juvenile court and for social workers. • Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings Recommendation: That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court -Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. Action Steps: 1 Local foster care commissions and state child welfare stakeholders will identify and assess barriers to parties' attendance at hearings and tailor local strategies to overcome these barriers. 1 The Judicial Council has referred a rule of court providing for alternative ways of participation in court, such as telephonic appearances, to the Judicial Council's Rules and Procedures committee. 1 The Judicial Council and many local foster care commissions are working to implement the mandates of Assembly Bill 3051, which requires trial courts to ensure every child over 10 has the opportunity to attend hearings in his or her case, and has the opportunity to address the court. ■ Ensuring that All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court -Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Are Adequately Trained and Resourced Recommendation: That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards and that the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. 96 Page 2 of 4 Action Steps: 1 The Administrative Office of the Courts will continue its Court -Appointed Counsel Study and DRAFT (Dependency Representation, Administration, and Funding & Training) project to reduce caseloads and provide training for attorneys representing parents and children in juvenile dependency proceedings. 3) Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners ■ Facilitating Data and Information Exchange Recommendation: That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council will implement court -performance measures to improve foster -care outcomes as mandated by state law. Action Steps: 1 Court performance measures are being implemented in courts across the state. 1 The Judicial Council will continue to develop and implement the California Case Management System, which will include information sharing capabilities with our partners' data systems. 1 Statewide stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, and the trial courts, will work to reduce or remove barriers to sharing information. • Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions Recommendation: That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child -welfare concerns and to help implement the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations and related reforms. Action Steps: 1 In December 2008, the Blue Ribbon Commission convened a summit of teams from 50 counties to start the process of establishing local foster care commissions. Those teams returned home with concrete steps to set up local commissions or identify existing committees or workgroups that could be expanded to become local commissions. 1 These local foster care commissions will adopt their own action plans to address local concerns and enact the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations. • Improving Indian Child Welfare Recommendation: That the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the services for which they are eligible. 97 Action Steps: 1 The local foster care commissions will work with tribes, tribal courts, and tribal service agencies in their jurisdictions to determine the needs of tribal children and families and the resources available to meet their needs. 1 Teams, representing both local foster care commissions and statewide agencies and leadership, will work together to develop models and protocols for sharing jurisdiction, data, and services. Page 3 of 4 4) Resources and Funding ■ Prioritizing Foster Care Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. Action Steps: 1 The Judicial Council and trial courts will lead by example, by 1) assigning judges (as opposed to subordinate judicial officers) to hear dependency cases, 2) setting 3 -year minimum rotations in dependency courts, 3) implementing performance measures and using them to determine resource allocation to juvenile dependency court, 4) implementing the California Case Management System for dependency court, and 5) conducting a judicial juvenile court workload study and setting caseload standards for judges based on that workload study. 1 Local foster care commissions and partnering agencies will identify any additional programs where foster youth and families should be given priority for services. ■ Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child -Abuse Prevention and Services Recommendation: That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child -abuse prevention and to eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child -abuse prevention and services. Action Steps: 1 The Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, the Child Welfare Council and other stakeholders are working with the executive branch and state legislative leadership to opt into appropriate provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act to increase flexibility of federal funding. 1 The Judicial Council and other stakeholders will continue to advocate for increased flexibility to use federal funds for preventive services. ■ Expanding Educational Services Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all of its related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. 98 Action Steps: 1 Trial courts, local foster care commissions, local education agencies, and other stakeholders will collaborate to assess and eliminate local barriers to ensuring full educational opportunities for foster children. 1 The Judicial Council, together with other stakeholders, will advocate with state and federal leaders to strengthen the educational rights of foster children and secure resources for implementation of existing education laws for all foster and former foster children. Page 4 of 4 0D G•r 70m m M z M 00 �z --1 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 0 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN 1926 / St THE COURTS BUILDING A BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN Making Progress in Tough Economic Times AUGUST 2010 About the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care On March 9, 2006, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care and appointed as its chair Associate Jus- tice Carlos R. Moreno of the Supreme Court of California. The commission was charged with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council of California on the ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well-being, and fair- ness for children and families in the child welfare system. The commission developed sweeping recommendations to reform the juvenile de- pendency court and foster care systems, and the Judicial Council unanimously accepted them in August 2008. The commission released to the public its recommendations and an action plan for their implementation in May 2009. In June 2009, the Chief Justice ex- tended the commission for three years and added implementation activities to its charge. The commission consists of members from a variety of disciplines, including judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, former foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and others providing leadership on the issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. The establishment of the commission and its ongoing work builds on ongoing Judicial Council efforts to improve California's juvenile courts and is consistent with goals and objectives adopted by the Judicial Council. This is the commission's first implementation progress report, documenting the ef- forts of local and statewide collaborations to advance the commission's recommenda- tions and to begin the process of implementing sweeping reforms to the juvenile depen- dency court and child welfare systems in California. 0-0 G -r 73m m N m cn z x m D 00 x H California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care BUILDING A BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN Making Progress in Tough Economic Times AUGUST 2010 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN & THE COURTS Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California 94102-3688 www.courtinfo.ca.gov Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies are distributed at or below cost and credit the copyright holder. For more information on the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care or to view this report and other commission materials online, please visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. To order copies of the report, please call 415-865-7739. Printed on recycled and recyclable paper. Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Chief Justice Ronald M. George Chair of the Judicial Council William C. Vickrey Administrative Director of the Courts Ronald G. Overholt Chief Deputy Director Center for Families, Children & the Courts Diane Nunn Director Charlene Depner Assistant Director Carolynn Bernabe Staff Analyst Chris Cleary Attorney Katie Howard Supervisor Sonya Tafoya Senior Research Analyst Don Will Manager Leah Wilson Manager Christopher Wu Supervising Attorney Executive Director to the Commission Fran Haselsteiner Editor Executive Office Programs ii Members of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, 2006-2010 Hon. Carlos R. Moreno Chair Associate Justice Supreme Court of California Robin Allen Executive Director California CASA Hon. Michael D. Antonovich Member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Fifth Supervisorial District Hon. Lucy M. Armendariz Judge State Bar Court, State Bar of California Mary L. Ault South Lake Tahoe Manager El Dorado County Department of Human Services Hon. Karen Bass Former Speaker of the Assembly California State Assembly Hon. Richard C. Blake Chief Judge of the Hoopa, Smith River Rancheria, and Redding Rancheria Tribal Courts Lawrence B. Bolton Chief Counsel California Health and Human Services Curtis L. Child Director AOC Office of Governmental Affairs Miryam J. Choca Senior Director California Strategic Consultation Casey Family Programs Joseph W. Cotchett Attorney at Law Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy Michael S. Cunningham Chief Deputy Director Program Services Division California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Hon. Kathryn Doi Todd Associate Justice Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two Jill Duerr Berrick Professor School of Social Welfare Co-director, Center for Child and Youth Policy University of California at Berkeley Hon. Leonard P. Edwards (Ret.) Judge -in -Residence AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts iii Raul A. Escatel Tax Counsel California Franchise Tax Board Deborah Escobedo Staff Attorney Youth Law Center Hon. Terry B. Friedman (Ret.) Member Judicial Council of California Robert E. Friend Director California Permanency for Youth Project Center for Family Finding and Youth Connectedness— Seneca Center Hon. Richard D. Huffman Associate Justice Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One Hon. Susan D. Huguenor Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Superior Court of California, County of San Diego Teri Kook Senior Program Officer, Child Welfare Stuart Foundation Miriam Krinsky Lecturer University of California at Los Angeles School of Public Affairs Amy Lemley Policy Director John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes Will Lightboume Director Santa Clara County Social Services Agency Hon. Bill Maze Former Member California State Assembly Donna C. Myrow Executive Director L.A. Youth Hon. Michael Nash Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles David Neilsen Deputy Director Program Services Division California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Diane Nunn Director AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts John O'Toole Executive Director National Center for Youth Law Ken Patterson Managing Director Child and Family Services Casey Family Programs Derek Peake Partner Costly Grace Jonathan Pearson Former Foster Youth Linda Penner Chief Probation Officer Fresno County Probation Department Anthony Pico Legislative Assistant Office of Assembly Member Fiona Ma Patricia S. Ploehn, LCSW Director Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Pat Reynolds -Harris Family to Family Permanency Consultant Founder, California Permanency for Youth Project Jennifer Rodriguez Staff Attorney Youth Law Center Maria D. Robles, R.N. Sacramento David Sanders Executive Vice President for Systems Improvement Casey Family Programs Gary Seiser Senior Deputy County Counsel San Diego County Office of the County Counsel iv Alan Slater Special Consultant AOC Southern Regional Office Joseph L. Spaeth Public Defender Marin County Office of the Public Defender Hon. Todd Spitzer Former Member California State Assembly Hon. Darrell S. Steinberg President pro Tempore California State Senate Hon. Dean T. Stout Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, County of Inyo John Wagner Director California Department of Social Services Jacqueline Wong Consultant Foster Youth Services Program California Department of Education EX OFFICIO Hon. John Burton Former President pro Tempore of the California State Senate John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes Contents Message From the Chair 1 Introduction: Making Progress in Tough Economic Times 3 Why We Needed the Blue Ribbon Commission 4 Principles and Values that Guided the Commission's Process 5 The Commission's Action Plan and Priorities for Implementation 6 Implementation Progress Highlights and Challenges 6 Chart: Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations & Action Plan Highlights 11 Chapter 1: Action Plan Highlights and Priorities, 2009-2010 12 Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency 12 Court Reform 14 Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners 15 Resources and Funding 17 Chapter 2: A New Focus on Prevention and Permanency 19 Implementation Progress 20 Early boost from federal legislation 20 Celebrating Reunification 21 Increasing the number of relative placements 22 Engaging family members 22 Public Policy Institute Report on Foster Care in California Notes Remarkable Advances in Last Decade 24 Advocating changes in law to address funding disparities and develop greater flexibility to approve relative placements 25 Making extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co -placement 25 Reducing the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indians in foster care 26 Providing extended support for transitioning youth 27 vi Chapter 3: A New Focus on Court Reform 30 Implementation Progress 31 Reducing caseloads 31 Ensuring a voice in court 32 Providing adequate training 34 Chapter 4: A New Focus on Collaboration 35 Implementation Progress 36 Facilitating data and information exchange 36 Establishing local foster care commissions 38 Improving Indian child welfare 39 Chapter 5: A New Focus on Resources and Funding 43 Implementation Progress 44 Prioritizing foster care 44 Advocating for flexible funding for child abuse prevention and services 45 Expanding educational services 47 Foster Youth to College Days: Aging Out of Foster Care ...Into College 51 Chapter 6: Other Efforts Advancing Recommendations 52 Statewide Efforts Advancing Prevention and Permanency 52 Statewide Efforts Advancing Court Reform 54 Statewide Efforts Advancing Collaboration 55 Statewide Efforts Advancing Resources and Funding 55 Conclusion: Reaching for a Brighter Future 56 Appendices 59 A. About the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 61 B. Final Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission 65 C. Judicial Council Resolution in Creating Blue Ribbon Commission 77 D. Reappointment and New Charge Documents 79 E. Source Documents 83 vii Message from the Chair I am pleased to present the first implementation progress report from the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. The report documents, through June 30, 2010, statewide and local efforts to implement the commission's comprehensive recommendations to help California's overstressed juvenile dependency courts do a better job of safeguarding children, reducing the need for foster care, and improving the foster care system. Last June, Chief Justice Ronald M. George extended our charge to include implementation activities and reappointed most of the commissioners. We, along with many statewide and local partners, have been actively working on implementation for the past year. I am impressed by how much has been accomplished at the federal, state, and local levels that significantly advances our goals of changing the way juvenile courts do business and reforming the foster care system in California— accomplishments that have occurred despite the serious budgetary and economic challenges. I believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration, as all of the state's child welfare partners—courts, social services, education, health, mental health, philanthropic organizations, CASA, tribes, collaborative advisory bodies, and others—both statewide and locally, have taken up the challenge of making a difference for our children in foster care. The Public Policy Institute of California recently released its report, Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges, which noted that California's foster care system "has made some remarkable advances in the last decade." Specifically it documented great progress in moving children out of foster care. In fact, California has seen a 45 percent drop in share of children in the system, mainly by shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. But the report noted significant challenges that remain; we have our work cut out for us as we move forward into another year of implementation. Though we are having some success at the backend of the foster care process— reducing the length of stay and the number of placement changes, we still have much to do at the front end— preventing placements when possible and finding permanent placements when removal cannot be avoided. On behalf of the commission, I thank all of our statewide and local partners in this effort to build a brighter future for California's children—your work has been remarkable. Thanks also to our commissioners for their continued unflagging commitment to improving the lives of California's children and families. Finally, thanks to Chief Justice Ronald M. George; William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of the Courts; and the Judicial Council for making significant reform of the juvenile dependency courts and the child welfare system a high priority for California's judicial branch and for offering continued support of this extraordinary attempt to make a real difference in the lives of this state's most vulnerable children and families. ae,z7L Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California Chair, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care 1 Introduction: Making Progress in Tough Economic Times After an unparalleled three-year collaborative effort, the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care submitted to the Judicial Council, in August 2008, a comprehensive set of recommendations for improving California's juvenile dependency courts and child welfare system. In May 2009, the commission released its fmal report on the recommendations, along with an action plan for implementing them. At the commission's meeting in San Francisco on June 30, 2009, Chief Justice George announced that he was extending the work of the commission until 2012 to help ensure implementation of the commission's recommendations for reform of the state's juvenile dependency courts and foster care system. He was taking that step, as he noted, because the stakes were so high for children and youth who have suffered abuse and neglect, particularly in these difficult economic times when families stand to suffer even more challenges than usual. This document describes statewide and local implementation efforts to advance the commission's recommendations, and provides a point -in -time progress report on those efforts. The commission anticipates releasing annual implementation progress reports during the remainder of its tenure. This report highlights the following: • Legislation, passed and pending, that advances the commission's recommendations; • Statewide initiatives and collaborative efforts focused on improving the juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems; and • Local county collaborative efforts to respond to the needs of vulnerable children and their families. ' See www.courtinfo.ca.gov/c/tflists/documents/brc-finalreport.pdf See also Appendix A, for more information on the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care, and see Appendix B for the Commission's fmal set of recommendations. 3 Why We Needed the Blue Ribbon Commission When Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care on March 9, 2006, the foster care system and dependency courts were underresourced and overstressed. • California had more than 80,000 children in foster care. • Most of those—almost 80 percent—had been removed for neglect. • Nearly half -45 percent—had been in care for more than two years, 17 percent for more than three years. • African-American and American Indian children were disproportionately represented in the system. • Fewer than 150 full-time and part-time judicial officers presided over the entire dependency court system. • Full-time juvenile dependency judges carried an average caseload of 1000, directly affecting the amount of time and attention that could be given to any one case. • Juvenile dependency court attorneys, who represent children and parents in court, had an average caseload of 273—in some counties caseloads rose to 500 or 600—far exceeding the recommended maximum caseload of 188 adopted by the Judicial Council. • Children and parents sometimes did not meet their attorneys until moments before their hearings, which limited their opportunity to speak in court, and meant that their attorneys often had inadequate information about a child's life. • The median time for a hearing was only 10 to 15 minutes, far less than the recommended 30 to 60 minutes. • Judges were often assigned to juvenile court for short rotations instead of the recommended three years. • Families were often involved with more than one system, but courts and other agencies did not easily share data or information that might be critical to a family's circumstances. Concemed that the courts and their child welfare partners, who share responsibility for the safety and well-being of children while they are in foster care, were not always being a very good "parent" to these children, Chief Justice George appointed as commission chair Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the California Supreme Court and charged the commission with providing recommendations to the Judicial Council on ways in which the courts and their partners can improve safety, permanency, well - 4 being, and fairness for children and families in the child welfare system. Principles and Values that Guided the Commission's Process The Blue Ribbon Commission was guided by a set of overarching principles, which were adopted early in its deliberations. Those principles and values have continued to inform its work on implementation: • All children are equal and deserve safe and permanent homes; • Efforts to improve the foster care system must focus on improving safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness outcomes for children, and services should be integrated and comprehensive; • Collaboration is essential for achieving the best possible outcomes for children and families; • Courts play an important statutory role in overseeing children, families, and services in the dependency system; • Children and families should have a say in decisions that affect their lives; and • Government agencies need adequate and flexible funding to provide the best outcomes for children in the foster care system. A set of values informed the commission's work throughout. Those values were: • Collaboration; • Shared responsibility; • Accountability; • Leadership; • Children and families; • Child safety; • Inclusion; • Permanency; and • Youth voice. The overarching value was that the voices of the children and youth who were or had been in California's foster care system should be consistently heard and should inform decision-making at all levels. Those voices became the engine that drove the commission's work on developing its recommendations and continues to drive its efforts to implement those recommendations. 5 The Commission's Action Plan and Priorities for Implementation Commissioners kept implementation in mind throughout their deliberations. They were determined from the beginning that their recommendations not sit on a shelf gathering dust but be implemented as soon as possible in the hope of improving the lives of children and families and bringing some relief to the state's chronically overstressed juvenile court and child welfare systems. When the Judicial Council unanimously accepted the commission's final recommendations on August 15, 2008, it directed that implementation of the 26 specific recommendations under its purview get underway immediately. It also directed the commission to develop an action plan in keeping with its principles and values for those recommendations requiring collaboration with court partners. The commission released its action plan for implementation in May 2009. The commission endorses each of its recommendations as being important and indispensible to the sweeping reform of the foster care and dependency court systems that it envisions. But for its initial action plan the commission took a pragmatic approach, identifying practical first steps that it believed were fiscally responsible and realistically achievable. It also believed that the initial reforms would provide an important and improved foundation for the remaining recommendations and reforms that would follow. Chapter 1 of this report contains the commission's blueprint for foster care reform in California: its action plan highlights and priorities. Implementation Progress Highlights and Challenges The commission has been pleased and impressed by how much has been accomplished at the federal, state, and local levels that significantly advances its goals of changing the way juvenile courts do business and reforming the foster care system in California—accomplishments that have occurred despite serious budgetary and economic challenges. Early indications suggest that active court oversight and better representation in the juvenile dependency courts makes a significant difference for the children and families who enter the child welfare system. Members believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration, as all of the state's child welfare partners—courts, social services, education, health, mental health, court-appointed special advocates (CASA), tribes, philanthropic organizations, and 6 others—both statewide and locally, have taken up the challenge of making a difference for our children in foster care. Nevertheless, challenges remain, and the commission will redouble its efforts in the coming years to make progress on some of the more difficult challenges. Highlights Some highlights of implementation progress include the following: Drop in number of children in foster care is encouraging. Numbers of children in foster care in California have dropped dramatically over the last decade, attributed in part to a "more intense focus by local and state policymakers on the problems of foster care, which in turn led to innovations in child welfare policies and practices." In fact, California has seen a 45 percent drop in share of children in the system, mainly by shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. That decline is "most pronounced among black children, who have long been overrepresented in the child welfare system." Only 2.7 percent of African-American children were in foster care in 2009, compared to 5.4 percent in 2000—certainly still too high a percentage, but encouraging.2 Boost from federal Fostering Connections to Success Act initiates implementation. The federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, which is directly responsive to 20 of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations, gave an early boost to implementation efforts. Offering increased supports for relative caregivers, improved family finding support, more flexibility in the use of federal funds, and support for foster youth until age 21, the legislation provides matching funds to states that opt into its provisions. Some state legislation to implement these provisions has already been passed and chaptered in California, while other legislation is still pending, most notably AB 12, which would provide federally subsidized relative guardianships and extend foster care jurisdiction to age 21. The federal legislation will facilitate the expansion of California's Kin -GAP program and also gives support for expanded title IV -E waiver projects in the state. 2 See Public Policy Institute of California, Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges, (May 12, 2010), at p.l; available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_510CDR.pdf 7 "I believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration, as all of the state's child welfare partners— courts, social services, education, health, mental health, philanthropic organizations, CASA, tribes, collaborative advisory bodies, and others—both statewide and locally, have taken up the challenge of making a difference for our children in foster care." —Hon. Carlos R. Moreno Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California; Chair, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Successful statewide collaborative work is underway. Statewide collaborative efforts to reform the foster care system and reduce the number of children in foster care have been impressive. The Blue Ribbon Commission has worked closely with the Child Welfare Council (co-chaired by Justice Carlos R. Moreno, who also chairs the Blue Ribbon Commission, and Kimberly Belshe, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency), the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Co -Investment Partnership, the Statewide Interagency Team, and the California Department of Social Services to prioritize children and families in the foster care system in the allocation of resources and services. Local foster care commissions are active. There are now more than forty counties with active local foster care commissions, which formed or expanded in response to the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation encouraging their formation. Those local commissions are working in their communities to identify and resolve local systemic concerns, to address the Commission's recommendations, and to build the capacity to provide a continuum of services to children and families in the foster care system. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) hosted two summits (in 2008 and 2010) to support the work of these local commissions, and is providing ongoing support through its Juvenile Court Assistance Team (JCAT). Tribal court/state court forum has been established. In May 2010, Chief Justice Ronald M. George established the California Tribal Court/State Court Coalition (now called the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum), the first organization of its kind in the state, to work on areas of mutual concern. Under the leadership of co-chairs Judge Richard Blake, Chief Judge of the Hoopa, Smith River Rancheria, and Redding Rancheria Tribal Courts; and Justice Richard D. Huffman, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, the coalition will develop measures to improve the working relationship between California's tribal and state courts. There are already promising tribal court/state court collaborations in a number of counties. Rapidly expanding educational services give immediate benefit. There has been significant implementation activity in the area of expanding educational services, including a state legislative requirement that college campuses in California give priority for housing to current and former foster youth and remain open for occupation during school breaks; expansion of the California Department of Education, Foster Youth Services Program to 57 counties; and continued statewide collaboration on educational issues through the Foster Youth Education Task Force. Training for court-appointed counsel is making a difference. The AOC has continued the work of providing support and training for court-appointed counsel representing parents and children in the juvenile dependency system. Recently, the Judicial Council adopted a competitive solicitation policy applicable to courts participating in the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training program, with a goal of maximizing the funding for the court-appointed counsel program and providing transparency and objectivity to the process. The AOC also provides ongoing support and resources through the California Dependency Online Guide, which is offered for free by subscription to attorneys, judicial officers, and other child welfare professionals. Initial design for court/child welfare data exchange has been completed. The AOC, working closely with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), has completed the initial design of the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) to ensure that information used in both the court and child welfare systems will be exchanged in real time and accessible to all authorized users. CDSS has incorporated the same data exchange and integration rules into its guidelines for the new Child Welfare Services Web design (CWS/Web). CWS/Web will also incorporate relevant exchanges with other systems, including health and education providers. Although these systems are still some years from full implementation, this level of collaboration in the design of information systems is extremely promising and almost unprecedented, either in California or nationally. Challenges Despite this encouraging progress, there are challenges to address before it will be possible to fully implement the commission's recommendations. Some of the most pressing challenges include the following: Caseload improvements are stalled due to economy. Even with a drop in the number of children in foster care, caseloads for judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers remain unacceptably high in most counties. Economic conditions and budget challenges have slowed progress on lowering these caseloads. The Administrative Office of the Courts will launch its 9 "We have our work cut out for us as we move forward into another year of implementation. Though we are having some success at the backend of the foster care process— reducing the length of stay and the number of placement changes, we still have much to do at the front end— preventing placements when possible and finding permanent placements when removal cannot be avoided." —Hon. Carlos R. Moreno trial court staffing study in October 2010, which will estimate both judicial and staffing needs for each major case type, including juvenile. The caseload study for attorneys representing parents and children is complete and standards have been set. When resources do become available, there will need to be a strategic targeting of some of those resources to begin a significant reduction of caseloads for the benefit of the children and families in the system. Data and information exchange systems are years from full capability. Although the initial design of the juvenile dependency/child welfare CCMS module is complete and CDSS has adopted the same design for CWS/Web, it will be years before the courts and their child welfare partners in social services, health, mental health, education, and other fields will be able to fully and effectively exchange critical data about the children in their care. This presents continuing challenges to the courts and agencies serving children and parents in the foster care system: juvenile courts unaware of a family's involvement with other courts or agencies; court orders meant to benefit families and children in conflict with other court orders or mandated services from other agencies; courts and child welfare agencies unaware of services in the community; and dependency courts unable to gather key data on their ability to meet statutory timelines and other requirements. These challenges will gradually abate as the CCMS and CWS/Web systems become fully functional. Reduction in numbers of foster children may produce complacency. Although, as noted in the Highlights section, California has seen a 45 percent drop of share of children in the foster care system, mainly by decreasing their time in foster care, it is important that this movement out of care not be seen as a victory negating the need for further work. In fact, the courts, social workers, and attorneys in the system are still staggering under the weight of high caseloads, ensuring that the issues leading to the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations will not be easily resolved by a drop in numbers of children in foster care. As foster care caseloads decrease, one challenge will be to effectively reinvest those savings into ensuring more meaningful hearings and services for the children and families remaining in the system. The following chapters summarize the commission's initial action plan for implementation (in blue), document significant progress and challenges in each of its areas of focus, and provide an updated action plan for the coming year. 10 Exchange Data & Information BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS & ACTION PLAN HIGHLIGHTS Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal & Achieve Permanency Increase Kinship Placements ✓ Opt into federal legislation ✓ Improve protocols ✓ Support family finding Reduce Disproportional Representation ✓ Support funding for tribes ✓ Provide training ✓ Involve local courts Extend Youth Support to 21 i Opt into new federal legislation ✓ Ensure adequate funding for transitional housing Collaboration Between Courts & Child Welfare Partners ✓ Implement court performance measures ✓ Develop data exchange programs ✓ Remove barriers Create Local Commissions ✓ Set up local commissions ✓ Implement recs & other reforms ✓ Provide support r Support Indian Child Welfare ✓ Facilitate local commissions' work with tribes ✓ Develop models & protocols for collaboration between state and tribal courts Court Reform Reduce Caseloads :Continue judicial caseload study ✓ Use case managers ✓ Advocate for resources ✓ Assess current resource allocation Ensure A Voice in Court 1 Assess barriers 1 Provide for flexible hearing times ✓ Ensure youth in court Provide Adequate Training ✓ Continue key programs ✓ Advocate for resources 1 Develop educational programs Resources & Funding Prioritize Foster Care I✓ Support courts leading by example 1 Implement existing mandates ✓ Identify other programs for foster care priority Increase Flexible Funding ✓ Opt into new federal legislation ✓ Advocate for increased flexibility in spending fed. funds Expand Education ✓ Eliminate local barriers ✓ Ensure full educational rights ✓ Expand programs for "aged out" foster youth Chapter 1: Action Plan Highlights and Priorities, 2009- 2010 Listed below are the commission's four overall recommendations, along with highlights of specific recommendations targeted for early implementation and a summary of action steps recommended by the commission. To read the full set of recommendations and the commission's final report to the Judicial Council, see www.courtinfo.ca.gov/blueribbon. The recommendations are also in the Appendices to this report. Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency • Increasing the Number of Placements With Relatives (Kinship Placements) Recommendation: That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case and that the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when removal from the home is necessary. Action Steps: • Key stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, are working to support appropriate legislation to opt into new federal benefits to support kinship placements available in the federal Fostering Connections for Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-351) (hereinafter "Fostering Connections to Success Act"). • Local and statewide child welfare agencies will develop and improve internal protocols for fmding, engaging, and supporting family relationships. • Local foster care commissions will support the expansion of family fmding in their counties by developing protocols for information sharing among public and private agencies. 12 • Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African-American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System Recommendation: That courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. Action Steps: • The Judicial Council and partnering agencies will support Indian tribes opting into funding and grants available under the Fostering Connections to Success Act. • The Administrative Office of the Courts will provide training and support to trial courts to assist in eliminating the disproportionate representation of African-American and American Indian children. • The Judicial Council will support efforts to involve courts in local collaborations to reduce disproportionality. • Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth Recommendation: That the age for children to receive foster -care assistance be extended from 18 to 21. Action Steps: • The Judicial Council is working with the Administrative Office of the Courts, California Department of Social Services, and the Legislature to ensure that California is able to secure the federal funding to extend foster care to age 21, as authorized in the 2008 federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. • The Judicial Council and partnering agencies are working with state and federal leadership to ensure adequate funding for transitional housing. 13 Court Reform • Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers Recommendation: That the Judicial Council reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. Action Steps: • The Judicial Council will assess judicial needs based on caseload data and seek resources to implement recommendations from this study. • In conjunction with the trial courts, the Judicial Council will undertake a judicial juvenile court caseload study. • The Judicial Council will work with partnering agencies and other state leaders to advocate for resources to implement existing caseload standards for all attorneys who provide representation in juvenile court and to develop caseload standards for social workers. • Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings Recommendation: That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court - Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. Action Steps: • Local foster care commissions and state child welfare stakeholders will identify and assess barriers to parties' attendance at hearings and tailor local strategies to overcome these barriers. • The Judicial Council has referred a rule of court providing for alternative ways of participation in court, such as telephonic appearances, to the Judicial Council's Rules and Projects Committee. • The Judicial Council and many local foster care commissions are working to implement the mandates of Assembly Bill 3051, which requires 14 trial courts to ensure that every child over age 10 has the opportunity to attend hearings in his or her case and to address the court. • Ensuring that All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court -Appointed Special Advocates Are Adequately Trained and Resourced Recommendation: That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards and that the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. Action Steps: • The Administrative Office of the Courts will continue its Court -Appointed Counsel Study and DRAFT (Dependency Representation, Administration, and Funding & Training) project to reduce caseloads and provide training for attorneys representing parents and children in juvenile dependency proceedings. Collaboration Among Courts and Child Welfare Partners • Facilitating Data and Information Exchange Recommendation: That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council will implement court -performance measures to improve foster care outcomes as mandated by state law. Action Steps: • Court performance measures are being implemented in courts across the state. • The Judicial Council will continue to develop and implement the California Case Management System, which will include information -sharing capabilities accessible to partners' data systems. • Statewide stakeholders, including the Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, and the trial courts, will work to reduce or remove barriers to information sharing. 15 • Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions Recommendation: That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child -welfare concerns and to help implement the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations and related reforms. Action Steps: • In December 2008, the Blue Ribbon Commission convened a summit of teams from 50 counties to start the process of establishing local foster care commissions. Those teams returned home with concrete steps to set up local commissions or identify existing committees or workgroups that could be expanded to become local commissions. • These local foster care commissions will adopt their own action plans to address local concerns and enact the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations. • Improving Indian Child Welfare Recommendation: That the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families get the services for which they are eligible. Action Steps: • The local foster care commissions will work with tribes, tribal courts, and tribal service agencies m their jurisdictions to determine the needs of tribal children and families and the resources available to meet their needs. • Teams, representing both local foster care commissions and statewide agencies and leadership, will work together to develop models and protocols for sharing jurisdiction, data, and services. 16 Resources and Funding • Prioritizing Foster Care Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. Action Steps: • The Judicial Council and trial courts will lead by example by (1) assigning judges (as opposed to subordinate judicial officers) to hear dependency cases; (2) setting 3 -year minimum rotations in dependency courts; (3) implementing performance measures and using them to determine resource allocation to juvenile dependency court; (4) implementing the California Case Management System for dependency court; and (5) conducting a judicial juvenile court workload study and setting caseload standards for judges based on that study. • Local foster care commissions and partnering agencies will identify any additional programs in which foster youth and families should be given priority for services. • Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child -Abuse Prevention and Services Recommendation: That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child -abuse prevention and to eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child -abuse prevention and services. Action Steps: • The Judicial Council, California Department of Social Services, the Child Welfare Council, and other stakeholders are working with the executive branch and state legislative leadership to opt into appropriate provisions of the Fostering Connections to Success Act that increase the flexibility of federal funding. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders will continue to advocate for increased flexibility to use federal funds for preventive services. 17 • Expanding Educational Services Recommendation: That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. Action Steps: • Trial courts, local foster care commissions, local education agencies, and other stakeholders will collaborate to assess and eliminate local barriers to ensuring full educational opportunities for foster children. • The Judicial Council, together with other stakeholders, will advocate with state and federal leaders to strengthen the educational rights of foster children and secure resources for implementation of existing education laws to benefit all foster and former foster children. 18 Chapter 2: A New Focus on Prevention and Permanency When, after more than two years, the Blue Ribbon Commission completed its information -gathering and began drafting sweeping recommendations to reform the juvenile dependency and foster care systems in California, it faced gaping systemic holes in need of immediate attention. Some prime areas demanding action were embedded in the commission's first overarching recommendation: the need for reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency. First, commissioners knew that the courts and their child welfare partners were unified in a fundamental belief that all children deserve a safe, stable family in which to grow up and thrive. There is universal acknowledgment that interrupting a child's bond to a parent, even when necessary and temporary, is a destabilizing event. Yet the commission found that while child welfare agencies wanted to offer more services to at -risk families to prevent placement in foster care, funds to support preventive services had not been given priority at the local, state, or federal level. The historical use of federal child welfare funding for prevention or reunification services has been restricted to only about 10 percent. This put dependency court officials and child welfare professionals in the untenable position of not being able to provide key preventive support at the front end to vulnerable children and families. Second, commissioners learned that despite the best efforts of juvenile dependency judicial officers, when removal from the home was necessary, placement in a foster home did not necessarily improve the situation for children or their families. Foster children were experiencing multiple placements; changes in schools; and separation from their siblings, friends, and other family members. They found that 50 percent of the children were in foster care for two years or more and 17 percent for three years or more. Third, they found that African-American and American Indian children were disproportionately represented in the child welfare system. They were more likely than other children to be reported for abuse, more likely to be removed, and less likely to be reunified or adopted. 19 "Two key conditions have shaped the legislative climate in this 2009-10 legislative session: first, the many fiscal challenges; and second, passage of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. The federal legislation has resulted in some encouraging activity that we probably would not have seen without it." —Curt Child Director, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Governmental Affairs And finally, they discovered that as many as 5,000 youth in California "age out" of the system every year without reunifying with their own families or being placed in another permanent family. They knew from national research that those young people who transition out of the system at age 18 without a permanent home or adequate support are more likely to drop out of school, to have serious mental health needs, to experience homelessness and unemployment, and to end up in the criminal justice system. The commission showed its concern about these conditions by targeting them for early action. It focused on three recommendations to begin turning things around. First, increasing the number of relative placements; second, reducing the disproportionate representation of African-Americans and American Indian children in foster care; and, third, providing extended support for transitioning youth. The commission's action steps for each of the targeted recommendations can be found in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following is a point -in -time (as of June 30, 2010) implementation progress report for each of these recommendations. Implementation Progress Early boost from federal legislation An early boost for the possibility of progress on these recommendations came in the form of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act, which was signed into law in October 2008. Hailed as the most significant federal legislation for foster youth in more than a decade, the legislation is directly responsive to 20 of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations, which were shared with members of Congress prior to the new law's passage. The Fostering Connections to Success Act advances specific recommendations in the commission's initial prevention and permanency action plan by offering: • Increased supports for relative caregivers (kinship placements); • Improved outreach and communication with relatives who may be able to assist with care of foster youth; • More flexible use of federal funds to support child abuse prevention efforts; • Supports for foster youth until age 21, including housing and other transitional services; and • Requirements that siblings be placed together. 20 Some state legislation to implement these provisions has already been passed and chaptered in California, while other legislation is still pending. That legislation will be discussed below. Celebrating Reunification With support from the National Project to Improve Representation for Parents Involved in the Child Welfare System,' organizations from around the country planned National Reunification Day activities. The project promoted June 19, 2010 as the first National Reunification Day, with a goal of celebrating families and communities coming together, while raising awareness about the importance of family reunification to children in foster care. In California, Judge Michael Nash, Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court; the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS); and other child welfare partners planned a reunification celebration week for March 1-7, 2010, which included the following activities: • The Board of Supervisors recognized seven "reunification heroes" at a breakfast and reception celebrating their accomplishments. • Each of five DCFS offices hosted a celebration highlighting a program key to reunification (for example, one celebration highlighted the Parents in Partnership Program that provides peer parent mentors to parents new to the child welfare system). • A community mental health center and a church visitation center held open house receptions. In the future, each reunified family will receive a certificate to acknowledge their accomplishment. Judge Nash is an enthusiastic proponent of this new focus on reunification. "We need to place greater emphasis on reunification, perhaps through offering incentives, much like those provided for adoption," he stated. The Blue Ribbon Commission, at Judge Nash's urging, decided at their meeting in May 2010 to put renewed focus on reunifying families. See www.abanet.org/child/parentrepresentation or contact Mimi Laver at (202) 662-1736 or laverm@staff.abanet.org. The project is a collaboration between the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, Casey Family Programs, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Child Welfare Fund, and the Steering Committee for the National Parents' Counsel Organization. 21 Increasing the number of relative placements Too often children who have been removed from their homes find themselves shifted from placement to placement, separated from siblings, friends, and schools, in a kind of foster care limbo. Often they can be placed with relatives if the system knows who and where the relatives are. Significant activity, both statewide and locally, has been undertaken to promote and implement the recommendation to increase the number of relative placements through three strategies: engaging family members, advocating changes in law to address funding disparities and developing greater flexibility to approve relative placements; and making extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co -placement. Engaging family members Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 938 (Comm. on Judiciary; Stats. 2009, ch. 261) Relative caregivers and foster parents. Requires social workers and probation officers to immediately investigate the identities and location of all grandparents and other adult relatives of a child after the child is detained, and to notify the relatives that the child has been removed from his or her parents, and inform them of the means by which they might participate in the child's care. State Legislation—Pending • AB 12 (Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Implements federal foster care reform legislation to provide federally subsidized relative guardianships, and extend foster care jurisdiction to age 21. The bill would also expand the jurisdiction of the juvenile court by allowing it to adjudge a child placed voluntarily in an approved home of a relative a dependent of the court for not more than 180 days, if prescribed conditions are met. Judicial Council • As of April 2010, submitted for public comment proposal creating new rules and forms to implement the mandates and legislative intent of AB 938. 22 California Department of Social Services • Implemented the notice requirements of AB 938 that all counties must follow in notifying and engaging relatives; created a reader -friendly letter with FAQ for relatives to encourage them to get involved with the child in foster care. Child Welfare Council • Adopted a recommendation for a statewide commitment to increase the number of children in all 58 California counties who have achieved permanency through implementation of Family Finding and Engagement (FFE). California CASA • Working on family fmding initiatives with local collaborations in a number of counties. Casey Family Programs/Administrative Office of the Courts • Piloting a local commission project in Sacramento County to initiate an FFE program and to prioritize foster care at the community level. California Co -Investment Partnership • Supports, through its Integration Team, local family engagement efforts, including FFE and Team and Family Group Decision Making. Local Efforts A number of counties are engaged in local collaborative family finding initiatives, including the following: • Several counties have scheduled long-term family fmding trainings with Kevin Campbell, an internationally known youth permanency expert and founder of the Center for Family Finding and Youth Connectedness, and a number are developing family fmding protocols. • Some county probation departments are receiving title IV -E training that includes family fmding information on identifying a caring adult as a potential caregiver and choosing a permanent plan. • Local commissions in several counties are working with their local CASA organization on family fmding efforts. 23 California's foster care system has made remarkable advances in the last decade. Public Policy Institute Report on Foster Care in California Notes Remarkable Advances in Last Decade In March 2010, the Public Policy Institute of California released its report, Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges.' The report noted that California's foster care system "has made some remarkable advances in the last decade."2 Specifically it noted that the state has made great progress in moving children out of foster care. In fact, California has seen a 45 percent drop in share of children in the system, mainly by shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. That decline is "most pronounced among black children, who have long been overrepresented in the child welfare system." In 2009, 2.7 percent of African-American children were in foster care, compared to 5.4 percent in 2000—certainly still too high a percentage but encouraging. The report also noted that more children were remaining in their first out -of -home placement, rather than experiencing multiple placements, and more children are eventually being placed with relatives.3 The institute attributed these reductions, "which far outpaced those across the rest of the country," in part to a "more intense focus by local and state policymakers on the problems of foster care, which in turn led to innovations in child welfare policies and practices."4 Thus, the collaborative efforts of the courts and their child welfare partners through the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Child Welfare Council, philanthropic efforts, and the work of the local county foster care commissions are all paying off. But the report notes the significant challenges that remain: Payments to foster families and other out -of -home care providers have not kept up with inflation. Despite the reduction in the proportion of black children in the system, they are still substantially overrepresented. The number of children who enter foster care more than once during their childhoods has increased. And, despite significant reductions, the number of children who age out of the system into an uncertain future, often with little adult guidance, has actually risen since the beginning of the decade.5 What this all seems to indicate is that we are having some success at the backend of the foster care process—reducing the length of stay and the number of placement changes, but we still have much to do at the front end— preventing placements when possible and fmding permanent placements when removal cannot be avoided. Efforts must also continue toward reducing the length of time in care, particularly for specific populations, including African-American and American Indian children and children with complex needs. Available at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_510CDR.pdf 2Id. at 1. 3 Ibid. 4 Id. at 2. 5 Ibid. 24 Advocating changes in law to address funding disparities and develop greater flexibility to approve relative placements Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending • AB 12 (Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Opting into provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act that allow states to waive nonsafety-related licensing standards for relatives on a case-by-case basis. (The federal legislation also requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report to Congress on ways to further eliminate licensing barriers so that more children can be placed with relatives in foster care and become eligible for federal support.) CDSS/Casey Family Programs/Co-Investment Partnership • Participating in a joint initiative to create and lead the Federal Financing Reform and Waiver Extension Workgroup to advocate for more flexibility in the use of federal funding. Making extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co -placement Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending • AB 743 (Portantino) Foster care: sibling placement Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would require any order placing a dependent child in foster care and ordering reunification services to provide for visitation between the child and any sibling unless the court fords by clear and convincing evidence that the interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child. If siblings have not been placed together, the social worker would be required to explain why those efforts are contrary to the safety or well-being of any sibling. Would also require reasonable efforts to be made to provide for ongoing and frequent sibling interaction; would require placing agency to make a specified notification to the child's attorney and the child's sibling's attorney when a planned change of placement will result in the separation of siblings currently placed together. 25 There has been a 50 percent drop in African- American children in foster care in California in the last decade, but the share of African- American children in the foster care system in the state is still too high. Reducing the disproportionate representation of African- American and American Indians in foster care When the Blue Ribbon Commission began its work, African- American children represented more than 26 percent of the children in foster care, but only 6 percent of the state's child population. The proportion of American Indian children in the foster care system was more than three times their total population in California. Recognizing that this issue required early and determined action, the commission addressed the problem on multiple fronts, focusing on its recommendations to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system and to improve the diversity and cultural competence of professionals who serve foster children and their families. In its recent report on foster care in California (see box on page 24), the Public Policy Institute of California noted a 50 percent drop in African-American children in foster care over the last decade, attributing it in part to the collaborative efforts of local and state policymakers, including the Blue Ribbon Commission and the Child Welfare Council. However, despite active and enthusiastic efforts to reduce disproportionality, this issue will remain a significant challenge in this state for years to come. Budget limitations have severely hampered movement on improving the diversity and cultural competence of child welfare and court professionals; and even with a 50 percent drop in African-American children in foster care, the share of African-American children in foster care in California remains disproportionately high. Statewide Efforts California Co -Investment Partnership • The California Disproportionality Project/Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Disproportionality Initiative involving 13 local county child welfare agencies with the aim of sharing ideas, raising awareness and developing solutions to the problem of disproportionality and disparities for children and families of color in the child welfare system. A study found that a similar national project effectively mobilized child welfare agencies in improvement efforts to reduce the number of children of color in the foster care system. In addition, it helped agencies test and implement strategies to equalize how the system treats these children and their families. Sponsored by the Co -Investment Partnership, the project's principal funders include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, California 26 Department of Social Services, Casey Family Programs, and the Stuart Foundation. State Interagency Team Workgroup to Eliminate Disparities • Participating in the California Disproportionality Project is one of the Workgroup's strategies to decrease racial disproportionality and disparities in outcomes across systems; workgroup members have initiated "courageous conversations" about disproportionality in each of their departments. • Strengthening collaboration across state agencies is another strategy to address disproportionality. American Indian Enhancement Team With active participation from the AOC Tribal Projects Unit, the American Indian Enhancement Team, an effort of the California Disproportionality Project (CDP), provides technical assistance and support for five county teams focusing on improving outcomes for American Indian children and families and eliminating racial disproportionality and disparities in child welfare. The initial phase of the American Indian Enhancement effort will be completed September 30, 2010, and will have: • Provided technical assistance to counties to assist them with their plans for reducing disproportionality, focusing particularly in helping enhance working relationships among tribes, courts, and county child welfare services; • Provided technical assistance for the Bay Area Collaborative of American Indian Resources (BACAIR) to further collaborations among probation, social services, and Native agencies; and • Created tools to form an online accessible toolkit that will assist in addressing disproportionality within the dependency system. Local Efforts • Several counties participated in the Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Disproportionality. Providing extended support for transitioning youth With more than 10 percent of our youth in foster care "aging out" of the system every year without reunifying with their own families or being placed in other permanent families, this state faces an enormous problem. These young people are more likely to drop out of school, have serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal 27 "The extension of foster care services to age 21 needs to be combined with a stronger move to achieve permanence before age 18, not just moving the cliff to 21." —Hon. Michael Nash justice system. That is why the Blue Ribbon Commission targeted for early action its recommendation to support or sponsor legislation to extend foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. As noted at the beginning of this chapter, that recommendation got a tremendous boost when the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act was signed into law in October 2008. Federal Efforts Federal Legislation—Chaptered • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. No. 111-148) Allows the state to extend Medicaid health care to former foster youth through age 26. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending • AB 12 (Beall &Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Opting into provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act extending services for older youth. Helps youth who turn 18 in foster care without permanent families to remain in care to age 21 with continued state and federal support to improve their opportunities for success as they transition to adulthood. State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 719 (Lowenthal, Bonnie; Stats. 2009, ch. 371), Transitional food stamps for foster youth Advanced by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the legislation requires CDSS to propose a Transitional Food Stamps for Foster Youth demonstration project, effective July 1, 2010. The demonstration project would make independent foster care adolescents, who are not eligible for Ca1WORKs or SSI benefits, eligible for food stamps without regard to income or resources. 28 California Department of Social Services • Submitted, in May 2010, its official request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the demonstration Transitional Food Stamps for Foster Youth project provided for in AB 719. • Worked with the federal Social Security Administration (SSA) to seek a solution to helping disabled foster youth apply for disability (SSI) benefits before transitioning out of foster care at age 18 so that they would have some income after leaving the system. The proposal became law through AB 1331 (Evans) in October 2007, adding section 13757 to the Welfare and Institutions Code. As a result of the CDSS efforts, California became the first state in the nation to obtain federal approval of a new way to treat disabled foster youth in applying for SSI benefits. SSA rolled the process out nationwide in January 2010. 29 Chapter 3: A New Focus on Court Reform Because this was California's first statewide effort to look at the role of the courts in child welfare reform, commissioners were particularly interested in gauging the effectiveness of the courts and their child welfare partners in carrying out their legal responsibility for the safety and well-being of children in foster care—in effect, how they were "parenting" this state's most vulnerable children. What the commissioners found was an overstressed and underresourced dependency court characterized by staggering caseloads that often forced judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers to limit the time and attention they could give to each child. Even in those cases that were given a thorough review, statutory timelines were often not being met. Children and their families were suffering from an overburdened system unable to meet their needs. Children and families appeared at the courthouse and had to wait hours for hearings that often lasted only 10 to 15 minutes—far short of the recommended 30 to 60 minutes—giving them little time with the court or their attorneys. Parents and children consistently reported that they did not understand what happened in court. The commission set three court reform priorities for urgent action: first, reducing caseloads for judicial officers, attorneys, and social workers; second, ensuring a voice in court and meaningful hearings; and, third, providing adequate training for attorneys, social workers, and CASA volunteers. The commission's action steps for each priority can be found in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following is a report on implementation progress as of June 30, 2010. 30 Implementation Progress Current economic and budget challenges have severely hampered progress on court reform recommendations; nevertheless, commissioners have been pleased to see some significant movement in this area. Reducing caseloads One of the first serious conditions of which the Blue Ribbon Commission became aware during its three-year review was the staggering caseloads of attorneys and judicial officers in juvenile dependency court. Those caseloads sharply limited the time devoted to each case, so commissioners believed that lowering caseloads was a necessary first step towards implementing their recommendations for more meaningful hearings. Though budget cuts have affected the timing of progress on this recommendation, it has been encouragin$, to see a reduction in the numbers of children in foster care. As foster care caseloads decrease one challenge will be to effectively reinvest those savings into ensuring more meaningful hearings. There has not been a similar decline in court workload, in part because there has not been a significant drop in entries into the juvenile dependency system. Statewide Efforts Administrative Office of the Courts • Initiated collaboration between AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC) and Office of Court Research (OCR) to develop juvenile sections of the new AOC Trial Court Workload Study, which estimates both judicial and staffing needs for each of the major case types. The judicial needs study ran from early May to early June 2010 and the consultant is presently analyzing the results in preparation for a preliminary presentation for the working group meeting in late August. The staffmg study is tentatively scheduled to begin in October 2010; CFCC, OCR, and court operations staff are developing and refining the data collection instruments to ensure that all relevant staff tasks are captured in the study. 1 See information on PPIC report, page 24. 31 As foster care caseloads decrease one challenge will be to effectively reinvest those savings into ensuring more meaningful hearings. • Continued work of the DRAFT (Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding and Training) program that launched after the Court Appointed Counsel study, completed in June 2004, which identified performance and caseload standards for attorneys appointed to represent parents and children in juvenile dependency cases. The identification and implementation of court-appointed counsel caseload standards will help ensure quality attorney service for both children and parents subject to the state's dependency adjudication process. Ensuring a voice in court The Blue Ribbon Commission heard loudly and clearly—from focus groups, public forums and hearing, formal testimony at commission meetings, youth summits, and social worker symposia that participants in juvenile dependency proceedings have an earnest desire to be heard and understood by the judge and to offer their personal perspectives to the court on the issues that could have a profound impact on their future—they want to tell their side of the story. The work of ensuring a voice in court and meaningful participation in court hearings has seen much implementation activity over the past year, both at the statewide and local levels, despite challenging economic conditions. One reason is that many procedural changes can be implemented with few or no new resources. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Pending • AB 12 (Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Implements federal foster care reform legislation to expand the availability of federal training dollars, on a phased -in basis, to reach more of those caring for and working with children in the child welfare system, including relative guardians, staff of private child welfare agencies, court personnel, attorneys, guardian ad litems, and CASAs. • SB 962 (Liu) Prisoners: adjudication of parental rights: participation Status: As of 6/30/10, Assem. Appropriations Com. Would provide that an incarcerated parent who has either waived the right to be physically present at the proceeding or who has not been ordered by the court to be present at the proceeding may be given the opportunity, at the discretion of the court, to participate in the proceeding by videoconference 32 or teleconference, if that technology is available, as long as the parent's participation otherwise complies with the law. This bill would provide that a prisoner may lose job placement opportunities, be removed from a court-ordered course, or be denied earned privileges only if the prisoner's participation in the proceedings causes the prisoner to be absent from the custodial institution for more than 10 days. The bill would permit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish a pilot program to facilitate the participation of incarcerated parents in dependency court hearings, provided that the project is funded by private funds, as specified. Judicial Council • Amended rule 5.534(p) of the California Rules of Court to bring it into compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 349, which includes revised provisions regarding a child's presence at and participation in a juvenile court hearing if the child is the subject of that hearing. (Assem. Bill 3051 [Jones]; Stats. 2008, ch. 166.) Section 349(c) states that if the child is present at the hearing, the court must allow the child to address the court and participate in the hearing if the child desires to do so. Administrative Office of the Courts • Created Juvenile Delinquency Court Orientation video and posted it on the California Courts Self -Help Center (June 2010) to help youth, including youth in the foster care system, and their parents understand the delinquency court process. The video is also available on the California Dependency Online Guide website, and courts and justice partners may obtain copies of the DVD by mail. • Developing Juvenile Dependency Court Orientation video. Like the delinquency video, it will assist parents and children in understanding the purpose of the juvenile court and their role in the process. • Continuing support and provision of technical assistance to CASA programs with a goal of making CASA volunteers available for all foster children in the dependency system. 33 San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Garrett Gives Up Chambers for Children's Waiting Room When the San Luis Obispo County local foster care commission decided the court needed a children's waiting room where attorneys, judges, and CASA advocates could interview young children in a non -intimidating environment, it found a shortage of appropriate space in the court building. That is, until Judge Ginger Garrett offered up her personal chambers for the project. According to Judge Garrett, she "wanted to create a child -friendly space to reduce stress for children who come to court." The room has been painted in a calming underwater theme by a local muralist and filled with educational toys and books. The waiting room, the local commission's first project, opened in May 2009. The local commission chose to focus on two key Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations for its initial work: meaningful participation in court and exchanging data. Other projects to increase meaningful participation in court, in addition to the children's waiting room (which garnered front page coverage in the local paper), include an informational parent orientation DVD. Local Efforts Many of the local foster care commissions are working on projects to ensure a voice in court and more meaningful hearings. Some local commissions are developing orientation videos or packets for parents, while others are setting up voluntary parent mentors. Several counties have developed children's waiting rooms. Providing adequate training Making sure that parents and children can attend hearings is only the first step toward meaningful hearings. Often participants at dependency court hearings are mystified by the process—they commonly feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or rushed as they attempt to navigate the system, to understand their rights, and to participate in a meaningful way in court. This recommendation, too, has seen significant implementation efforts. Administrative Office of the Courts • Conducting ongoing training for judicial officers and court participants on creating courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, at local and regional sites. • Ran juvenile court administration broadcasts targeted at judicial officers on this issue in April 2010. • Expanded Juvenile Court Assistance Team (JCAT) trainings in many counties. • Offered many training opportunities at Beyond the Bench conference in June 2010. • Created the Tribal Projects Unit to assist the state judicial branch with the development of policies, positions, and programs to ensure the highest quality of justice and service for California's Native American communities, including curriculum development and training for state court judges and making available existing AOC training to tribal court judges and personnel. • Continued building of online training resources on the California Dependency Online Guide website. 34 Chapter 4: A New Focus on Collaboration The courts' partners in California's foster care system span a wide range of agencies and entities, including child welfare, education, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health, public health, Indian tribes, and tribal agencies. All share with the courts responsibility for the safety and well-being of the state's children and youth in foster care. Families are often involved with more than one agency at a time and might have cases in both dependency court and family court or dependency court and delinquency court. These state, local, and tribal governments and agencies have independent and often conflicting policies and regulations that inhibit communication and the sharing of critical data and information. The Blue Ribbon Commission learned that this problem sometimes leads to judges and attorneys lacking full information about a child's health, mental health, education, language, or citizenship, with the result that the state or tribal courts have to make decisions without a complete or accurate picture of the needs of the child and his or her family. Lack of information can also cause situations where court-ordered services meant to benefit families and children conflict with other court orders or mandated services from other agencies. Moreover, courts and child welfare agencies do not always know what services exist in the community and often the availability of essential services is limited. There also has been a historical lack of trust, coordination, and collaboration between Indian tribes or tribal courts and the state trial courts and other child welfare partners. That condition has been harmful to American Indian children and their families. A further complication is that courts have been unable to gather key data on their ability to meet statutory timelines for hearings and requirements regarding safety, permanency, and well-being. Uniform statewide data has been limited to the number of filings and dispositions. It was clear to the commission that the courts needed more advanced data systems and court performance measures to track children's progress, measure compliance with statutes, and identify sources of delay and other areas of needed reform. Recognizing these impediments helped the commission focus its action plan on collaboration between courts and their child welfare partners. The commission chose three recommendations for early 35 One of the most challenging impediments to reforming the juvenile dependency and foster care systems is the difficulty of exchanging data and information among courts and their partner agencies. implementation efforts: first, facilitating data and information exchange; second, establishing local foster care commissions; and, third, improving Indian child welfare. The proposed action steps for these three priorities can be found in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following represents implementation progress on those priorities as of June 30, 2010. Implementation Progress Facilitating data and information exchange The Blue Ribbon Commission recognized early in the process that one of the most challenging impediments to reforming the juvenile dependency and foster care systems was the difficulty of exchanging data and information among courts and their partner agencies. The difficulty results from a variety of factors, including confidentiality laws, and in many instances the way in which they are interpreted and implemented; automated case management systems that are unable to communicate with each other; and a lack of communication and collaboration among agencies and between agencies and the courts. This area, too, has seen some progress despite serious economic deterrents, but it will be years before the courts and their child welfare partners in social services, health, mental health, education, and other fields will be able to fully and effectively exchange critical data about the children in their care. Statewide Efforts Judicial Council • Continuing efforts to fmish developing and implement the California Case Management System (CCMS) and other data exchange protocols. Administrative Office of the Courts • Collaborating with California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and Center for Social Services Research (CSSR) at University of California, Berkeley: Pending completion of CCMS—while the courts continue to rely on the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) child welfare data—providing data reports with frequently requested statistics to meet the data needs of all local courts. • Collaborated with CDSS and CSSR to develop a data tool to provide courts with county -specific aggregate statistics on child welfare (using publicly available data from the CSSR archive) from their foster care and family maintenance 36 caseload. The tool will be accessible to courts along with training on its use. • Drafted briefs on the challenge and promise of confidentiality law and policy in the areas of education, health care, substance abuse, and mental health. • Hosted focus groups of county counsel from across the state to review the confidentiality briefs and to discuss issues of confidentiality and information sharing in dependency cases. The AOC is planning to conduct expanded focus groups including state and county agency staff regarding confidentiality and information sharing. The goal is to fmd effective strategies to increase collaboration among stakeholders, while still preserving and protecting the confidentiality that is so important for children in the foster care system. • Through its AOC Judge -in -Residence, Leonard Edwards, providing training across the state on Judicial Ethics in data exchange and information sharing—issues that often are a barrier for local efforts. California Department of Social Services • Conducting CWS/Web procurement, which will lead to implementation of a web services based technical architecture for CWS/CMS that meets county and state business requirements, including data management and reporting solutions consistent with federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) requirements. This system is meant to enhance the safety, well-being and permanent placement of at -risk children by improving the ability of CWS staff to provide services in an effective and efficient manner. Child Welfare Council • Created the Data Linkage and Information Sharing Committee, chaired by John Wagner, Director, California Department of Social Services, which recommended and has worked on making the CWS/Web statewide automated child welfare information systems (SACWIS) procurement as integrated with other child -serving systems as possible, building on the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation for CCMS. • Adopted data and information sharing recommendations in March 2010, including a policy statement on data sharing. (See recommendations: www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/Co mmitteeDraftRecommendations. aspx 37 "Leadership is more meaningful than money in forming these local collaborations." —Hon. Gary T. Ichikawa Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, Solano County Local Efforts Some counties have informal protocols or more formal memoranda of understanding to allow data sharing for the benefit of children in the foster care system. For example, in San Diego County, the Office of Education spearheaded the collaboration of nine agencies and the juvenile court to set up a system to share foster youth's education and health records. An interagency agreement permits participant agencies to access foster youth information on a web - based secure database, allowing judicial officers to access the children's education records from their desks. Collaborative partners in this endeavor include health and human services, child welfare services, the juvenile court, probation, CASA, the public defender, the alternate public defender, education, and the county school districts. Work in this area is still in the fledgling stages in most counties, but there does seem to be interest in tearing down administrative information sharing barriers to better serve children and families in the child welfare system, while still providing critical protection for the confidentiality rights of each child and family. Establishing local foster care commissions The Blue Ribbon Commission knows that change for children and families in the foster care system will take place only if changes occur at the county level and in the local juvenile courts. Establishing local multidisciplinary commissions to identify and address local systemic concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services thus was the commission's lynchpin recommendation. The Blue Ribbon Commission's vision of local commissions was that they would provide leadership on foster care issues in their communities and also serve as forums for addressing systemic barriers to improving the lives of foster children and for establishing communication protocols among individuals, agencies, and courts. The work in this area over the last year and a half has been both gratifying and deeply encouraging. Statewide Efforts Administrative Office of the Courts • Hosted the 2008 summit for local county teams, where teams from 50 counties began planning local collaborations or 38 expanding those already in existence and started to set foster care priorities based on local needs. • Hosted the 2010 summit for both local county juvenile and family court teams to continue foster care work plans initiated at the 2008 Summit and to collaborate on crossover child safety issues. • Providing ongoing technical assistance and training to local collaborations through assigned Juvenile Court Assistance Team liaisons assigned to each county. • Providing ongoing support through publication of the Foster Care Reform Update, an online bi-monthly briefing for statewide and local collaborations featuring news, resources, and other information with a foster care focus. • Launched a local commission website in June 2010 to provide support to local collaborations by providing them with an online location to share information with their members, as well as a means to collaborate and share information with local collaborations in other counties. The website is free and available to all local commission members. Child Welfare Council • Providing ongoing statewide support for improving the collaboration and processes of the multiple agencies and courts that serve children and youth in the child welfare and foster care systems and for prioritizing foster care in the allocation and administration of resources. Local Efforts As of the 2010 summit, close to 50 active local collaborations were working to implement the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations at the county level. Some have been working collaboratively for many years while others are new to county - level collaboration. All have plans for meeting locally on a regular basis and have made it a priority to focus on their community foster care needs as they work on implementing the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations. Improving Indian child welfare As discussed in the section on disproportionality, a significant disparity exists between the percentage of American Indian children in foster care compared to the percentage of American Indians in the general California population. There has also been an historical chasm in terms of resources, policies, trust, and communication between tribes or tribal courts and the state trial courts. And, in many parts of the state, there is distrust between 39 "California's juvenile court judges have taken the Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations to heart—they have truly taken the lead in improving outcomesfor California's abused and neglected children." —Hon. Leonard P. Edwards Retired Superior Court Judge, Santa Clara County; Member, California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care "We have much to learn from tribal traditions." —Hon. Juan Ulloa Presiding Juvenile Court Judge, Imperial County tribes and child welfare agencies and state trial courts—often because of a lack of understanding or mutual respect for each other's cultures and institutions. This distrust, together with a lack of resources and coordination, can cause suffering for American Indian children and their families. Passage of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act took a step in the right direction to help balance the resource equities: the act offered Indian tribes, for the first time, direct access to title IV - E funds that provide federal assistance through the federal foster care and adoption assistance programs; and the act required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance and implementation services to help tribes set up child welfare services that qualify for title IV -E funding. Those same Congressional initiatives advance the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations in this area. This support, together with a commitment by the Blue Ribbon Commission and other statewide and local partners to improve communication and collaboration between tribes or tribal courts and state trial courts, has resulted in significant activity toward making the commission's recommendations a reality. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 770 (Torres; Stats. 2009, ch. 124), Indian tribes: foster care and adoption programs Makes it the policy of the state to maximize the opportunities for Indian tribes to operate foster care programs for Indian children pursuant to the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. It requires the California Department of Social Services to negotiate in good faith with the Indian tribe, organization, or consortium in the state that requests development of an agreement with the state to administer all or part of the programs under specified provisions of federal law relating to foster care and adoption assistance, on behalf of the Indian children who are under the authority of the tribe, organization, or consortium. • AB 1325 (Cook & Beall; Stats. 2009, ch. 287), Tribal customary adoption Requires the juvenile court and social workers to consider and recommend tribal customary adoption, as defined, as an additional permanent placement option, without termination of parental rights, for a dependent child. It provides that a tribal 40 customary adoption order would have the same force and effect as an order of adoption, and requires the juvenile court and social workers to consider and recommend tribal customary adoption, as defined, as an additional permanent placement option, without termination of parental rights, for a dependent child. The bill provides that a tribal customary adoption order would have the same force and effect as an order of adoption. The bill revises existing federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and state law governing the placement of children who are or who may be Indian children, as specified. Judicial Council • Established, by order of Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the California Tribal Court/State Court Coalition, the first organization of its kind in the state, to work on areas of mutual concern, and appointed as co-chairs Justice Richard D. Huffman, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, and Judge Richard Blake, Chief Judge of the Hoopa, Smith River Rancheria, and Redding Rancheria Tribal Courts. Both Justice Huffman and Judge Blake are members of the Blue Ribbon Commission. The group is now called the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum. AOC Tribal Projects Unit • Provides intensive training and technical assistance throughout the state on all aspects of ICWA through the ongoing AOC ICWA Initiative (in partnership with CDSS); • Conducts community outreach to California's American Indian citizens who reside on reservations or rancherias and in urban communities to provide information about the judicial branch—the state courts and court -connected services; • Collaborates with tribes in California and California's American Indian communities, organizations, and service providers to gather information about the justice -related needs of California's American Indian citizens; • Provides education and technical assistance to state courts and court -connected services on Public Law 280, Indian law issues relating to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and indigenous justice systems; • Acts as a liaison between the state and tribal courts to build professional relationships and to improve access by tribal courts to education, technical assistance, and other resources; 41 • Serves on the American Indian Enhancement Team, providing support to five counties as they collaborate to improve outcomes for American Indian children and families; and • Maintains a clearinghouse of AOC and other resources to assist state courts in handling child welfare and other cases involving Native Americans (for example, a directory of Native American family resources in California; information on California tribal courts; and resources relating to compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in juvenile, family, and probate cases) and to support tribal justice development (a listing of tribal justice grants and making available educational and other resources available to state courts). Local Efforts At the county level, a number of local foster care commissions include tribal members and some are working collaboratively with the tribes or tribal courts to set up protocols on handling child welfare cases. 42 Chapter 5: A New Focus on Resources and Funding California's fmancial support for children and families in the child welfare system, like that of most states, is built on a patchwork of funding streams, each with its own rules and restrictions. In addition to state and county funding, child welfare dollars come from at least a half-dozen federal sources, some of which require matching funds from state, county, and local agencies. Courts, social service agencies, and other providers must struggle to determine the funding sources for crucial services, resulting in delayed services for children and families in crisis. Those delays are compounded when a child is moved to a new county or state. As noted by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care in 2004, when it issued nationally focused recommendations to improve outcomes for children in foster care, "Simply put, current federal funding mechanisms for child welfare encourage an over- reliance on foster care at the expense of other services to keep families safely together and to move children swiftly and safely from foster care to permanent families, whether their birth families or a new adoptive family or legal guardian." The Blue Ribbon Commission found that even when services were available, children and families in the child welfare system were not always given priority access to them. For example, it discovered that no resources or funding supports were available to help foster children access certain educational and transition -to - independence services that they were entitled to receive. This failure to prioritize foster children and their families in the delivery of crucial services deprives them of the comprehensive and concentrated services that are critical to family reunification and permanency. Faced with this demanding challenge, commissioners took steps to focus on prioritizing foster care and increasing the flexibility of funding in their early implementation efforts. Specifically, they chose the following recommendations for early action: first, prioritizing children and families in foster care; second, advocating for flexible funding for child abuse prevention and services; and, third, expanding educational services. The commission's proposed action steps for each of the targeted recommendations are listed in Chapter 1 (blue pages). The following documents progress on the targeted recommendations as of June 30, 2010. 43 Foster children and youth in this state must be able to count on the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partners in child welfare to care for them as thoughtfully as they would be cared for in any loving family. Implementation Progress Prioritizing foster care During its work of developing recommendations to reform this state's juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems, the Blue Ribbon Commission embraced as one of its most compelling values the need to give children and youth whose lives have been shaped by California's foster system a strong, powerful voice in reshaping the system and determining their futures. The commission believed, while setting its priorities, that foster children and youth in this state must be able to count on the courts, child welfare agencies, and other partners in child welfare to care for them as thoughtfully as they would be cared for in any loving family. The commission was cognizant of the fact that, when a child is removed from his or her home, the courts and their child welfare partners are the responsible "parents" for that child. Living up to that responsibility required early and concerted action. The commission looked to Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies, including agencies and organizations that provide health, mental health, education, substance abuse, domestic violence, housing, employment, and child care services, to prioritize the delivery and availability of services to children and families in the child welfare system. And it expected the Judicial Council to implement performance measures and use them to determine resource allocation to the juvenile dependency court. Federal Efforts Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) • Issued a 2010 Request for Proposals for Family Drug Court Grants: $500,000 per year for up to three years for new programs, and $350,000 per year for existing programs. Statewide Efforts Judicial Council • Adopted Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.505 (Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures), effective January 1, 2009, and approved a companion implementation guide. Administrative Office of the Courts • Analyzing pilot data from courts to test and refine the performance measures; disseminating preliminary data. • Collaborating with the Child Welfare Council and Casey Family Programs to develop data and procedures to facilitate 44 inter -departmental prioritization of child welfare children and their families. AOC Collaborative Courts Project • Collaborating with CDSS and Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs on a project with the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare to identify Dependency Drug Courts (DDCs) statewide as well as current and potential caseloads, funding, and outcomes. • Visited most DDCs in California and developed an instrument to capture data related to the project's focus. • Will be providing technical assistance and other follow-up activities to increase caseloads, document results, and identify funding. • Spearheading a project funded by the State Justice Institute focused on DDC outcome performance measures; creating a mechanism to track DDC outcomes statewide. • Beginning a project aimed at tracking mentally ill court users in dependency to determine effective practices. • Engaged in efforts to link drug and mental health courts with family court and child support proceedings to develop effective methods of supervision and compliance with court orders that address underlying problems of substance abuse or mental health. • Supporting efforts in the courts to establish family preservation courts that are similar to DDCs, but that focus on cases that are in family court or for which a dependency filing has not occurred. Local Efforts Many of the local commissions are working on prioritizing foster care in the allocation of resources, including in some instances development of dependency drug courts. Others are identifying services, determining gaps, and similar efforts. There is widespread determination among the local collaborations to find the resources necessary to give families in crisis a fighting chance. Advocating for flexible funding for child abuse prevention and services The Blue Ribbon Commission believed that bringing some sense to the patchwork of child welfare funding streams would require the Judicial Council to work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding and develop solutions. It wanted the Judicial Council to urge Congress to 45 "Ultimately, all children should enjoy the security and comfort of a safe, nurturing and permanent family. Now is the time for comprehensive federal finance reform that supports vulnerable children in achieving this goal." —Casey Family Programs Ensuring, Nurturing and Permanent Families for Children: The Need for Federal Finance Reform; May 2010 change any federal law that prevented federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. The commission knew that flexible funding should be used to address the needs of children and families in a timely manner that recognizes the child's developmental needs and relationship with his or her parents, guardian, and extended family. The commission supports key fmancial recommendations of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, which advocated for the flexibility to put funding into prevention at the front end and encouraged innovative funding strategies at the federal, state, and local levels of government. This area, too, received a boost from passage of the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 154 (Evans; Stats. 2009, ch. 222), Adoption assistance: federal law Conforms state statutes with federal Fostering Connections to Success Act provisions on adoption assistance and directs resulting savings from changes in eligibility for adoption assistance to specified services. • AB 665 (Torrico; Stats. 2009, ch. 250), State adoption services: investment Requires state to reinvest adoption incentive payments received through the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act into the child welfare system to provide legal permanency outcomes for older children, including, but not limited to, adoption, guardianship, and reunification of children whose reunification services were previously terminated. State Legislation—Pending • AB 12 (Beall & Bass) California Fostering Connections to Success Act Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would implement federal foster care reform legislation subsidizing guardianship payments to relatives who provide permanent homes for children when they cannot be returned home; and provide direct access to federal support for Indian tribes. 46 Judicial Council • Initiating coordination efforts with Casey Family Programs trustees on federal advocacy in this area. California Department of Social Services • Working with National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) on a proposal that would address several of the recommendations advocated by the Pew Commission in 2004. • Participating in title IV -E waiver project with Alameda and Los Angeles Counties since 2007. Child Welfare Collaborations • Identifying barriers to funding for services, developing solutions, and, as appropriate, urging Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services, including concerted efforts to expand and reauthorize title IV -E waivers. Participants include the Child Welfare Council, Judicial Council, Blue Ribbon Commission, Co -Investment Partnership, State Interagency Team, and others. Expanding educational services Because too many of our children who "age out" of foster care drop out of school, struggle with serious mental health needs, experience homelessness and unemployment, and end up in the criminal justice system, the Blue Ribbon Commission made it an early action priority to focus on access to education for California's foster children and youth. This area, too, benefited from the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act. Significant implementation activity occurred in this area over the last year. Federal Efforts • Federal Fostering Connections to Success Act (Passed 10/08): Educational stability. Helps children and youth in foster care, guardianship and adoption achieve their educational goals by requiring that states ensure that they attend school and, when placed in foster care, they remain in their same school where appropriate, or, when a move is necessary, get help transferring promptly to a new school; also provides increased federal support to assist with school -related transportation costs. 47 "It is important to provide youth with the right tools when they transition out of foster care ... by improving their access to education and providing them with resources to be successful as independent adults." —Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger Govemor of California • Federal Fostering Success in Education (S 2801-Franken)- Pending Further defines the responsibilities of education agencies to support the educational achievement of children in foster care. Statewide Efforts State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 81 (Strickland, Audra; Stats. 2009, ch. 76), Interscholastic athletics: pupils in foster care Requires that a foster child who changes residences pursuant to a court order or decision of a child welfare worker be immediately deemed to meet all residency requirements for participation in interscholastic sports or other extracurricular activities. • AB 167 (Adams; Stats. 2009, ch. 223), High school graduation: local requirements: foster children Requires a school district to exempt a pupil in foster care from coursework adopted by the local governing board of the district that is in addition to statewide coursework requirements if the pupil, while he or she is in 11th or 12th grade, transfers from another school district or between high schools within the district, unless the district makes a fmding that the pupil is reasonably able to complete the additional requirements in time to graduate from high school while he or she remains eligible for foster care benefits. • AB 1393 (Skinner; Stats. 2009, ch. 391), Foster youth Requests or requires community college, state university, and University of California campuses to give priority for housing to current and former foster youth. The bill also requests or requires campuses that maintain student housing facilities open for occupation during school breaks, or on a year-round basis, to give first priority to current and former foster youth for residence in the housing facilities that are open for uninterrupted year-round occupation, and for housing that is open for occupation during the most days in the calendar year. • Attempt to expand Foster Youth Services to youth in kinship and guardianship placements (AB 1259) failed because of budget constraints. 48 Foster Youth Education Task Force • Working with 57 counties' Foster Youth Services and numerous other organizations focused on local and statewide practice and policy improvements that support improved educational outcomes, increased collaboration, and accountability. California Department of Education, Foster Youth Services (FYS) • Expanded to 57 County Offices of Education serving more than 40,000 students. Child Welfare Council • Supporting the education of foster youth through its Child Development and Successful Youth Transitions committee, which is developing a strategy to provide technical assistance to school districts in awarding partial credits. California Department of Education • In process of developing a "categorical program monitoring (CPM)" tool to ensure successful educational outcomes for California's foster youth, but project has been slightly delayed because of current budget constraints. California State University System • On March 16, 2010, the CSU Board of Trustees unanimously supported the Title 5 revision in the Education Code granting housing priority to current and former foster youth during the academic year, as well as during critical transitional periods such as school breaks; and establishing reasonable systems for determining priority housing when implementing the Assembly Bill 1393 (Skinner). California College Pathways • Working to increase the number of foster youth in California who pursue higher education and help them achieve a positive academic outcome by expanding access to campus support programs, such as the Guardian Scholars Program, the Renaissance Scholars Program and other successful approaches to supporting former foster youth on campus. California College Pathways is a partnership of the California State University Office of the Chancellor, the California Community College System Office and the John Burton Foundation. It is funded by the Stuart Foundation and the Walter S. Johnson Foundation. 49 Campus Support Programs and Services for Foster Youth • Providing support services (e.g., financial assistance, housing, academic advising) for former foster youth on 21 CSU, 9 UC, and 110 community college campuses. Programs supporting foster youth in higher education are called by various names including Foster Youth Success Initiative (FYSI), Guardian Scholars, Renaissance Scholars, CME (Connect Motivate and Educate) Society, Resilient Scholars, Court Scholars, ACE Scholars Services and EOP/EOPS (Extended Opportunity Programs and Services). • Currently 51 comprehensive support programs at UC, CSU and community colleges are serving students from foster care. Local Efforts Foster Youth Services Programs Representatives from FYS programs have become key members of local foster care commissions in a number of counties that have a strong focus on education. These local collaborations have created an elevated level of awareness about the Pre -K— higher education pipeline. 50 Foster Youth to College Days Aging Out of Foster Care ...Into College Almost nine years ago, AOC Judge -in Residence, Leonard Edwards (retired Presiding Juvenile Court Judge from Santa Clara County), organized a luncheon for foster youth in Santa Clara County who were about to age out of the child welfare system. Funded by Philanthropic Ventures Foundation and supported by court personnel, attorneys, child advocates, and social workers, the luncheon featured foster youth who were in college and people who could inform them about educational opportunities. The luncheon was a success and has been held every year since then. Five years ago San Jose State University agreed to host the luncheon on its campus, then embraced the idea of helping foster youth move to higher education. The university created CME (Connect/Motivate/Educate), a program to support foster youth interested in college. Bringing together all segments of the university, San Jose State has been able to help foster youth apply for admission, find on -campus housing, assist with financial aid, and even provide mentors. The luncheon continues, now with Judge Katherine Lucero leading the juvenile court efforts to ensure better outcomes for our foster youth. Ideas for expansion are being considered so that community and junior colleges can be a part of the program. That was only a beginning. Judges around the state have taken the initiative to improve outcomes for foster youth aging out of the child welfare system. In Siskiyou County, Judge Bill Davis has held two Foster Youth to College Days and a third is scheduled for this fall. Judge Joyce Hinrichs held a Foster Youth Higher Education event in 2008 and recently held a second event on June 29, 2009, with the presidents of Humboldt State and College of the Redwoods both present. Commissioner Charlotte Wittig brought the community together in Tulare County and held Access to Higher Education days each of the last two years, with another planned for this fall featuring Dr. David Arredondo as a speaker. Judge Jane Cardoza visited the Tulare County event two years ago and then went back to her home in Fresno and brought the community together to create an Access to Higher Education event for foster youth in Fresno County. This year's event attracted more than 200 foster youth. Judge Tamara Mosbarger convened her community and Butte Community College to hold a foster youth to college day in Butte County last year and this October there were more than 200 foster youth in attendance. Judge Marsha Slough convened her community in San Bernardino for a College Fair in August. Representatives from the University of Redlands, UCLA, UC Merced, UC Riverside, San Bernardino Chaffey College, Cal Poly, and local colleges attended, as did more than 60 foster youth. The Orange County local blue ribbon commission, with Judge Carolyn Kirkwood at the helm, sponsored a College Fair for Foster Youth at the end of September at Orange Coast College. It attracted 111 youth, 61 caregivers, and over 90 volunteers. These events demonstrate that communities and institutions of higher learning are ready to work with the juvenile court to improve educational outcomes for foster youth. Juvenile court judges have shown once again that they can convene their communities on behalf of our most vulnerable young people. 51 Chapter 6: Other Efforts Advancing Recommendations In addition to the recommendations targeted by the Blue Ribbon Commission for early action, progress occurred on the implementation of other recommendations. The following efforts are notable: Statewide Efforts Advancing Prevention and Permanency State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 295 (Ammiano; Stats. 2009, ch. 427), Children: adoption services Extending to June 30, 2010, a four -county pilot project providing funding for preadoption and postadoption services to ensure successful adoption of a targeted population, children who have been in foster care for 18 months or more. • SB 597 (Liu; Stats. 2009, ch. 339), Child welfare services, foster care services, and adoption assistance Includes provisions for licensed foster family agencies; requires court, when considering termination of parental rights, to consider barriers to a parent's ability to remain in contact with the child as a result of the parent's incarceration or institutionalization; requires CDSS to develop a plan for the ongoing oversight and coordination of health care for a child in foster care; requires additional information in a transitioning foster child's case plan that will help the child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living. State Legislation—Pending • AB 1758 (Ammiano), County wraparound services program Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would remove the designation of this program as a pilot project and make conforming changes. Under existing law, the State Department of Social Services administers a pilot project that authorizes a county to develop and implement a plan for providing wraparound services designed to enable children who would otherwise be placed in a group home setting to remain in the least restrictive, most family -like setting possible. 52 The pilot project also imposes specified evaluation and reporting requirements for participating counties and training requirements for their staff. • AB 2342 (Evans), Foster youth: outreach programs Status: As of 6/30/10, Sen. Appropriations Com. Would require CDSS to develop a resource guide for foster youth that outlines available statewide programs and services and their eligibility standards, including, but not limited to, programs and services associated with education, housing, mental health services, independent living programs, and career and job opportunities. The bill would require the department to make the resource guide available on its website as well as in a printed format. • SB 654 (Leno) Independent Living Program Status: As of 6/30/10, Assem. Appropriations Com. Would require services available under the Independent Living Program to be provided to former dependent children of the juvenile court meeting prescribed requirements. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to develop statewide standards for the Independent Living Program for emancipated foster youth established and funded pursuant to federal law, to assist these individuals in making the transition to self-sufficiency. Under existing law, a child in receipt of Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin - GAP) Program benefits is also entitled to request and receive these independent living services. • SB 945 (Liu), Juvenile court jurisdiction: services and benefits Status: As of 6/30/10, scheduled for Assem. 3d reading Would require a probation officer or parole officer, whenever the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a ward or upon release of a ward from a facility that is not a foster care facility, to provide to the ward a written notice stating that he or she is a former foster child and may be eligible for the services and benefits that are available to former foster children through public and private programs, as well as information on federal and state programs that provide independent living services and benefits to former foster children for which the ward is or may be eligible. 53 California Independent Living Program Transformation Breakthrough Series Collaborative • Initiated by participation in National Governor's Association Policy Academy on Youth Transitioning Out of Foster Care in conjunction with CDSS and Casey Family Programs. • Broadly represents, with nine county teams, state leadership, partners, and advocacy organizations. • Changing practice to improve outcomes in permanency, education, and employment. Statewide Efforts Advancing Court Reform State Legislation—Chaptered • AB 131 (Evans; Stats. 2009, ch. 413), Juvenile proceedings: costs Would provide that parents or other persons liable for the support of a minor in the dependency court shall also be liable for the cost to the county or the court for the cost of legal services rendered to the minor and provides a mechanism for collection and deposit. This could lead to a reduction of caseloads by increasing the funds available for appointed counsel in dependency cases. Judicial Council • Amended, in October 2009, California Rules of Court, rule 8.416 to allow trial and appellate courts to agree to follow expedited procedures for appeals in juvenile dependency cases that are now followed in the Superior Courts of Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties was passed by the council in October 2009. The new forms took effect on July 1, 2010. • Allocated special funds in 2009 to maintain court-appointed counsel budget at fiscal year 2008-2009 levels. • Engaged in collaborative advocacy in Sacramento on child welfare and judicial branch budgets. • Adopted, in June 2010, a competitive solicitation policy applicable to Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) program courts; directed staff to work with the Trial Court Budget Working Group, the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee, and the Court Executives Advisory Committee to develop recommendations regarding whether such a policy should be adopted for non - DRAFT courts. Implementation of a standardized and universal competitive solicitation policy will enable funding of the court- appointed counsel program to be maximized and will provide 54 transparency and objectivity to a process that currently has the potential to be viewed as arbitrary. Administrative Office of the Courts • Completed, in May 2010, a statewide survey of dependency attorneys that assesses and prioritizes the non -dependency legal needs of parents and children in California's child welfare system. • Providing training and technical assistance to 28 courts with current or developing mediation programs. • Providing training and technical assistance to most counties on developing nonadversarial child welfare -based practices such as family group conferencing, team decision-making, and family team meetings. Statewide Efforts Advancing Collaboration Judicial Council and Partner Stakeholders • Data -sharing Memoranda of Understanding between CDSS and sister agencies. • Continuing significant collaborative work on interoperable systems. Statewide Efforts Advancing Resources and Funding California Department of Social Services • Will release regulations regarding caregiver decisions under the "reasonable and prudent parent" standard. 55 Conclusion: Reaching for a Brighter Future When the commission began its work almost five years ago, it made a promise to the children and families in California's foster care system. Inspired by the hundreds of people—foster youth, parents, caregivers, social workers, judges, attorneys, CASAs, and others—who shared their stories and their suggestions for improvement, it pledged to develop fiscally responsible, realistically achievable recommendations to improve outcomes related to safety, permanency, well-being, and fairness in this state's overstressed juvenile dependency and child welfare systems. After an unprecedented three-year collaborative effort, it did just that. Its recommendations offer a coordinated plan for reform that ties together state and federal foster care initiatives with local commissions to implement them. Its action plan offers a blueprint for collaborative success that, when fully implemented, promises to help ensure every child a safe, secure, and permanent home by: • Keeping children and families together whenever it is safe and possible to do so; • Changing the way juvenile dependency courts do business; • Increasing collaboration among the courts and their child welfare partners; and • Finding the resources to get the job done. And, after more than a year of implementation activity, much has been accomplished at the federal, state, and local levels that significantly advances the commission's recommendations to reform the juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems in California—accomplishments that have occurred despite severe budgetary and economic challenges. Commissioners believe that this progress demonstrates the transformative power of collaboration. The commission met in May 2010 to evaluate its progress in implementing the recommendations and to plan its priorities for the coming year. After reviewing the work of the last year and a half, the commissioners affirmed their commitment to seeing their initial action plan through until it is fully implemented. They pledged, in particular, to focus on, as a high priority, recommendations relating to prevention and permanency with a greater emphasis on reunification. The commissioners decided to 56 add to their 79 existing recommendations a new recommendation encouraging reunification, to include incentives for reunification and post -permanency services. When the Blue Ribbon Commission's term expires in two years, California has in place the Child Welfare Council, a permanent collaborative infrastructure created legislatively that is already engaged in and will carry on this important work. The Blue Ribbon Commission's chair, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, co-chairs the Child Welfare Council with Kimberly Belshe, Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. This advisory body is responsible for improving the collaboration and processes of the multiple agencies and courts that serve children and youth in the child welfare and foster care systems. It includes all three branches of California's government and demonstrates this state's commitment to collaboration at the highest levels. Recently, California Chief Justice Ronald M. George announced that he would retire at the end of his term after 19 years on the California Supreme Court, 14 as Chief Justice. His legacy as an advocate on behalf of this state's most vulnerable children and families is notable. During his tenure, he established the Center for Families, Children & the Courts as a division of the Administrative Office of the Courts—California was a pioneer in having a division dedicated to improving access to justice for children and families. He has always spoken eloquently of the importance of the work of the juvenile and family law courts. And when he realized the desperate needs of this state's juvenile dependency court and child welfare systems, he established the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. California has the largest court system in the nation, and the Blue Ribbon Commission is the first statewide body to focus on the court's role in child welfare. The work of the commission will make a difference across the country far beyond its lifetime. The Chief Justice put this work in perspective when he addressed the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in Monterey in 2001: Our children and our families are our future. How we treat them says much about us as a society—and will determine what our society will look like in the future. It is safe to say that no family truly wishes to fmd itself before the courts—after all, marital dissolution, child custody, child neglect, delinquency, and criminal conduct typically are the 57 "Our children and our families are our future. How we treat them says much about us as a society and will determine what our society will look like in the future." —Hon. Ronald M. George Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California; Chair of the Judicial Council reasons that bring them there. What we do for these families in trouble—how we treat them and the resources we can bring to bear to assist them can have profound consequences not only for each affected individual, but also for our society as a whole. The implementation work of the Blue Ribbon Commission will continue over the next two years, and the commission will provide annual progress reports. During those two years, commissioners will be actively engaged in fulfilling their promise to this state's most vulnerable children and their families—the promise of a brighter future and a real chance for success. 58 APPENDICES About the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Background on the Blue Ribbon Commission The Blue Ribbon Commission is a multidisciplinary, statewide body providing leadership on issues that face foster children and their families and the courts and agencies that serve them. It includes judges, legislators, child welfare administrators, former foster youth, caregivers, philanthropists, tribal leaders, advocates for children and parents, and more. A roster of commission members is included at the front of this report. The establishment of the commission builds on other Judicial Council efforts to improve California's juvenile courts and is consistent with the goals and objectives recently adopted by the Judicial Council. These efforts include a number of programs that are designed to improve the operations of the juvenile dependency courts, including 1) expansion of the Court Improvement Project to increase the number of training programs and to enhance development of data exchanges to improve communication between the courts and child welfare agencies; 2) expansion of the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance (JRTA) program to include specific projects related to improving compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and increasing the number of permanent placements for children in foster care; and 3) establishment of the Dependency Representation, Administration, Funding, and Training (DRAFT) program relating to attorney representation of parents and children in juvenile dependency court. There was national impetus behind the commission's formation as well, including the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, which was established in 2003. The Pew Commission was charged with developing nationally focused recommendations to improve outcomes for children in foster care. Former U.S. Representatives Bill Frenzel and William H. Gray III served as chair and vice -chair respectively. William C. Vickrey, California's Administrative Director of the Courts, was one of 18 members representing a broad cross-section of organizations involved in foster care issues. In 2004, the Pew Commission issued its recommendations, which focused on federal child welfare funding mechanisms and improving court oversight of child welfare cases. The recommendations called for the courts and public agencies to collaborate more effectively by establishing multidisciplinary, broad-based state commissions on children in foster care. That recommendation, together with the reality of seriously overstressed and underresourced dependency courts and a child welfare system in crisis, led the Chief Justice of California to establish the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. 61 Blue Ribbon Commission's mandate The commission's charge was to develop recommendations focused on four areas: • How courts and their partners could improve the child welfare system, including an implementation plan; • Improved court performance and accountability in achieving safety, permanency, wellbeing, and fairness for all children and families in the child welfare system; • Improved collaboration and communication among courts and child welfare agencies and others, including the development of permanent local county commissions that support ongoing efforts; and • Greater public awareness of the court's role in the foster -care system and the need for adequate and flexible funding. The Commission's process of developing its recommendations The Blue Ribbon Commission deliberated over the course of two years, holding public meetings, hearings, focus groups and other activities. Members attended site visits to see programs and courtrooms firsthand. The commission heard from a variety of juvenile court and child welfare experts and from social workers, families, children, and youth who have been in the child welfare system. Their experiences and their suggestions for reform proved invaluable as the commission developed its recommendations and action plan. The commission also drew from significant research provided by the County Welfare Directors Association of California; the Center for Social Services Research at the University of California at Berkeley; Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago; Child Trends; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; and the Urban Institute. After nearly two years of information gathering, the commission developed draft recommendations for public comment in March 2008. It held public hearings on the proposed recommendations in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In response to the public comment and testimony, the commission reviewed and revised the recommendations at a June 2008 commission meeting. 62 The commission's final recommendations fall under four broad categories: 1. Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency; 2. Court reform; 3. Collaboration among courts and partnering agencies; and 4. Resources and funding. The full set of recommendations can be found in the appendix to this report. They include the four overall recommendations and 79 specific recommendations. Of the specific recommendations, 26 of them are within the purview of the Judicial Council and can be accomplished within the judicial branch of government. The remaining recommendations require collaboration with child welfare and other agency partners. Highlights of the Commission's Recommendations Reasonable efforts to prevent removal and achieve permanency • Increasing the Number of Placements With Relatives (Kinship) That child welfare agencies engage family members as early as possible in each case, and the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to develop greater flexibility in approving placements with relatives when necessary. • Reducing the Disproportionate Representation of African-American and American Indians in the Child Welfare System That the courts and child welfare agencies reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children who are in the child welfare system. • Providing Extended Support for Transitioning Youth That the Judicial Council urge the California Legislature to extend the age for children to receive foster -care assistance from 18 to 21. Court reform • Reducing the Caseloads of Judicial Officers, Attorneys, and Social Workers That the Judicial Council work to reduce the high caseloads of judicial officers and attorneys, and work with state and county child welfare agencies to reduce the caseloads of social workers. • Ensuring a Voice in Court and Meaningful Hearings That the courts ensure that all participants in dependency proceedings, including children and parents, have an opportunity to be present and heard in court. Court -Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs should be expanded to make CASA volunteers available in every case. 63 • Ensuring That All Attorneys, Social Workers, and Court -Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Are Adequately Trained and Resourced That the Judicial Council advocate for sufficient resources to implement caseload standards, and the Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training and opportunities. Collaboration among courts and child welfare partners • Facilitating Data and Information Exchange That the Judicial Council support the courts and all partners in the child welfare system in eliminating barriers to the exchange of essential information and data about the children and families they serve. The Judicial Council should implement court performance measures to improve foster -care outcomes as mandated by state law. • Establishing Local Foster Care Commissions That the courts and child welfare agencies jointly convene multidisciplinary commissions at the county level to identify and resolve local child -welfare concerns and to help implement the commission's recommendations and related reforms. • Improving Indian Child Welfare That the courts, child welfare agencies and other partner agencies collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that Indian children and families receive the services for which they are eligible. Resources and funding • Prioritizing Foster Care That all agencies and the courts make children in foster care and their families a top priority when providing services and when allocating and administering public and private resources. • Advocating for Flexible Funding for Child -Abuse Prevention and Services That the Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to allow greater flexibility in the use of funds for child -abuse prevention and eliminate barriers to coordinating funds for child abuse prevention and services. • Expanding Educational Services That all agencies and the courts make access to education and all of its related services a top priority when working with foster children and youth. 64 California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations to the Judicial Council Recommendation 1 Reasonable Efforts to Prevent Removal and Achieve Permanency Because families who need assistance should receive necessary services to keep children safely at home whenever possible, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council, the California Department of Social Services, and local courts and child welfare agencies implement improvements to ensure immediate, continuous, and appropriate services and timely, thorough review for all families in the system. Children and families need access to a range of services to prevent removal whenever possible. All reasonable efforts should be made to maintain children at home in safe and stable families. The courts should make an informed fmding as to whether these efforts actually have been made. 1B The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The courts and partnering agencies tailor resources to make sure they have sufficient information and time to establish that all reasonable efforts have been made to prevent removal. • All children and families receive timely and appropriate mental health, health care, education, substance abuse, and other services, whether children reside with their own parents or with relatives, foster parents, guardians, or adoptive parents or are in another setting. • At the earliest possible point in their involvement with the family, child welfare agencies engage family members, including extended family wherever they may live, to support the family and children in order to prevent placement whenever possible. Child welfare systems should develop and improve internal protocols for finding family members. • The courts and partnering agencies work to reduce the disproportionate number of African-American and American Indian children in the child welfare system. • Judicial officers, attorneys, social workers, and other professionals who serve foster children and their families increase the diversity and cultural competence of the workforce. • The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to advocate for greater flexibility in the use of federal, state, and local funding for preventive services. If foster care placement is necessary, children, families, and caregivers should have access to appropriate services and timely court reviews that lead to permanency as quickly as possible. Service delivery and court review should ensure that all reasonable efforts are made to return children home, to make sure families and workers comply with case plans, and to achieve timely and stable transitions home or, if necessary, to place with relatives or in another permanent, stable family. 65 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council work with state and federal leaders to advocate changes in law and practice to increase and encourage more relative placements, including: o Addressing funding disparities; o Developing greater flexibility in approving relative placements whereby relatives would not, by virtue of federal law, be held to the same standard as nonrelatives; and o Formulating protocols to facilitate swift home assessments and placement with family members when appropriate. • The courts and child welfare agencies expedite services for families and ensure that foster children maintain a relationship with all family members and other important people in their lives. • The courts ensure that children who cannot return home receive services and court reviews to enable them to successfully transition into a permanent home and into adulthood. This includes paying attention to each child's language, development, and cultural needs in making decisions about home and school placements, visitation, education, and mental health needs. It also means making sure they have consistent community ties and help from supportive adults, such as mentors, as they grow up. • All court participants continuously review and make extraordinary efforts to preserve and promote sibling connections and co -placement. • Children and families receive continuous and comprehensive services if a child enters the delinquency system from foster care. • The Judicial Council and the state Department of Social Services work together to urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies to ensure that THP - Plus programs for transitional housing sustain a level of funding sufficient to maintain and expand program capacity to meet the demonstrated need of youth aging out of the foster care system. • The Judicial Council work with federal and state leaders to support or sponsor legislation to extend the age when children receive foster care assistance from age 18 to age 21. This change should apply to those children who at age 18 cannot be returned home safely, who are not in a permanent home, and who choose to remain under the jurisdiction of the court. If the court terminates jurisdiction before a youth's 21st birthday, the youth should have the right to reinstatement of jurisdiction and services. • The Judicial Council work with local, state, and federal leaders to develop practices, protocols, and enhanced services to promote both placement and placement stability of children and youth in family -like, rather than institutional, settings. 66 Recommendation 2 Court Reforms Because the courts are responsible for ensuring that a child's rights to safety, permanency, and well-being are met in a timely and comprehensive manner and that all parties are treated fairly in the process, the Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the Judicial Council and the trial and appellate courts make children in foster care and their families a priority when making decisions about the allocation of resources and administrative support. The trial and appellate courts must have sufficient resources to meet their obligations to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Consistent with Judicial Council policy, judges—not subordinate judicial officers— hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate judicial officers to juvenile court. • The Judicial Council work with bar organizations, the Governor's office, and state and local leadership to ensure that juvenile law experience is given favorable consideration during the judicial appointment and assignment process and well- qualified subordinate judicial officers and attorneys with juvenile law experience are encouraged to apply for vacant judicial positions. • Presiding judges follow standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration and assign judges to juvenile court for a minimum of three years and give priority to judges who are actively interested in juvenile law as an assignment. • The Judicial Council undertake a new judicial caseload study focused specifically on juvenile dependency courts. The study should take into account the court's unique oversight and case management responsibilities and address the use of case managers to support judges in meeting their workloads. • Pending completion of the study, presiding judges evaluate their current allocation of judgeships and resources and make adjustments as necessary. If reallocation of existing resources is not sufficient, the Judicial Council should seek additional funding to ensure full implementation of the standards and statutory requirements. • The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) help courts comply with the judicial standard outlining the knowledge, commitment, and leadership role required of judicial officers who make decisions about children in foster care (see standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration). Presiding judges of the superior courts should receive training in the role and duties of juvenile court judicial officers as outlined in the standard. All participants in dependency hearings and subsequent appeals, including children and families, should have an opportunity to be heard and meaningfully participate in court. 67 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Judicial officers identify and engage all parties in each case as early as possible. A particular emphasis should be placed on finding fathers and identifying Indian tribes where applicable. • Judicial officers and other stakeholders remove barriers that prevent children, parents, and caretakers from attending hearings. This includes addressing transportation and scheduling difficulties, as well as exploring telephonic appearances and other technological options. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders develop and implement laws and policies to promote relative finding, funding, assessment, placement, and connections. • The Judicial Council provide an expedited process for all juvenile dependency appeals by extending the application of rule 8.416 of the California Rules of Court to all dependency appeals. • The Judicial Council require the appointment of independent counsel for all children in juvenile dependency appeals. Judicial officers should ensure that local court practices facilitate and promote the attendance of children, parents, and caregivers at hearings. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Hearings be available at times that do not conflict with school or work or other requirements of a family's case plan. • To the extent feasible, hearings be set for a specific date and time. Delays should be minimized, and hearings should be conducted on consecutive days until completed. • A concurrent criminal proceeding should not mean delay of a dependency case. • All parties, including children, parents, and social workers, have the opportunity to review reports and meet with their attorneys before the initial hearing and in advance of all subsequent hearings. • Hearings be timely and meet all federal and state mandated timelines. Continuances should be minimized, and the reasons for systemic continuances should be addressed by the local court and child welfare agency. • All participants leave court hearings with a clear understanding of what happened, why decisions were made, and, if appropriate, what actions they need to take. • The AOC provide judicial officers and court participants with education and support to create courtroom environments that promote communication with, and meaningful participation of, all parties, including children, that takes into account age, development, language, and cultural issues. • The same judicial officer hear a case from beginning to end, when possible. • Courts explore telephonic appearance policies and new technology options to ensure participation in juvenile court hearings. The court's ability to make fair, timely, and informed decisions requires attorneys, social 2D workers, and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who are well qualified and have the time and resources to present accurate and timely information to the courts. 68 The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council advocate for the resources, including a stable funding source, necessary to implement the council's recently adopted attorney caseload standards, to implement caseload standards for social workers, and to develop and implement caseload standards for social services agency attorneys. • The Judicial Council take active steps to promote the advancement of juvenile law as a sought-after career. Accomplishing this recommendation requires: o Fair and reasonable compensation for court-appointed attorneys; o Adoption and implementation of a methodology for determining attorney effectiveness; o Forgiveness of student loans for attorneys who commit a substantial portion of their careers to juvenile law; o That public and nonprofit law offices hire and retain attorneys based on their interest in the field and encourage them to build careers in juvenile law; and o Collaboration with State Bar of California leaders to include juvenile dependency law as a mandatory area of study for the California Bar exam and create a State Bar juvenile law section. • The Administrative Office of the Courts expand multidisciplinary training opportunities for court professionals and other participants, including caregivers, educational representatives, CASA volunteers, and tribal leaders. Training should include conferences as well as distance learning opportunities. • The Judicial Council continue to support the development and expansion of CASA programs and to help make available CASA volunteers for all foster children in the dependency system. State funding for CASA programs should be expanded to allow for appointments in all cases. • Local or regional legal advocacy resource centers be established to ensure that the nondependency legal needs of dependent children and their parents are appropriately addressed. This includes education, immigration, tribal enrollment or other requirements to receive the benefits of tribal membership, tort issues, and other issues. All courts should have nonadversarial programs available as early as possible and whenever necessary for children and families to use to resolve legal and social issues when appropriate. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution be available in all courts at any time in the proceedings. • Families in all counties have access to other types of court proceedings—drug, mental health, and unified courts, for example—that can help them remain together or, if the children are removed, to stabilize and reunify the family as soon as possible. • Presiding judges work with agencies to ensure that families in all counties have access to specific nonadversarial child welfare–based practices such as family group conferencing, team decisionmaking, and family team meetings. 69 The Judicial Council should establish and implement a comprehensive set of court performance measures as required by state law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16545). The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council adopt and direct the AOC to work with local courts and state agencies to implement a rule of court that embodies the commission's following recommendations: o Court performance measures include those for safety, permanency, timeliness of court hearings, due process, and child well-being; o Court performance measures align with and promote the federal and California Child and Family Services Review outcome measures and indicators; o The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) collect uniform court performance data and have the capability to produce management reports on performance measures; and o Trial court performance measures be included in a separate Judicial Council— approved AOC Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. • These performance measures and management reports be used for the following: o To promote court accountability for ensuring fair and timely hearings and to inform improvements in local case processing; o To provide stakeholders and the public with an aggregate picture of the outcomes for children before the court and to increase the public's understanding of the court's role in the child welfare system; and o To measure compliance with statutory mandates and effective practices. • The Judicial Council work with the Child Welfare Council and local courts and state agencies to develop uniform child well-being performance measures. Based on these measures, the AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts should work with local courts to develop and implement educational tools that help courts improve child well-being outcomes. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate at the federal, state, and local levels for the funding necessary to implement recommended court performance measures. 70 Recommendation 3 Collaboration Among Courts and Partnering Agencies Because the courts share responsibility with child welfare agencies and other partners for the well-being of children in foster care, the courts, child welfare, and other partnering agencies must work together to prioritize the needs of children and families in each system and remove barriers that keep stakeholders from working together effectively. 3B The Judicial Council, trial courts, and state Department of Social Services should work cooperatively with all departments, agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure optimal sharing of information to promote decisionmaking that supports the well-being of children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council continue its efforts to fully develop and implement the California Court Case Management System, as well as other data exchange protocols, so that the judicial branch, the California Department of Social Services, and other trusted partners will be able to exchange essential information about the children and families they are mandated to serve. • CCMS permit judicial officers in dependency courts to access information about children and families who are involved in cases in other courts. • CCMS and the state Child Welfare Services/Case Management System promote coordinated data collection, data exchange, and filing of documents, including electronic filing, between the courts, social service agencies, and other key partners and track data that permits them to measure their performance. • The Child Welfare Council prioritizes solutions to federal and state statutory and regulatory policy barriers that prevent information sharing between the courts and their partners and that cause delays in the delivery of services and, hence, delays in permanency for children. • Data systems in the various agencies evolve to capture the growing complexity of California demographics, including issues such as limited English proficiency, use of psychotropic medications, and disabilities. The presiding judge of the juvenile court and the county social services or human services director should convene multidisciplinary commissions at the local level to identify and resolve local system concerns, address the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and build the capacity to provide a continuum of services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • These multidisciplinary local commissions include participation from the courts; local government officials; public and private agencies and organizations that support children and families; children, parents, and families in the system; caregivers; and all other appropriate parties to the process. • These commissions focus on key areas of local concern and activities, including: o Undertaking a comprehensive assessment of existing services available in the community; encouraging development of appropriate services that are not 71 available; coordinating services with tribal services and transitional services; and ensuring that children and families receive the support they need for reunification and permanency; o Identifying and resolving barriers to sharing information among the courts, agencies, and schools; o Communicating local needs and concerns to the Child Welfare Council; and o Raising the visibility and public understanding of foster care issues in their communities. • The AOC support local commissions in their efforts to collaborate and to avoid duplication with other efforts to achieve positive child welfare outcomes (including county efforts to develop system improvement plans as required by state law). • All participating agencies prioritize children in foster care, and their families, when providing services. Courts, child welfare agencies, and other agencies should collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal courts to ensure that the rights of children, families, and tribes are protected and that Indian children and families have access to all appropriate services for which they are eligible. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The AOC work with state trial courts and tribal courts to establish protocols for identifying and sharing jurisdiction between state and tribal courts and for sharing services, case management, and data among superior courts, tribal courts, and county and tribal service agencies. The protocols established should encourage a mutual understanding of and respect for the procedures in both the state and tribal courts and the challenges that all communities face in providing services for children and families. The AOC collaborate with the state to develop and offer judicial education and technical assistance opportunities to tribal court officers and staff and legal education to tribal attorneys, lay advocates, and service providers. • The AOC work with the California Department of Social Services to offer ongoing multidisciplinary training and technical assistance to judges, court staff, attorneys, social workers, and other service providers on all of the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. • Indian children and families have access to the same services as other families and children regardless of whether their cases are heard in state court or tribal court. 72 Recommendation 4 Resources and Funding In order to meet the needs of children and families in the foster care system, the Judicial Council, Congress, the Legislature, the courts, and partnering agencies should give priority to children and their families in the child welfare system in the allocation and administration of resources, including public funding—federal, state, and local—and private funds from foundations that support children's issues. The Judicial Council should urge Congress, the state Legislature, and state and local agencies—including agencies and organizations that provide health, mental health, education, substance abuse, domestic violence, housing, employment, and child care services—to prioritize the delivery and availability of services to children and families in the child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Congress and the state Legislature fund dissemination of evidence -based or promising practices that lead to improved outcomes for foster children and their parents. Examples include therapeutic foster care and drug courts. States and counties should be given permission to use federal funding more flexibly. Flexible funding should be used to address the needs of children and families in a timely manner that recognizes the child's developmental needs and relationship with his or her parents, guardian, and extended family. The commission supports key financial recommendations of the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and encourages innovative funding strategies at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council urge Congress to adopt the following federal fmancing reform recommendations, based on those advocated in 2004 by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, a national panel of experts that issued proposals around financing child welfare and court reforms: o Creation of an incentive model for permanency. Based on the adoption incentive, this model would encompass all forms of permanency, including reunification and guardianship, and would offer equal payment levels; o Federal adoption assistance for all children adopted from foster care; o Federal guardianship assistance for all children who leave foster care to live with a permanent, legal guardian; o Elimination of the income limit for eligibility for federal foster care funding; o Flexibility for states and counties to use federal funds to serve children from Indian tribes and children living within U.S. territories; o Extension of federal title IV -E funding to children in Indian tribes and the U.S. territories; o Reinvestment of local, state, and federal dollars saved from reduced foster care placements into services for children and families in the child welfare system; 73 o Reinvestment of penalties levied in the federal Child and Family Services Review process into program improvement activities; and o Bonuses when the state demonstrates improved worker competence and lighter caseloads. No child or family should be denied services because it is unclear who should pay for them. Funding limitations that prohibit or delay the delivery of services to children and families should be addressed through coordinated and more flexible funding. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council work with other branches of federal, state, and local governments to identify barriers to funding for services and to develop solutions. • The Judicial Council should urge Congress to change any federal law that prevents federal funds from being coordinated among several agencies to support specific services. The Judicial Council, along with other stakeholders, should work to improve the foster care system by supporting those who provide care to dependent children. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for increasing foster care rates and supports to enable foster parents to care for their foster children. • The Judicial Council and other stakeholders advocate for funding and other resources to provide statewide legal and informational support for caregivers so they understand the dependency process and know what to expect in court. The Judicial Council, the executive and legislative branches of federal and state government, local courts, businesses, foundations, and community service organizations should work together to establish a fund to provide foster youth with the money and resources they need to participate in extracurricular activities and programs to help make positive transitions into adulthood. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Children in foster care and partnering agencies have access to reliable funding to support their access to extracurricular activities and transitional programs. These activities should include music and dance lessons, sports, school events, and independent living activities. • Systemic barriers that prevent foster children from participating in the above events be eliminated, including transportation, licensing restrictions, and confusion regarding waivers and consents. 74 Educational services for foster youth and former foster youth should be expanded to increase access to education and to improve the quality of those services. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that: • Courts and partnering agencies ensure that foster children receive the full education they are entitled to, including the support they need to graduate from high school. This includes tutoring and participation in extracurricular activities. The courts should require other agencies to justify any denial of such services to foster youth in school. • The Judicial Council urge Congress and the state Legislature to strengthen current education laws to explicitly include all foster children and to fill funding gaps, such as the lack of support for transportation to maintain school stability. • The Child Welfare Council prioritizes foster children's educational rights and work with educators to establish categorical program monitoring to oversee compliance with education laws and regulations that support foster youth in school. • The California Department of Education designate foster youth as "at -risk" students to recognize that foster care creates challenges and obstacles to a child's education that other children do not experience and to increase the access of foster youth to local education programs. • Foster Youth Services grants be expanded to include all children age five or older, including those in kinship placements, because close to half of foster children are placed with kin and Foster Youth Services is not currently funded to serve those children. • The Judicial Council urge legislative bodies and higher education officials to expand programs, such as the Guardian Scholars, statewide to ensure that all current and former foster youth who attend college have access to housing and other support services and to waive tuition and other educational fees for current and former foster youth. California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Final Recommendations to the Judicial Council—August 15, 2008 75 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Rso(ution Blue Vdon commission on Chi(dren in Foster Care Whereas all children need safe, permanent families that love, nurture, protect, and guide them; Whereas, although foster care is absolutely critical to protecting children who cannot stay safely in their own homes, it is intended to be a short-term refuge rather than a long-term saga; Whereas, on an average day, Califomia has approximately 97,000 children in foster care; Whereas, although the number of all children in Califomia account for approximately 13 percent of all children in the United States, Califomia children in foster care comprise approximately 19 percent of the total United States foster care population; Whereas in Califomia, of the more than 491,000 referrals to social services of child abuse or neglect, approximately 110,000 or 22 per- cent, were substantiated by child welfare staff; Whereas youth who leave the foster care system are often ill pre- pared for what follows—more than half are unemployed, almost a third become homeless, and one in five will be incarcerated within two years; Whereas the Califomia Judicial Council recognizes that the safety, permanency, and well-being of children under court supervision is paramount; Whereas the Judicial Branch is dedicated to improving the qual- ity of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, and families in California by building partnerships with other local and statewide agencies and professions that work with children and families throughout our state; Whereas, although there have been individual efforts to see that children are safe in foster care, and efforts to improve the judicial process, systemic improvements are needed to meet the needs of children in foster care and in the child welfare system, and these improvements can best be achieved through collaboration between the courts, child welfare, educa- tion, medical, and mental health partners, and other public and private agencies and individuals; Whereas institutionalization of this collaboration will ensure that systemic improvements are sought and achieved beyond the terms of office of individual members of the judiciary, agency directors, and elected officials; Whereas the state's ability to respond to the needs of vulnerable children is primarily financially supported by federal funding and whereas federal guidelines on the use of funds limits California's ability to invest those limited resources in smarter and more effective ways to benefit chil- dren and families; Now, therefore, be it resolved That a Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care is estab- lished as a high-level, multidisciplinary body to provide leadership and recommendations to improve the ability of the federal govemment, Cal- ifomia's state and local agencies, and the courts to protect children in California by helping them to become part of a permanent family that will provide a safe, stable, and secure home; That, in its deliberations, the Commission shall develop recommendations • Creating a set of comprehensive strategies and effective approaches to reduce the number of children in foster care by reducing the number of children entering foster care and reducing the length of time in foster care while ensuring they have safe, secure, and stable homes • Successfully implementing the Judicial Council's goals and objec- tives, including those on ensuring appropriate judicial and staff resources and establishing stable funding for juvenile courts • Successfully implementing the recommendations of the Pew Com- mission on Children in Foster Care, as adopted by the Judicial Council, including those on strengthening court oversight, improving collabora- tion, and ensuring flexible funding • Advocating effective approaches to secure greater flexibility for federal funding so that Califomia can meet the critical objective of per- manency through prevention, early intervention, reunification, guardian- ship, and adoption • Ensuring that all children receive sufficient mental health, health care, education, and other services whether they reside with family, foster parents, relatives, adoptive parents, or in other placements • Institutionalizing a permanent collaborative model that will ensure that systemic improvements are sought and achieved beyond the tenure of this Commission • Proposing other initiatives it deems appropriate; That the Commission, led by Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the Cali- fomia Supreme Court, shall conduct its inquiry in a manner that broadens public awareness of and support for meeting the needs of vulnerable chil- dren and families; That at the conclusion of the Commission's investigation and delib- erations, the Commission will host a statewide conference for multidisci- plinary teams from each county for the purpose of establishing permanent foster care commissions in each county; and That the Commission shall file an interim and final report with the Califomia Judicial Council, recommending appropriate action to serve and meet the needs of children and families in California's foster care and child welfare system. Signed at San Francisco, California, this ninth day of March, 2006 RONALD M. GEORGE Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council of California WILLIAM C. VICKFtEY Administrative Director of the Courts THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA Effective June 30, 2009, the terms for the following members of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care are extended from June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2012: Hon. Carlos R. Moreno, Chair Hon. Lucy Armendariz Hon. Richard C. Blake Ms. Miryam J. Choca Hon. Kathryn Doi Todd Mr. Raul A. Escatel Mr. Robert E. Friend Ms. Teri Kook Mr. Will Lightbourne Hon. Michael Nash Mr. John O'Toole Ms. Linda Penner Ms. Maria D. Robles Hon. Dean T. Stout June 23, 2009 Ms. Robin Allen Mr. Michael D. Antonovich Ms. Mary L. Ault Hon. Karen Bass Mr. Lawrence B. Bolton Mr. Curtis L. Child Mr. Joseph W. Cotchett Mr. Michael S. Cunningham Jill Duerr Berrick, Ph.D. Hon. Leonard P. Edwards (Ret.) Ms. Deborah Escobedo Hon. Terry B. Friedman Hon. Richard D. Huffman Hon. Susan D. Huguenor Ms. Miriam Aroni Krinsky Ms. Amy Lemley Hon. William Maze Ms. Donna C. Myrow Mr. David Neilsen Ms. Diane Nunn Mr. Derek Peake Mr. Jonathan Pearson Mr. Anthony Pico Ms. Patricia S. Ploehn Mr. Alan Slater Hon. Darrell S. Steinberg Mr. John Wagner Ms. Jacqueline Wong 79 Chief Jus ce of Cal;ig mia and Chair of the Judicia ' ouncil Jukricia1 Qlnul.tril of &Marna pminiafratiire afire of the Oiourig 455 Golden Gate Avenue • San Francisco, CA 94102-3660 Telephone 415-865-7739 • Fax 415-865-7217 • TDD 415-865-4272 RONALD M. GEORGE Chief Justice of California Chair of the Judicial Council June 23, 2009 Hon. Richard C. Blake Chief Judge Hoopa Valley Tribal Court P.O. Box 1389 Hoopa, California 95546 Dear Chief Judge Blake: WILLIAM C. VICKREY Administrative Director of the Courts RONALD G. OVERHOLT Chief Deputy Director I am pleased to extend your appointment to the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care for a term ending on June 30, 2012. A copy of the order reflecting this extension is enclosed. As you know, the Blue Ribbon Commission was originally charged with making recommendations to the Judicial Council on strategies to improve this state's foster care system and juvenile courts. To ensure implementation of the recommendations formally received by the Judicial Council on August 15, 2008, the commission's charge going forward will also include the following additional duties: • Under the direction of the Judicial Council, implement as appropriate the recommendations of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care accepted by the Judicial Council on August 15, 2008; • Select and refer recommendations, as appropriate, to a Judicial Council advisory committee, division of the Administrative Office of the Courts, or another entity for implementation, including for review and preparation of proposed legislation, rules, forms, or educational materials to be considered through the normal judicial branch processes; • Provide support and assistance to county level local foster care commissions as they work to implement commission recommendations; 80 Hon. Richard C. Blake June 23, 2009 Page 2 • Support the efforts of court's partnering agencies to implement commission's recommendations; • Study the need for additional resources that local courts may require to implement the recommendations; and • Report progress to the Judicial Council by June 2010. I have reappointed California Supreme Court Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno as chair of the commission. Mr. Christopher Wu, Supervising Attorney, AOC's Center for Families, Children & the Courts, is lead staff for the commission. Mr. Wu will contact you to schedule the first commission meeting and will send you pertinent commission information. Please accept my personal thanks for your continuing dedication to this important commission. This extension will permit you to participate in important implementation activities. William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts, and I look forward to receiving your progress report in June 2010. RONALD M. GEORGE Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council RMG/DN/CW/cb Enclosure cc: William C. Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts Ronald G. Overholt, AOC Chief Deputy Director Sheila Calabro, Regional Administrative Director, AOC Southern Region Jody Patel, Regional Administrative Director, AOC Northern/Central Region Christine Patton, Regional Administrative Director, AOC Bay Area/Northern Coastal Region Curtis L. Child, Director, AOC Office of Governmental Affairs Diane Nunn, Director, AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts Christopher Wu, Supervising Attorney, AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts 81 Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care Implementation Progress Report - August 2010 Building a Brighter Future for California's Children: Making Progress in Tough Economic Times Sources 1. Fostering a New Future for California's Children — Ensuring Every Child a Safe, Secure and, Permanent Home. Final Report and Action Plan. Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. Administrative Office of the Courts /Center for Families, Children & the Courts. May 2009. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca. gov/ic/tflists/documents/brc-finalreport.pdf. 2. FACTS -AT -A -GLANCE , California Dependency Courts. California Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. July 2008. Available at: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/PagesBlueRibbonCommissi ononChildrenandFosterCare.aspx 3. The Operational Plan for California's Judicial Branch, 2008-2011. Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. 2008. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/2 annual.htm 4. The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. Website: http://pewfostercare.org/ 5. Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well -Being for Children in Foster Care. Final Report. The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care. 2004. Available at: http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=47 6. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. U.S. Government. H.R. 6893. 110th Congress (2007-2008). Public Law: 110-351. Legislation available at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/browse.html Summary available at: http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/FosteringConnectionsSummary.htm 83 7. Judicial Council proposal creating new rules and forms to implement the mandates and legislative intent of Assembly 938 out for comment as of April 2010. Available at: http: //www.courtinfo. ca.gov/invitationstocomment/documents/sprl0-33.pdf 8. Permanency Committee Recommendations. California Child Welfare Council. September 10, 2009. Available at: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildW elfareCouncil/Pages/CommitteeDraftReco mmendations.aspx 9. Miller, Oronde A. Reducing Racial Disproportionality And Disparate Outcomes for Children And Families Of Color In The Child Welfare System. Breakthrough Series Collaborative. Casey Family Programs. July 2009. Available at: http://www.casey.org/Resources/PublicationsBreakthroughSeries ReducingDisproportio nality.htm 10. Danielson, Caroline and Helen Lee. Foster Care in California: Achievements and Challenges. Public Policy Institute of California. Supported with funding by the Stuart Foundation. May 2010. Available at: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=905 11. Juvenile Delinquency Court Orientation video. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. June 2010. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/family/delinq/ 12. Fact Sheet: Tribal Projects Unit. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. November 2009. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/TribalProj ectUnit.htm 13. California Dependency Online Guide (Ca1DOG). Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. Available at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/dependencyonlineguide 84 14. AOC Briefings: Sharing Information for Children in Foster Care (draft versions). Four- part series — Education, Health Care, Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. February 2010. Available at the California Child Welfare Council, Data Linkage and Information Sharing Committee website: http://www.chhs.ca. gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/DatalnformationandD ataSharingCommittee.aspx 15. Newsletters: Foster Care Reform Update. Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/bluerib-newsletter.htm 16. California Child Welfare Council. California Health and Human Services Agency. Website: http://www.chhs.ca.gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/default.aspx 17. Fact Sheet: California Tribal Court/State Court Coalition. Judicial Council of California/ Administrative Office of the Courts. Press Release: May 20, 2010. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/ 18. Clearinghouse of Resources. AOC Tribal Projects Unit. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/TribalProj ectUnit.htm 19. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, Office of Justice Programs. Website: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/index.html 20. California Rules of Court. Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (5.1 — 5.830). Rule 5.505. Juvenile dependency court performance measures. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=five&linkid=rule5 505 21. Foster Youth Services. California Department of Education. Website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/ 85 22. Child Development/Successful Youth Transitions Committee. California Child Welfare Council. Website: http://www.chhs.ca. gov/initiatives/CAChildWelfareCouncil/Pages/ChildDevelopmentSu ccessfulYouthTransitionsCommittee.aspx 23. California Rules of Court. Title Eight. Appellate Rules (8.1 — 8.1125). Rule 8.416. Appeals from all terminations of parental rights; dependency appeals in Orange, Imperial, and San Diego Counties and in other counties by local rule. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8 416 24. Local Blue Ribbon Commissions website. Accessible via the California Dependency Online Guide (Ca1DOG) subscription. Available at: www. courtinfo. ca.gov/dependencyonlineguide 25. Technical Assistance Tools. Family Law and Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Tribal Projects Unit. Administrative Office of the Courts/Center for Families, Children & the Courts. Available at: http://www. courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/TribalProj ectUnit.htm 86 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Community Action Guide Oa CCS League of California Cities California State Association of Counties California School Boards Association Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Community Action Guide Cities Counties and Schools Partnership The Cities, Counties and Schools (CCS) Partnership is unique in the nation. Incorporated in 1997, it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan collaboration of associations of local elected officials. The partners that constitute CCS Partnership are the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California School Boards Association. The Board of Directors of the Partnership is comprised of the officers and executive directors of the three statewide associations. Together the board members represent the majority of local elected officials in the state. The goal of the partnership is to create a culture of collaboration among local elected officials in California's 478 cities, 58 counties, and more than 1000 school districts. The purpose of local jurisdictional collaboration is to improve the conditions and quality of life for California's children, families and communities. 2007 Conditions of Children Task Force In 2005 the CCS Partnership established the Conditions of Children Task Force with each association appointing members to serve one-year terms. In 2005 the task force discussed multiple issues facing children and their families. The 2006 task force had a single focus — understanding childhood obesity and creating an action agenda for addressing it. For 2007 the task force took on a new focus, emancipating foster youth. Luan Rivera Stewart Bubar Davis Campbell Connie Chin Janice Friesen Yvonne Garrett Sharon Jones Barbara Kondylis Lynn MacDonald Jean Quan Alene Taylor Tony Thurmond Members of the 2007 Task Force Chair, CCS Partnership Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Director, Region 7 CSBA Community Services Director Director, Region 17 CSBA Supervisor Board Member Councilmember Supervisor Councilmember Immediate Past President, California School Boards Association Culver City Unified School District CCS Partnership Board of Directors Yolo County Board of Education Modesto City School District Castro Valley Unified School District City of La Mesa San Diego County Office of Education Solano County Placer Union High School District City of Oakland Kings County City of Richmond Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 1 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth The task force was supported in its efforts by staff from the three associations and CCS Partnership. They were: Willie Beaudet Connie Busse Qiana Charles Genevieve Morelos Marguerite Noteware Francesca Wright "When a child leaves the system, they should be better off than when they entered." Crystal Luffberry, Project Manager California Connected by 25 Initiative Administrative Assistant Executive Director Legislative Analyst Legislative Analyst Research Consultant Consultant The Process CCS Partnership CCS Partnership California State Association of Counties League of California Cities California School Boards Association CCS Partnership The task force met four times in 2007 to learn from experts and discuss the role and responsibility of local governments in addressing the needs of former foster youth. Speakers included: o Crystal Luffberry, Project Manager, California Connected by 25 Initiative, o Steve Trippe, Executive Director, New Ways to Work, Michele Byrnes, Project Manager, John Burton Foundation; o Karen Grace-Kaho, California State Ombudsman for Foster Youth; o Tad Kitada, Director Prevention Services Department, P/acer County Office of Education;; o Patty Archer -Ward, Interagency Services Manager, Placer County Office of Education; o Chet Hewitt, Director Social Services Agency, Alameda County, o Sam Cobbs, Executive Director, First Place for Youth, Oakland CA; and o Kordnee-Jamilla Lee, formerfosteryouth. See Appendix A for speaker bios Following each presentation the members discussed what they had learned and developed their ideas into this action agenda The Product Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth, a Community Action Agenda is the result of the group's efforts. It represents the view from local government for how to best address the needs of foster youth who are aging out of the system. Glossary and resource guides are available at the end of this document. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 2 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth "No public care can replace the care offamily. Children aging out of the system are a bad outcome. Our goal should be for the child not to be in the system long enough to age out." Chet Hewitt, President and CEO Sierra Health Foundation former Director Alameda County Social Services Agency The Issue California has the largest number of children and youth in foster care of any state in the nation with approximately 83,000 children in care. Each year over 4,000 of those youth emancipate from the system as they turn 18 years old. They exit care largely unprepared for managing life on their own. Some have been in care since they were young; most have multiple foster home and/or group home placements. On average they have had six placements. For many of these young people the outcome of public parenting is unemployment, under -education, homelessness and prison. Studies show that about two- thirds of the incarcerated population were foster youth at some point in their lives. For all of the youth, the effects of their years in foster care are lasting. The state removes these youth from their homes and becomes their parent. As a parent the state has failed. Honoring Emancipated Youth, a non-profit agency serving transitioning foster youth in San Francisco, has compiled the following statisticsl: Homelessness Within 18 months of emancipation 40-50% of former foster youth become homeless 65% of emancipating foster youth need immediate housing when they exit the system Employment 50% of emancipated foster youth experience high rates of unemployment within 5 years of emancipation 60% of former foster youth earn incomes at or below $6,000 per year, which is substantially below the federal poverty level of $7,890 for a single individual 1 Barriers Facing Foster Care Youth: National and Local Statistics About Emancipating Foster Youth. www.hevsf.org/pdfs/HEYFosterYouthStatistics.pdf Education 70% of teens who emancipate from foster care report wanting to go to college, 10% attend and less than 1% graduate from college 83% of foster children are held back by the third grade 75% of children and youth in foster care are behind grade level 40% of foster youth complete high school compared to 84% of the general population Mental & Physical Health 33% of all foster care alumni have no form of health insurance Former foster youth experience Post Traumatic Stress disorder at a rate 2 times the level of U.S. war veterans Nearly 50% of foster children suffer from chronic health conditions such as asthma, visual and auditory problems, dental decay and malnutrition 50-60% of children in foster care have moderate to severe mental health problems Foster children are more likely than other children on Medicaid to have mental health or substance abuse conditions Incarceration Foster youth with multiple placements are 5-10 times more likely to become involved with the juvenile justice system than youth in the general population 25% of former foster youth will be incarcerated within the first 2 years of emancipation Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 4 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth In California current programs for emancipated foster youth are fragmented and underfunded, fail to provide comprehensive assistance and service and do not reach a significant number of former foster youth in a meaningful way. Expanding Transitional Service: Investing in California's Tomorrow Through No Fault of Their Own On average, youth who emancipate from foster care have been in the system for five years. Children are placed in foster care through no fault of their own. They are not given a choice and they have no recourse. Nothing they have done is the cause for this painful and debilitating circumstance. Most are placed in the system because of neglect by their parents or care givers. They must learn to navigate public agencies, strange adults acting as parents, unfamiliar homes, changing schools, changing neighborhoods and many other challenges adults would find daunting. Siblings are often separated and may never see each other again. Unlike other teens, foster youth are not allowed to act out their frustrations during this difficult time in their lives; acting out lands them in juvenile hall, in a group home far from all they know or in yet another home placement with an unfamiliar family. At 18 they must be ready to navigate life on their own without a family or a system to support and guide them. The trauma of losing their friends, homes, communities and often siblings; the multiple placements; the disruptions of their education and the limited access to personal resources leave many foster youth without the preparation and support needed for independent life at 18 years of age. Actually, non foster youth ages 18-26 who live with their families receive a great deal of financial and emotional support. The California Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego released a report in January 2007 stating that parents provide approximately $44,500 of financial support to their "adult" offspring in the years between 18 and 26.2 2Children's Advocacy Institute. (2007) Expanding Transitional Services for Emancipating Foster Youth: An Investment in California's Tomorrow, University of San Diego School of Law. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 5 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Call to Action In the best of all possible worlds, all children would be loved and cared for by parents who have the resources and skills to nurture them into successful adulthood. When that is not the case and children are removed from families, every effort would be made to find that quality of care in permanent homes. Since the world is not ideal, we must ensure that youth exit our child welfare system with these minimal assets: 1. Connections to adults who care about them and will remain connected to them throughout their lives; 2. Knowledge of and access to support systems, including housing, employment support, educational options, and health care 3. A High School Diploma; 4. Work Experience•, 5. A safe, stable place to live., 6. Opportunityto continue their education; and 7. Financial resources. If cities, counties and schools take a coordinated and committed approach, these seven assets can be made available to the more than 4,000 California youth who "age -out" of foster care each year. Children removed from their homes and placed in the care of the state belong to all of us. It is our responsibility to see that they receive the support they need to become independent adults. Cities, counties and schools all have roles to play in parenting these children into adulthood. Areas of Critical Need The task force repeatedly heard five areas of critical needs for youth leaving the system. Those areas are housing, employment, education, mental and behavioral health, and permanency. Emancipating foster youth need the same supports as our "home-grown" children through their mid -twenties. Local government can provide leadership and partner with other agencies to provide the needed connections, guidance, access and support. Individuals and localities can also act in support of proposed federal legislation that would extend foster care benefits to youth, if they choose, up to the age of 21. (See Appendix B for information on S1512) Cities Counties and Schools Partnership Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth 6 "Many former foster youth prefer scattered housing when they exit care. This model allows youth to be integrated into the larger community and provides a high level of independence." Michele Byrnes Project Manager John Burton Foundation 2. Education 1. Housing 7 turned 18 a month before I graduated from high school, The day after graduation, I was kicked out of my foster home, where I had been for nearly two years. I was 18, a high school graduate on my way to college in the fall, and homeless, "said Nicol, Dobbins, FosterClub.3 Housing is perhaps the most immediate need for emancipating youth. Many have been in the system for years and have no resources to obtain housing. Additionally, affordable housing is frequently not available. What can be done? Cities and counties can help address this critical need by: a) Ensuring that there are a variety of affordable and safe housing options and choices for youth aging out of care. b) Establishing policies to give priority for emancipated foster youth in subsidized housing. c) Requiring housing agencies to leverage THP Plus Transitional Housing and Proposition 1-C funds and EPSDT funds. (See glossary for definitions) d) Be aware of the number of youth who emancipate each year in your community their demographics and individual needs. 3 Pew Charitable Trusts (2007) Time for Reform: Aging Out and On Their Own, More Teens Leaving Foster Care Without a Permanent Family. "It is clear that youth formerly in foster care are among the most disadvantaged and underrepresented students in higher education" National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators "I was in the group home. I went to school on the grounds, and now that I am in a foster home those credits for some reason don't count, so now I am 90 credits behind and I'm in the 12th grade." - Shimia, Former Foster Youth Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 7 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth "It is important to enforce existing laws like AB 490. If a youth is placed from one county to another, it is important for the new county and the new school to be notified and records transferred quickly." Tad Kitada Director Integrated Services Placer County Office of Education Youth in foster care often have difficulty accumulating credits for high school graduation. Changes in placement mean changes in schools. Often credits from one district and/or school do not match those of another. Sometimes youth are not in a school long enough to complete a course. Other times the education they receive in a group home does not meet state standards. Although law requires the expedient transfer of student record, it frequently takes weeks or months for school records to be transferred from one district to the next. County offices of education have foster youth liaisons, as do some schools and districts. Their job is to ensure the educational needs of foster youth are met. However, at the school level this is a duty added to many others held by a teacher or other staff member and the time is insufficient for them to be fully attentive to the needs of foster youth. AB 490, passed in 2004, is intended to improve public school procedures so that foster youth have a better chance to succeed in school. The bill intends to minimize the need for youth changing schools unnecessarily, requires that partial credits be given for work completed and that school records be transferred between schools within 2 days. The bill also requires designation of a foster youth education liaison in each district. Unfortunately, its implementation is uneven across the state. What can be done? Schools, cities and counties can improve educational outcomes for foster youth when they: a) Comply with quality implementation of AB 490 b) Provide supplemental supportive services to foster youth. c) Coach guardians and youth on meeting high school graduation requirements, college admissions requirements and on available resources including outreach and recruitment of foster youth into AVID programs. (See glossary for definition) d) Cross train child welfare and school administrators and teachers on what information can be shared and what should remain confidential. e) Partner with institutions of higher learning to supply Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 8 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth 0 g) mentoring/tutoring to foster youth. Consider programs such as the Guardian Scholars Program, which helps with financial aid, tutoring, preferential registration, and year-round housing. Give foster youth priority for enrichment and other programs. Ensure that non-public schools serving foster youth meet state and district educational standards. 3. Employment "Every young person emancipating needs to have work experience. We need to put it into law" Steve Trippe Executive Director New Ways to Work Many foster youth are not prepared for the world of work when they leave foster care. They may not have had opportunities to develop employable skills or to have experience in a job. Foster youth typically earn far less than their non -foster peers. What can be done? There is a role for both cities and counties in addressing the employment needs of foster youth. They should ensure foster youth have meaningful employment and job skills training opportunities before aging -out of the system by: a) Develop programs with local businesses, cities, counties and school districts and higher education to hire foster youth. b) Train and provide incentives for youth in meeting job expectations, such as being on time and appropriately dressed. c) Link Workforce Investment Act programs, high schools and community colleges with Independent Living Programs to coordinate outreach, recruitment and support of foster youth in career technical education and employment pathways d) Provide paid internships in city and county departments e) Make workforce development services youth friendly. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 9 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth "Domestic violence is a big issue for these youth. They need help to understand what a healthy relationship is." Sam Cobbs Executive Director First Place for Youth 4. Mental & Behavioral Health 'bne day when I got in an argument with my aunt, I grabbed my pills for depression and took off running to the park. I didn't feel like being alive no more so I took 15-20 of them." Joel M, former foster youth4 Seventy-five percent of children are in foster care due to their parents' substance abuse.5.6 Children in these families frequently suffer serious emotional and behavioral problems, and they themselves will frequently exhibit a tendency to choose risky behavior, including the use of alcohol or other drugs later in life.' Youth in foster care have higher rates of mental health issues than other youth. Substance abuse is common. They need help in learning to identify their behavior and in thinking as an adult before they leave the system. What can be done? a) Allocate mental & behavioral health resources for foster youth in care as well as post -emancipation. b) Address addiction issues. c) Offer services to youth in after-school hours. d) Fully utilize EPSDT funds (the child health component of Medicaid, the primary source of mental health services funding for former foster youth under the age of 21.) 4 M, Joel. (2006) "My Second Chance" L. A. Youth, www.LAYouth.orq 5 Young, N.K., Gardner, S.L., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: CWLA Press. 6 Connect for Kids (1999) "The Impact of Substance Abuse on Foster Care" downloaded from www.connectforkids.orq ibid Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 10 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth "It's important to know that there is someone I can count on who wouldn't turn their back on me." Foster Youth "When you're in foster care, they boot you out at 18 and you are on your own. It's called emancipating."- Foster Youth LA Youth Photo What Can Be Done? 5. Permanency Regina Louise 011ison former foster youth and author of Somebody's Someone$ points out that you are never too old to be adopted. She herself was finally adopted at age 41. All foster youth who emancipate need to be "somebody's someone". When foster youth were asked what permanency meant to them they said things like: someone to share special occasions and issues with, your picture on someone's refrigerator, your side of the church is full at your wedding, someone to call when good things happen, or someone who will not let you not call. a) Adopt the permanency pledge (See www.cpyp.orq) and utilize school, city and county communications to help families understand opportunities for providing permanency. b) Develop programs, such as FosterClub's Permanency Pact that creates a formalized facilitated process to connect youth in foster care with a supportive adult. c) Utilize kinship databases and connect foster youth to living relatives. Develop procedures and train county child welfare staff in use of the software and in the procedures. "Every county should have and use some version of family - finding software." Karen Grace-Kaho California State Ombudsman for Foster Youth 8011ison, Regina Louise. Somebody's Someone: A Memoir. New York: Warner Books, New York, 2003 Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 11 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Roadmap to Action 1. Learn about the issue • Talk to foster youth and their adult advocates. • Learn about your city, district and county's emancipating youth. How many are there? What services are being provided? How are schools tracking them? 2. Address the issue collaboratively. Learn and plan across jurisdictions, departments, agencies and sectors. • Invite business, service, faith -based, youth -led, and community- based organizations to help diagnose and address the situation for foster youth aging out of the system in your community. • Include foster youth and former foster youth in designing and assessing the effectiveness of programs. This may include a stipend and help with transportation. • Develop shared measures of success, such as high school graduation, completion of California State University admission requirements, workforce readiness, and a permanent home. • Investigate and build upon lessons from islands of excellence, such as lessons from California Connected by 25 Initiative, New Ways to Work, community planning models, ombudsman models, interagency and intergenerational models like San Pasqual Academy, internship programs, and data sharing models. • Link agencies and systems • Cross -train across agencies, programs. Link Workforce Investment Act programs with Independent Living Programs. Identify and address data sharing barriers. Identify and address policy barriers. • Build public awareness. Utilize your communications staff to share promising stories and build new partnerships. Plan to celebrate the National Foster Care Month in May. Pass a resolution to address the needs of emancipating youth (See Appendix C for a sample resolution) •• * * *. t * • * * *. 1 * * Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 12 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth 3. Proactively Train Care Givers and Youth • Information and Referral. Develop mechanisms for all foster youth and their guardians to become aware of existing and local supportive services such as THP -Plus, California Youth Connection (www.calyouthconn.orq), Independent Living Skills Program (ILP), Chaffee Vouchers, Medi -Cal to age 21, www.fostervouthhelD.ca.gov, 211 systems and others. (See glossary) • Care Giver Support. Explore peer -support models for caregivers. Outreach to kinship care providers who often are unaware of available resources. • Coach guardians and youth on meeting high school graduation and college admissions requirements and on available resources. 4. Uphold Existing Law • Utilize kinship databases to identify relatives of children in child welfare. • Ensure all schools understand and implement AB 490, which allows foster youth to be immediately enrolled in a school without cumulative files and medical records, and requires partial credit for course work completed. • Ensure all your foster youth have educational passports —records of where they have gone to school, credits accumulated, grades, etc. • Ensure all group homes are teaching to state educational standards. Islands of Excellence Initiatives like California Connected by 25, New Ways to Work's Transition Action Teams and the continual efforts of Casey Family Programs are addressing the issues of foster youth and emancipating foster youth in particular. They provide funds for technical assistance and networks of support to communities who are working to address the needs of this population. Following are some examples of what local jurisdictions are doing for and with emancipating foster youth. They can serve as guides for those who wish to begin or expand their own efforts. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 13 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Alameda County • The county provides housing through First Place for Youth, Beyond Emancipation and Project Independence to address the housing needs of emancipated foster youth. The County is also funding a new Emancipation V///age that will provide supervised housing and supporting services for emancipated youth. • Alameda County has made strides in addressing permanency. According to Chet Hewitt, former Director of Social Services, 1,600 children have been adopted in the county in the past 5 years and the rolls of foster youth have been reduced from 5,000 to 2,600 in that same time period. Family finding software is used to locate family members as potential foster care providers or who may be able to act as permanent sources of support and connection. • Project Hope is a collaborative effort to increase employability and education of transitioning foster youth. This is a joint effort of the Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services, Alameda County Workforce Investment Board and the City of Oakland Workforce Investment Board. The project sets aside federal Workforce Investment Act formula funds for aging out and former foster youth, and links the youth to numerous providers and one - stops. • Independent Living and mental health counseling are provided through a U.S. Department of Labor grant. The county created a liaison position to serve as a "translator" between the foster care world and employment and training programs. Mental health services are provided under the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSTD) child health component of Medicaid. Placer County • Placer County addresses the needs of emancipating foster youth as well as all children in the child welfare system through an integrated services approach. Teams of workers from education, mental health, probation, and child welfare share caseloads. The most challenging cases are handled by the SMART team composed of the highest -level managers in the partnering systems. • The system promotes academic achievement through tutoring, mentoring, counseling and enrichment programs. Tutors go to the youth and follow them from placement to placement to ensure continual support in reaching high school graduation. • The county has developed a shared data system through its integrated team approach. This supports timely transfer of records between systems, between schools and to foster families. By assigning education specialists to integrated teams and paying them for 20% of their time from child welfare, all team Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 14 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth members have access to the California Welfare System/Case Management System. • Keys is a vocational services program that has historically served youth on path to homelessness and those with significant barriers to employment. It is limited to 25 youth due to financial restriction. PRIDE Industries, a private non- profit that helps disabled youth find and retain employment, expanded its services to include jail and probation populations. PRIDE provides job coaching and employment. Admission criteria for foster youth is based an Individual Educational Plan (IEP). San Diego County • San Pasqual Academy is the first residential academy in the country to serve only foster youth. The academy is a collaboration between San Diego County, the County Office of Education and non-profit providers. The Academy campus is comprised of a school, residences and acreage. High school -aged foster youth and their siblings as young as 12 are residents. The school meets A -G (college entrance) graduation requirements, offers remedial support and offers a variety of arts and enrichment programs to expand skills. There is also career planning on site as well as medical care. Youth live in residences of 8 with house parents. There are 19 additional houses located on the property. These houses accommodate transitioning youth for up to three years after high school graduation. Senior citizens, who receive discounted rent in exchange for providing expertise and support to the youth, occupy some of these houses. Some staff members live in the remaining homes. The Academy creates learning environments that focus the youth on furthering their education and increasing their independent living and vocational skills to prepare them for emancipation. Through a private foundation, any youth qualified for college receives full financial support. • The San Diego County Office of Education and California State University San Marcos have developed a collaborative to better prepare future teachers for working with foster youth. Student teachers from the university serve as mentors/tutors for foster youth Santa Clara County and Tulare County Both Santa Clara County and Tulare County have established employment programs for emancipating foster youth. • Santa Clara County's Emancipated Foster Youth Employment Program provides entry-level job opportunities to untrained; economically disadvantaged emancipated foster youth who are transitioning out of the system. Between 130 and 150 youth "age out" of foster care in the county each year at age 18 and are at risk of poverty, homelessness and being placed in institutions. In the past, the county had limited job opportunities for these youth. Three county departments developed a pilot employment program for the youth to be trained for paid temporary assignments. The program has now been expanded to include more Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 15 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth than 500 alternately staffed entry-level positions. To date, 30 emancipated foster youth have been hired into temporary positions and 10 have been hired into permanent positions with the county. • Tulare County's Youth Transitions Program was established to provide at -risk youth with an opportunity for real work experience and a career path leading to self-sufficiency and lifelong success. The program provides jobs with Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency for selected youth - a match that benefits both youth and an agency that traditionally had difficulty keeping all of its positions filled. Each participant is provided an assigned mentor, opportunities for training and preparation for various civil service examinations. Through participation in this program, young people are finding a confidence and independence they have not previously known. In addition, the salaries paid to them have provided needed income and positioned them on the road to becoming self-sufficient. The City of Fremont • The City of Fremont has blended three types of funds to provide transitional housing for older foster youth. These include Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) social services grants, "tenant -based rental assistance" funds (TBRA) from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) HOME program, and city general funds. • Fremont and the neighboring city of Livermore are using these funds to support Project Independence of the nonprofit Tri -City Homeless Coalition. Project Independence provides rent subsidies and case management for up to three years for transitioning foster youth. City support for Project Independence began in 2002 with $151,000 in TBRA and by 2006 had grown to $207,000 to assist a minimum of 15 participants for up to 36 months. • Fremont has also helped support the Rotary Bridgeway apartment complex, which includes eight units set aside for transitioning foster youth. The City of Oakland uses funds from Measure Y, a local voter -approved tax initiative to address several transition issues, with greatest emphasis on housing and employment. • The Oakland Fund for Children and Youth (OFCY) addresses employment, access to safe and affordable housing, and healthy choices. • The Oakland Youth Council gives priority to youth in transition for employment and training programs. • The city's workforce board applied successfully for a special US Department of Labor grant to meet employment, housing, and other support needs of youth in transition. • The city's Community & Economic Development Agency channels some CDBG funds to supportive or transitional housing for transitioning foster youth. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 16 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth San Francisco • The City of San Francisco created a mayor -appointed Transitional Youth Task Force which has made the following recommendations: o Put mayoral support behind developmentally -appropriate policies for transitional -age youth (TAY) o Create an inter -agency council to improve service delivery quality o Increase system capacity via four community-based centers for TAY and other issue -specific programs. • A team from San Francisco's Human Services Agency and Department of Public Health meet monthly with the foster youth liaison from San Francisco Unified School District and interested community based organizations. Meetings focus on improving the education of foster youth. • The city has found ways to finance transition age youth services: o Blend funding from the Human Services Agency and the city general fund for support services; o Use Section 8 vouchers to support occupancy of 24 transitional housing units; o Channel state housing funds to programs for transitioning foster youth; and o Provide training and employment for transitioning foster youth through community based organizations with Children's Fund allocations by the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families. California Connected by 25 Initiative • California Connected by25Initiative (CC25I) is focused on building an integrated comprehensive continuum of services across systems to support positive youth development and successful foster youth transitions to adulthood. It is part of the larger Annie E. Casey Family to Family Initiative and is funded by five foundations. Five counties participate: Fresno, Orange, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Stanislaus. Humboldt County is completing its self evaluation and will join the initiative in fall 2007. • The initiative focuses on foster youth 14 to 24 years old. Each county conducts a self evaluation and develops an individual plan that addresses: K-12 education; employment/job training/postsecondary education; housing; independent living skills; financial literacy; savings and asset development; personal/social asset development; and permanency. New Ways to Work Transition Action Teams • The Youth Transition Action Team Initiative (YTAT) is a grant -funded effort to bring together the resources of the workforce, education, and child welfare systems to better prepare adolescents who are current or former foster youth to achieve economic, educational, and employment success as they transition into the adult world. The strategy is designed to support counties statewide in meeting their systems improvement objectives. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 17 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth • The project: Provides coaching, training, and cross -initiative networking Works with 13 Counties: Glen, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Orange, Placer, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Tehama, Tulare and Ventura. - Supports collaboration across agencies (child welfare, education, workforce development, juvenile justice) and with youth and community leaders to assess community resources, develop plans, and assist county child welfare in youth permanency. - Focuses on high school graduation and completion of California State University admission standards, workforce readiness, employment, and support networks. Conclusion California is waking up to the issues faced by emancipating foster youth and the need to extend services and care beyond 18 years. Over 30 pieces of legislation related to foster care were submitted to the Assembly and Senate in 2007. These along with the 35 pieces of legislation passed since 2000 show a commitment by the state to attend to foster children. While many of these bills were not specific to the emancipating youth population, all would have an impact as children move through the system. State legislation is important but it is at the local level that programs and support occur. This report presents the challenges faced by emancipating foster youth and suggests ways for cities, counties and schools to take action to improve outcomes for this population. Repeatedly as the task force met and discussed the plight of emancipating foster youth, three things were clear 1) the outcomes for children reared in a public system are largely negative; 2) in a state of over 37 million people with the ninth largest economy in the world, we ought to be able to provide for the needs of 4,000+ emancipating foster youth each year; and 3) collaboration and coordination across jurisdiction provides the strongest possibility of being able to meet these needs. Cities, counties and school districts can and should make a difference for emancipating foster youth. Local government and schools can work together to help shepard foster teens into successful adulthood. Doing this will be a service to foster youth and to society as a whole. Cities, counties and schools can work collectively and comprehensively to overcome the piecemeal nature of supports now available to emancipating youth. Where else can such an impact be made for so specific and vulnerable a population? By working immediately and directly to assist the 4,000 youth who age out of the system in California each year, local jurisdictions can reduce homelessness, crime, and incarceration. There is the very real possibility to create employment, healthy relationships and productive citizens. We can do better. It is time to act. Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 18 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Glossary Below are definitions for terms used in this document. Some have been taken from FosterClub. com's website of terms in youth friendly language at www. fyi3. com/fyi3/Informed/G/ossary/index. cfm. 211 — Since 1993 many communities have joined the national 2-1-1 initiative to use these three digits as a quick, easy -to -remember telephone number for finding human services answers. AB 490 — California legislation providing educational rights for children in foster care and responsibilities of local educational agencies and placement agencies. AVID - Advancement Via Individual Determination is an educational program designed to help underachieving middle and high school students prepare for and succeed in colleges and universities. Chafee Vouchers - The Chafee Educational and Training Voucher Program (ETV) provides resources specifically to meet the education and training needs of youth aging out of foster care. This federally funded program makes vouchers of up to $5,000 per fiscal year available to eligible youth attending post secondary educational and vocational programs. Educational Passport - The passport is a document that contains a student's credentials from the educational world. The passport is the student's personal property that can be used in moves from high school to college, from college to college, from school to job, from job to school, and so on. EPSDT, Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program is the child health component of Medicaid, the primary source of mental health services funding for former foster youth under the age of 21. ILP or Independent Living Program - A federally funded program administered through counties which provide services to foster youth age 14 or 16 and over to prepare for adulthood. The program provides classes in life skills, vocational training, and equipment needed for job training. Also provides funds for college scholarships, skills training, and rent assistance. See how Contra Costa County describes their program www.cocoilsD.org/home.html . Kinship Care — placements with family members other than parents. Although kinship care is one of the oldest human traditions, it was not formally recognized as a legitimate placement option for children in foster care until the passage of the federal welfare reform in 1996 and the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997.2 Permanency is both a process and a result that includes involvement of the youth as a participant or leader in finding a permanent connection with at least one committed adult who provides: a safe, stable and secure parenting relationship; love; unconditional commitment; lifelong support in the context of reunification, a legal adoption, or guardianship, where possible, and in which the youth has the opportunity to maintain contacts with important persons including brothers & sisters. A broad array of individualized permanency options exist; reunification and adoption are an important two among many that may be appropriate. (Definition from California Permanency for Youth Project.) Davis, Ryan L. (2006) College Access, Financial Aid and College Success for Undergraduates from Foster Care. NAFSA, www. nasfaa.org/Subhomes/Resea rchHome/NASFAAFosterCare%20Reoort. Pdf Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 19 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth Scattered Site Housing — Housing units scattered throughout the community designated for young people. Transitional Housing Placement Programs (THPP) are for former foster youth ages 16 to 19. These programs are funded through the CDSS and licensed through community care licensing. They may be communal living or scattered site models. THP -Plus or Transitional Housing Placement — Plus - A housing program for 18-24 year olds. THP -Plus is administered by the California Department of Social Services, and has been found to help foster youth achieve stable housing, living wage employment and higher education. Current demand exceeds availability. Counties typically contract with non-profit service providers and gets reimbursement with standard rate $1800-2200/mo/youth. No reimbursement of county administrative costs for county, but non-profit gets administration covered. Resources & Organizations California Youth Connection (CYC) promotes the participation of foster youth in policy development and legislative change to improve the foster care system. The California Youth Connection is guided, focused and driven by current and former foster youth with the assistance of other committed community members. Visit their website for current policy proposals at www.CalYouthConn.orq Casey Family Programs is a national operating foundation that has served children, youth, and families in the child welfare system since 1966. Its mission is to provide and improve—and ultimately to prevent the need for—foster care. www.casey.orq Child Welfare League of America is an association of nearly 800 public and private nonprofit agencies that assist more than 3.5 million abused and neglected children and their families each year with a range of services. www.cwla.orq California Connected by 25 Initiative (CC25I) is a collaborative effort of five foundations assisting public child welfare agencies and their communities to build comprehensive transition - aged foster youth supports and services for youth 14 through 24. It is currently working in Fresno, Orange, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Stanislaus Counties. www.f2f.ca.gov/California25.htm The California Permanency for Youth Project (CPYP), a project of the Public Health Institute, offers many resources on permanency. http://www.covo.orq Family to Family The Family to Family (F2F) Initiative was developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1992 to address the growing challenges in the nation's child welfare system. Within California, twenty-five counties representing almost ninety percent of the children in foster care have implemented this Initiative. www.f2f.ca.gov FosterClub FosterClub is a national network for young people in foster care. www.fosterclub.orq HEY (Honoring Emancipated Youth) strengthens and connects San Francisco's systems of support for Bay Area foster care youth so that all youth emancipating or aging out of the foster care system can enjoy a healthy transition to adulthood. www.heysf.org Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 20 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth L. A. Youth is an online newspaper with monthly articles for and by foster youth. www.LAYouth.com John Burton Foundation for Children without Homes currently has several initiatives focused on helping California counties connect foster youth to housing and social security benefits. The Foundation also researches policy options. www.johnburtonfoundation.orq. National Foster Care Month is a national campaign to promote greater awareness of foster youth. It is in May. www.FosterCareMonth.orq National Center for Youth Law seeks to protect abused and neglected children, expand health care and other public benefits for youth, and improve child support collection. www.vouthlaw.orq New Ways to Work helps communities prepare youth for success as adults. www.nww.orq References Children's Advocacy Institute. (2007) Expanding Transitional Services for Emancipating Foster Youth: An Investment in California's Tomorrow, University of San Diego School of Law. Chipungu, S. S and Bent-Goodley TB. (2004) "Meeting Challenges of Contemporary Foster Care. The Future of Our Children, 14(1),75-93. Davis, Ryan L. (2006) College Access, Financial Aid and Co/lege Success for Undergraduates from Foster Care. National Association of School Financial Aid www. nasfaa.org/Subhomes/Resea rchHome/NASFAAFosterCare%20Reoort. Pdf Lenz -Rashid, Sonja. (2006) Emancipating from Foster Care in the Bay Area: What Types of Programs and Services are Available for Youth Aging Out of the Foster Care System?, Bay Area Social Services Consortium. htto://vIc.org/FINALAg i ngOutofFosterCa re. odf Pew Charitable Trusts. (2007) Time for Reform: Aging Out and On Their Own, More Teens Leaving Foster Care Without a Permanent Family. www. PewTrusts.orq Photo Credits Cover http://www.charityworksdc.org/partners/orphans.php Page 5 http://www.fosteringsuccess.org Page 11 http://www.foseryouthsrvices.fcoe.net Page 13 http://www.layouth.com Cities Counties and Schools Partnership 21 Our Children: Emancipating Foster Youth B!UJO4!IBQ ui LiTrioA ieso jo uopanpD •saaad J!aLT 4o asogl puluaq bel o� anu!Tuoo uaapl!ga asagl Jo4 sewoo1no o!uaapeoe `uonoi( Ja1so4 4o spaau leuo!1eonpa anb!un aye ssaappe o1 sdais leaanas uaNe1 seq e!uao4!IeO aI!uM •uo!leonpa J!agi bu!pnlou! `aleo pue Apolsno J!auf alq!suodsaa s! awls aye `suaddeq Tein pun .alq!ssod Ala4es se uoos se <<LTnoA JaIso4„ asagi Jo4 s1uaWaoeld 1uauewJ d pu!4, o1 s! an!1aa[go s‘alels oq j •e!uao4!IeO 4o ales aye 4o sluapuadap paaap!suoo uaapl!ua 000`CL AloleW!xoadde ale aaagi `aw!1 uan!b i(ue p' .buiaq-Ilann J!agl Jo4 Al!l!q!suodsaa a1ew!lIn saWnsse awls ay1 `aWoq aq1 Wo34 wail SOA0Waa pue sTuaaed leaibololq J!auf gl!nn a4es Jabuol ou ale uaapl!go sau!LwaIap lanoo e uaLM AmpuodseH s‘alelS aye aay unnoA aalso.d—uoRonpoaqui •gjnoA Jalsol s‘eie1s aqT Jol seq!unlJoddo leuo!Teonpa anoadw! Tgb!Lu aims age sAenn Jo; suo!TepuaWWooaa pue saolnaas pue sweaboad buijs!xa gf!nn sbu!woolJogs 40 uo!geo!4!1uapl •suollepuaurwoaad pue sanssl .a1e1s u! qanoA Ja1sol o1 algel!ene AlTua uno saoinaas pue sweiboad leuo!leonpe 4o uo!Td!aoseQ •saaanosed leuolleanpg .aoueuaaojad o!uaapeoe J!aqn pue `sabuallego leuo!weonpa anbiun J!agT `gfnoA JaTsol s‘e!uao4!Ie3 o1 uo!Tanpculul •punoiI3 aeg •ll •/ :suo!Toas eang mu! paz!uebao s! uo!ieTuasaad agl .sao!naas Si! anoadw! moo mems ail nnoq Joh. suo!TepuaWWooaJ sa)iew pue gfnoA JaTso4 ao� sa!T!unlJoddo pue sewooino leuo!1eonpa ie spool uo!geluesaad s!ql uon.equasaad jo nnainaanp 17, .�(ITuanbaa4 ssal a6uega o} puaa sani}elaa gip paaeld ri uaapliga align\ `AlTuanbaJJ aaow 1.19A0 a6uega OT puaE saeaA leaanas Jo4 welsi(s aaea JalsoJ NT u! u!eww OLIN\ uaapliga pue uaapliga aaplp •J 9/ aad saw!T ON of auo sTueweoeld le!Tuap!saa a6uega gfnoA JOTso4 'abalone up •awoq aaisoj JO dnoa6 pasuaail e ui ao `ue!paen6 JO („digsuij„) an!Telaa panoadde ue qlliin qnnoi( aaisol aaeld Aew pnoa aql sjuaLueoe,d Jelsod .e6e-loogas we Tsaa aql -GNI to a6e °LIT Japun we e!uaolileJ ui gonoi(aa}sol aqT Jo JajJenb-aup iaalbau of asnge leuo!Towa JO leo shid aaanas WOJ4 `sapen awoq aqf WOJ4 pliga e 61JinouaOJ JO4 uoseaa s,Jnoa v .spunoa6veq o!wouoaaoiaos Ile woij pue `dnoab leiaea AJGAG WOJJ `Alunoa /Jana ui gTnoi( aaisoi we aaagl sa:jsue oereyo tonoA as;sod •uogeindod uunclA Jaiso4 'elm s,uo!Teu aqT 4o—TuaaJed oZ Apeau —abeTuaaaad IAN Aieleuo!Taodoadsip e sluesaadaa siyl -uaapligo aa1s04 000`CL /IaTew!xoadde sTaoddns eivaopleO `awn ueN6 Cue p' e!uao4ileO Li! ufno, JaTsod uo punoa6)13e8 -1 5 •walsAs aoiTsnf Ieuiuipao s‘aleas NT Jo paenn e sewooaq p�igo ay} 1! paleuivaaaT Si sn}els as;sod s,p!!go e se!Tunoo awns LAI •Aouenbu ea abe Te Ameo!clA1) snlels Tinpe pana!goe seq pup agl -uo:Jediouew3 luaueLW d saapisuoa pnoo aye uoiTenTis owog e punol seq Piga eql •Xaueuewaad .paniosaa uaaq anew s)isp /(ia4es pue gileag Teql pau!WaaTap seq pnoo agf asneaaq panowaa seen ags/ay goignn wail owog age oT pawnTaa s! pligo agl •uo!.ieomunad :sa!Idde buinnoIIoJ auuo auo sauiwaaaap pnoo age nun wajs/Cs /Couapuadap age jo a leo auk ui uiewai q no/C Ja'so j • aha ujaiq woJ4 awls oqj jo sluapuadap aq 11inn awos jnq saea/C Jnoj. ueuf ssai Jo4 aaao s(a}eis aua u! aae gfno/C 4o Alpo(eW oq j• ivajsAs Jejsog aye ui atuLL Jo ypfu19-7 (•Tuoo) eivaoiileo ui yTnoA aalsod uo punoa6re8 'I VOVI uo!Ten1is 6u!A!I aiejedas e ui pao* s! pHga age 4! Liana `TuaJed leoibopiq aqn, gfinn Amgisuodsaj sig} aneaI sabpnf saseo &Jew •anneJuasaadad uoljeanp3 ue sub!sse abpnf ssalun juaaed jeap6ojoiq aqi gTinn suieWaJ (Nip agT of ap!noJd wogs pue uea paps agl saoinJas moods legnn pue puafe IIinn ails Jo aq loogos Low `oT pauw!l Tou inq `buipnpui) pimp aajsoj e aoj suolslaap jeuoijeanpa ajeua o� �u�6Ia aql 9 • .s1!paJo paps pue `paiaidwoo sasinoo `sivawaoeid paps (oi. pip!! iou Tnq) buipnpu! spJooaJ opepeoe pue Linea' >oeJn 01 pIigo JaTsoJ. goea Joj podssed uoijeanpa pue (meat! e 6uiuieau!ew Jo4 apisuodsaj we saa)/aoM jeiaos . •uo!Teonpa s‘pI!go age buijopuow Limn pajseT aq sIenmpu! OMT saJinbaJ mei TuaJJno •uo!Teonpa Jag JO sig Jo4 Amq!suodsaJ osie aims ail `gonoi( JaTso4 e jo Apolsno buiwnsse u! asa3 uvio) aalsoI a ui saip igisuodseH lauoll,eonp punoabra8 mom OV1 spogos Jo sueJT Aag� aw!T wee Ameo!wepeoe puigaq sgluow xis of Jnol Hej swapnls aaasol abalone uo 2egf smogs goaeesaH .s1!paao pue spaooaa 6upJejsueJT swe goad i(q peleoudwoo aag}JnJ ale goignn 'sloops ui sabuego of peel uallo sluauaaoeid bum Li! sabuego .seTea aouesge gbiq o� peal ueo semn doe paaeieJ-TJnoo JO `siuowooeld bum o1 sabuego `Toapau'equaled •s rejsue4 loogos pue aauepuej a JuaJs,suoau: i(q pesiwo idwoa iagpnj s► ssaaans o!wapeov .(spefoad dnoab uogeijodsueJi JO leuaaaui agT sseooe `)Iaonnauaoq gTinn diaq se Lions) sooanosaa pogos-Jo-ono pue poddns unpe alenbapeui .sopapeoe uaOJJ. Toe.Tsip ueo sanss! IeoibologoAsd ao/pue `leoisi(gd `ieuoRow .sms sseuipeaa loops 4o Tuawdolenap apedwi ueo saee/C eA!lewJoJ age u! Toa15au IeTuaaed •sewnose r DIwapeae 6unpe j pue ssaaans a!wapeae of s rewaaeq ;uaaaqui g;inn loops .;e aApie uajjo gpnoX Jejsog •uo!Teonpa J!agT Toedw! TeuT sem leuosJed aiagT ui sabuaIIego awl u1noi( JaIsod qno aalsod aol sa6ualleyo anbiun punoJ6)pe9 111 OVr-1 .sapiIs luanbasgns aqT uo unnoys s! gTnoiC Jaaso4 4o aauewaopad opapeoe aql uo elep ai4ioads .abaiioo aaaidwoa oT !!e1 •uoiienpea6 aao4aq poogos ON jo Tno doaa .saainaas uoijeonpa leiaads Jo4 ApenO •apea6 e pauielaa a8 '10A01 apeab nnoloq uaaopad pue `saaoas 1SOT JOMO1 anaigae `sapeab JaMoI .swalgoad AJeuiidiasip pue wsiaaauasge jo saaea aag6iq iCeIds!G • • :off saaad J!agT uegf /Clam aaoua ale Aagu `Ameai4iaads .saaad J!agI uegl aouew ojad opapeoe Janno! i(eIdsip gpno/C aaTso4 `sa6uallego anbiun 4o asneaa8 eivao4!I O ui Lifno) aa'sod 4o sewoOTnp leuo!TeOnp� punoa6 pe8 Background K-12 Academic Performance National studies have found that in general foster youth score far below (15-20 percentile points) their peers on state standardized tests. Recent studies have shown similarly poor academic performance for foster youth in California. As shown in the figures, 75 percent of foster youth perform below grade level standards, and by third grade 83 percent of foster youth have had to repeat a grade. California's K-12 Foster Youth Working at Grade Level Working Below Grade Level 9 Background K-12 Completion Rates While K-12 completion rates are low across California, foster youth are even less likely than their peers to complete the K-12 system. Only 30 percent of foster youth graduate. Complete K-12 California Foster Youth Drop Out 10 All California Students L Background Post -Emancipation Outcomes Weak K-12 performance and high drop out rates result in poor post -secondary outcomes for foster youth, with high percentages unemployed, incarcerated, and/or homeless within four years of emancipation. Only 3 percent of emancipated foster youth ever earn a college degree. 11 Outcomes of Emancipated Foster Youth .swea6oad poddns aawp . .suaea6oad uoi}eonpa aay6iH . -suaea6oad (sAd) saoinaaS yTnoA aalsod . '(0617 II!9 AIqwassy) sN6ia yTno/(aalsod . .sewoOEno 3!uaapeae a!auT anoadW! dlaq oT pau6!sap AIIa3!4!oods SOOinaas pua `sweJ5oad `suoiT3aaoad Iaaanas padolanap sau aims auk `sa6uallau3 lauo!Ta3npa Tueo!4!u6!s 93E4 ufnoiC JOTso4 asneOa8 qflO,) aalsod s‘eivaoneo aoj saanosay IUO!TOflP 11 v r °VI .looyos snolnaad e Te aligns Bono/ aaasol i(q peleldwoa Vonn .104 sppan loops ideoae sloops isenbaa e 4o sAep OMT u!Li nn sloops pabuego anew own ganoA aaisoj aoj spaoaai loops aojsuaq slooyas .(sa!TIn!Tae JelnalaanoeJTxe se Lions) slidnd Ile of algeliene seoanosaa awes NT ssaaae Liono/ aaisoj apinoad slooLios .voivueded pal!nbeJ -es!nruaLilo JoJ 6uiTIenn lnownn AIeTe!pewwl swapnis Jelso4 6uiaaTue Iloaua sloops -sTuaweJ!nbaa 06,17 8y guns aaueildwoo aansua uosleil LiinoA JaTsoJ e Aoldwe To!JTs!p looyas Liae9 'auoz loogas Jegjoue SOAOW Tuepnns aq} ueew sluawa6ueue buinil Li! se6uega 4I Liana loops ewes NT Li! JeeA aiwepeae Lie gsiu!4 oT pannolle aq gonoA ie sod :se inbaa 0617 9V `/SII ea!4!3eds .gTnoA JOTso4 aligow i(ly6iy Jo; AHnupoa pue A}iligejs leuo!leonpa anaasaad s! uoiielsi6al sig} 4o enpa(go eql .(6JequiaTS) 0617 8b' papoeue aanTelsi6a-i GL -11 OOOZ uI `sewoaino Ieuo!Teonpa 6u!Aoadw! ui JoTae4 /(a)i e sI A4!I!ge}s loops leg; 6ulnnogs gaaeeseJ esuodsai ul (0617 8b) sTy6iy yinoA aalsod saanosaleuowonp2 I;I1111 r 0V1 171, •uo!Tua1ap al!uannf ui gfnoA Ja1So4 bugaoddns o� paIea!pap ale swea6oad asag± •suieaioad uoIJuaJaQ aIuannr e • .Aepol aoua1s!xa ui uieWaa sweaboad solid asagi pue s1oplsip loogos 01 sIuea6 ein paaolid seen SAZI /Ileuibiap •suuer5oad JapJs!Q 9 . .sweaboad sA i um uoijeonpa �o sao!go A4unoo 85 s,aleis ag14o auo inq sly •sureh6ord ap!M/{Juno3 Lg . .swea6oad sAd una of uo!leonp3 4o luawTJedaa eiwo4ileo aq1 WOJ4 sTuea6 an!T!TOdWOO aniaoaa sa!T!Tua 1e301 .sue!paen6 JO sangelaa gThnn paoeld seq TJnoo aqB asogf fou `sawoq Ja1so4 JO dnoa6 pasuaoil Li! bum g1noA JaEso4 anaas Apo Aew swea6oad We! Tuauno Japun •gTnoA Jaiso4 Jo4 sawoo1no leuoReonpa 6u!noadw! 4o ani1oafgo age gTlnn saoinaas leivawalddns apinoad goignn `swea6oad SAd gbnonn s! waTsAs Z -yl aqi ui g1noA JaTso4 slJoddns a1e1s agI sAenn Aiewpd aql 4o aup suaeaEooad SAZJ saanosaH IeUO!Te3flP� OV1onim 5� .(sTwnoo pue `swa)IwoM'epoos `sTuawed walso4) swaploga)jets apisTno pue (sTou}sip loops pue swagoeaT) swaplogaiels o! wapeae s‘uawpligo aqi ueantgaq suos!e!l se GAJOS 44E1S Sid sasea auwos ul •aagJQ .aaep of do awe spwooaw loops awns 6uNeuw pue spodssed uoReonpa ,sTuapnls 6ugalduwoo ui wa)jwoM 'epos aqT lsisse suwew6owd sA j auwos •Ilo.is!H jooyas pue sppa ro .peal .senouw Tuanbaw4 4.0 asneoaq sa!Tln1Tae loops Li! aTed!oiTwed Touueo oqM gfnoA waisoj woj (saswnoo 3!snuw JO aaewel se Lions) saginiToe waj}o suwew6owd si j auwos •sap Aj v aejnawnaeilx3 .(samnitoe uo!Tewedawd 0601103 ui uo!Ted!oiTwed pue `VOM loops 4o uo!TaIduwoo `aouepuane ,sluapnis 6u!rago Aq elduwexa woo) ewe wiagT ui wa}soj jo uo!Teanpa aqT ap!n6 pue woi!uouw suwew6owd sAi auwos •BuuopuoW jeuopeanp3 'wapinowd wagpoue of luapms age 6uiwwa4aw Aq JO sanlasuwagT aoinwas age 6u!p!nowd i(q Jawa `6uuolnl oT ssaaoe ane.' gTnoA JOTso4 awnsua Tsnuw suwew6owd SAA II y Zu!Jo;nl . -6uiMoIIo4 NT 40 awouw JO auo sep!nowd pea }nq sbuiwaMo aainwas 4o xiuw anb!un sT! auiWwaTap Aeuw uwew6owd S,j g3e2 s6uiaoj4o Woa6oad sooinaos umo/ aolsod sOOanosOH iouoiTe0np� 91, kcov/•JOWWns aq� Jo4 Tno °now 01 6u!neq uegi aaglei `punoa-aeaA 6uisnoq luapnls u! AeTs 01 ganoi( Jalso4 Jou1104 smo!!e znJO ewes e!uaomeO 4o Al!sJeA!un aqI `a!dwexa ao j •ginoi( JoTso; aauaaoj iaoddns swaaboad !eool pau6lsap aneq sesndwea a6a!!oa ales auaos •spoddns aIJ!aads-sndure3 Jaw) •ginoA Jalso4 JOWJ04 Taoddns a!wapeae pue `uoiTlnT tu!snoLi440 sweaboad asagl `sesndwea Al!saan!un aims eivao4!!eO pue 000 Auew uo a!ge!!eny •sweai6ord saejoyas ueipreno •6u!u!eJT AJepuoaas-sod J04 ZZ eft Japun Lonox( Jalso4 Jau1Jo4 aea, Jed 000`5$ do saa44o weaboad s!Lil •werioad srayanon pue jeuoijeanp3 a90e110 •LilnoA Ja1soJ Jou aao4 01 uo!T!nl aaJ4 A!!enTJ!n ap!noad s333 aql •aauejslssd uoIJInl (000) aiaj/o3 Apunuriuo3 e!uaoilleo • • • . :apnpau! saaanosaa Lions •06oiio0 aia!dwoa pue `JoJ. iced `o1 eaueideooe uieb uaaLiT d!aq swea6oad !eaanas s}aoddns ems Gill `LuajsAs z ->4 aLiT paia!dwoa aneLi gamC Ja1so4 Gaup uoponpA aay6iH saanosaleuoReonp� e* 1111111111111111111 \N OVIti LL 'saainaas pua sw 6oad pepaau 6uiss03aa pua Tnoge 6u!wee! u! gpno/C aaisol sisissa iegl au!I diag pua alis qaM a suiapew seainaas !epos 4o TuauapadaO aql •uewspngcup arao awsod . •pIogasnog a una pua `saaueui4 a6auaua `6u!snog pui4 of kiassaaau surfs 6uigaaal Aq se6a ganoA aAJOS sweibaid pasaq-Aw noa aseq •siva iBoad 6u!n f juapuadepu j . .saaanosaa Iauowonpa ssaaaa gTno/ diag Teal S03!AJas ioddns OMT spun] ossa alas aqT `swaaboad paaaTuoo-aiwapaaa oT uoiTippa LAI suaea6oad poddns saanosaei IeUO!Te3flP� 8l 01V71 .sluepnis aWoou!-nnol oT paaa44o sweaboad aoueas!sse aballoo pue p!e Ie!oueu!J bu!pnlou! saaanosai uoijeanpa Jay6!H •weaboad uovu!uaaa)aa lenp!n!pul e!A IuaWaouenpy GLAT pue sao!naas builasunoo buipnlou! eauejs!sse uo!Jeredard afialloo .aoueTs!sse )laonnawoy pue suossal IOot_ps Jaw bu!pnlou! &pojnl .sloops anReuaaije pue `slleq aI!uannf `sloogos Tanoo 6u!pnlou! sloogas an!JeuaaJid . 'saoVaas paz!Ienp!n!pu! Jauno pue `suo!TuanaaTu! Ieaoineyaq `bullasunoo uileaq IeTuaw bu!pnlou! saa!naas spaau,e:aads .AdeaagT goaads pue uolpnJTsu! paz!Ieloads bu!pnpu! uopeanp3,e!aads .sessep sseulpeaa paps pue aaeo/Cep bu!pnlou! uaJaedJapu!}r-a rd 'S00!AJas buinnollo� aq1 ao4 paeu ub!u Ala1euo!Taodoads!p e aneq o1 pua} ufnoiC Ja1so4 `sabuelleyo Ieuo!Teonpa anb!un alauB j.o asneoa8 'sTuepnTs loops oilgnd Ile o1 algel!ene saavues ail sseooe o1 alglblla osle ale yjnoiC as}sod sa3Inaas pue sWaa60ad WaaJTsu!eV ssooj sa3anosaH Iauo!Ta3npD "DE— 4iNIMIMI OV1 'saoinaas uoi e aodsue. a uedxa pue weaboad a .� � � p p p SJ�� an 4o uo!leTuawaIdW! aallaq ybnoagI. gTnoA Jaiso4 aoj sailiunpoddo Ieuo!Teonpa anoadw! pinoo aanTels!ba1 auk mai Jo4 suoilepuawwooaa Jag() pue !plop alOW ui sanss! asa n 4o awos agiaosap ani sap!is Tuanbasgns aqT u! q nod as.jsoj Xaepuoaas-jsod pue z�-)f gjoq icy uoijeanpa ssaaae sanssi Buipunj uoijepodsueil •seoyues u► sde5 pue sa!auepgjaui of spew s iapino.Jd a jdij jnw yino.rgj we r6ord Sold eqj Bu!uund •E •seoyues poddns pepaau 6u:sseaae ward gjnoif iejsoj Auew luana.rd waiBo.rd Sold ayl aoJ suoIJa!JJsei uoijediaiped •6upopuow jeuoijeanpa pa.lea!pap yaej anupuoa gjnoX ,re.;sof i(uew 61, .t 'Z :Teuf puy. ani `AIIeoi4ioadS .saoinaas pue sweaboad bugs!xa qT!M saiouaioi44au! pue sbu!woolJous panui1uoo o� anp Alleped aq woo siyl •sawooEno Ieuo!leonpa wood Aeidsip oT anu!Tuoo Lanai( Jalso4 `saaJnosaa pue sweaboad °leis leuowppe a !dsaO sTuaWanoadwi a04 suo!Tepuewwo3ai pue sweJ5 ad 6u!Ts!x. uT'M swiss' ."' OZ •uo!Teznlao!ad aau6!y �o ALipoM `9a040a0up `aae pue ssaoons o!uaapeoe 40 saan!ap AaN ale uo!Jej rodsue rj pua 'Anima's Ieuo!Jeanpa Zuiaojiuotu a vapead . .suo!sioap aan1!puadxa Ila puluaq leob 6u!uoaeaano an se satuoajno jeuoijeanpa iu!nordur! ywM `suo!spap uo!Telueweldw! o!w!oods 6u!New u! Xjj clixajj eney o1 anu!1uoo pinous swea6oad SAi leooi . :pu!W u! saldloupd asoq ldaj aM `M01104 Ieyn. suo!jepuewwooaa aye 6u!1elnWa04 ul •yonoA JaTso4 J04 sa!T!unIaoddo leuo!1eanpa anoadw! 01 aapo u! quads ale spun4 6u!Ts!xa AeM aqi azipio: da.r isnw swea6oad pool pue mems °L 1 anallaq GM `AIIe0!4!09dS 'saainosai 6u!1s!xa buiieoolpaa Aq swea6oad szuu! sluawanoadwi uo!s!Aue aM `ju!od owns wea6oad SAd 9y1 u! saellop leuo!I!ppe Tsenu! o1 asoouo Aew a1els auT el!gM ealnau-1soo aq papueiu! ale suoi1epuowwooaa Jnp swauaanoaduai aieW azpoiadaH suop.epuauauaooai 111r OVI -pauieTu!eua Ham )ou aae elep aseq} `aanaMoq `saseo Aueua u! •ssaaboad Ieuo!1eonpa ,sjuapnls eql )peal pue aoi!uoua uea saappgaiels Jana pue saa)aoM !epos gaigM Aq sueaua e Ham se `saa4suea1 loops buileTlliae} ao� spaoaaa IeopoTsiu aq o} pasoddns aae °sail' .swauanaop papa asegl u! uoileuaao4ui o!seq aagTo pue `sTuawaaeId ssep pue loogas `supaaa loogas buppeal ao4 algisuodsaa aae saa){aonn (epos •a;eJnoaeu! JO aJajdwoau! ale spodssed uoijeanpa Auen .senssi pa}elaa-aalsueal Law buileep pue `s1ipaaa bu!SSIua u}inn diaq `uo!loalas ssep uo ao!Ape bu!pnpau! poddns leluauaaiddns paau ginoA aaiso} i(uei .ssaaboad leuo!Teanpa _Hag' asinpe pue Jopiuow bu!dtaq uo pasnaol we oqM sIenpiA!pui 01 ssaaae anew Tau op gfnoi( Jelso4 sesea /(uew u! `sanssi Aia4es pue queaq pue sanow luanbaa4 4o asneaa9 •eouepne5 jeuo!Jeanpa ap!nard of jenpin►pui ue Noel gjnoi(aajsoj AueW LZ :anal uaajo aao 6uin40II0J eqi `Alleonioads •pa){oopano s! ssai6oad leuoneonpe sjuepnls e uoilueTTe }ioudxe saseo i(uew Li! `saseo JOTsoJ. Li! Uaaouoo AJ w!Jd 4o ualjo aae senssi i(jajes pue gijeeq asneoaq `JOAeMoH . jjeas weaboad sed pue `sJegoeal `saa)IaoM repos `senITeTuesaadaa leuoiieonpa `sivaaed JOTso4 pue Ieoiboloiq `so6pn[ buipnioui `uo!Teonpe smnoA JOTso1 6U!OOSJ9n0 ui panionui sienpinipu! /(uew aae aaagl "BuIaoiuour ieuo►Jeanpe paJea►pap Noel al anu1Juoa watt aajsoj i(uew 6u!JoT!uon Iauo!Wa0nppaTa3ipaa >iPa1 LTnoA JaisoJ anssI r 1711 .swea6oid sAd pue `sToia1sip loo fos `SMO uaanngaq sTuewebueaae 6uiaegs e}ep pool w!nbaa Sew sigt -AIleaol panoadde aauuew e ui Aouebe (sMo) seoinaas aaellaM plig3 aqf o1 papinoad pue 6uilasunoo o!wapeoe 6upnp paaaqlle6 aq ueo elep sift .awoq Jaaso4 pasueoil JO dnoa6 e ui 6uinil fTnoi( JOTso4 Joj. Tuawnoop 6ui>ioeJT eieldwoo of papaau slielap opepeoe eql 6u!p!noad sAd 6uNseT puewwooaa ann `gJnoA aaisoj aoj spiooaa puo!Teonpa 4o i(oeanooe pue sale" uoiTeldwoo anoadwi of •spodssed uo:Jeanp3 Jo uopajdwoo }uoweoeld ueipen6 JO eniTelaa e ui Tou we own ginoi( aaasoi lle J04. wea6oad sjj keno Akiligisuodsaa 1ioildxe ue aq 6uilasunoo oiwapeoe puewwooaa aM •wea6oid pool uo!Taaosip ague we g1noA JelsoJ Jo4 seovues as f}o Aue inq 6uiaoTnl aa}}o 01 peJ!nbaa we swea6oad sAd `Al1uauno •5uijesunoo aiwapead 'LP ZZ • nog( JaTso1 peau -LIEN ism Jo4 s"om"as 6u!Molloj. aa}}o swea6oad s &i Ile `6uipunj Tuea6 6u!Apoaa 40 uo!l!puoo e se 1eg1 puowwooaa ann `Alleo!Jioads •5upopuour pue aauepin5;euoijeanpa jua.is!suoa pue ajenbape aniaaa r Jajsoj a ensue o� swe n6o rd Sold Xjunoa jo seipjigisuodsa,r aq 6u!puedxa puawwoaa r am uo!Teanp.3 uano, aalsod JoTiuoW oT sweJ5 ad SAd a l!nbe I —suoi22puawwoaaH EZ (NI •yTnoA JaTso} aagTo se sowooano good AIaeiws i(eidsip sTuapn}s asegf 4o i(uew pue ue!paen6 }ueuewiod Jo an felaa e gTinn peoeId ale ANT uagnn aeaddesip Tou op eoej gjnoi( asegl sa6uallego o!wapeoe `aanannoH .poddns papaau i(ue apinoad ueo sJeni6GJeo ue!paen6 JO sen!Telaa J oqT pownsse si T! asneoeq,peau-g6iq„ se pannain Tou aae Tuaweoeld Tuauewaad e u!eppe ognn JO sueipaen6 JO sanirepaa Laron peoeld aae ow gTnoA JeTsod .sowoq Jelso4 pasueou JO dnoa6 Li! 6u!A!l sTuapnTs oT saoinaas Je4Jo Apo Aew sweaboad s1�d `Alluouno •saainaas poddns papaau Buisseooe woad q noX ,19.1soj awns Juanaad wei6ard SAd aye aoJ suonoujsal uopedIaiped uoijadpped innoA J Tsod Trail suoi13!JTsaH Waa6oad sAd —z anssi jz .sivanbu!lap se pa!4lssep assail pue sawoq pasuao!l io dnoa6 Li! 6uinil asogf—gfnoA JaTsoJ peau-LALI !sow Jo4 panaasaa aq oT anu!Tuoo wogs `spaosaa loops to 6u!reJT pue 6u!lasunoo o!wapeoe se Lions `sao!mas an!suaTu! aaoW •saea/( aAII Tsed u!qunn waasAs aalsol Tno paoeld aneq Aeua oLiM sTuapnTs se Mann se sueipaen6 JO san!lelaa Limn\ paoeld ale ognn swapnls of (sleaaa4aa 6uNew pue suo!Tsanb 6uuannsue se Lions) eaueTs!sse Waal-pogs pue 6u!aoTn} aajjo one aq swea6oad sAd puewwooaa am `AIleo!4!oads.aoueIs!sse leuo!Teonpa /Geivawalddns 4o lana! awos woaj. l!laueq mom gTno/( ae sol luaoaa pue Tuauno Ilb' •tpnoAJa;soj;uaaaa pue;uauna jje o; seoIA.Jes pa;iwi j ap!noJd ueo Aay; os sau: japini we o rd SAd 6u:Buego puawwoae r am swaiel ad gfnoA Jelsod Jo4 suo!TO!JTSe A4!I!q!6!I.3 Appow uo!TEpUOWWo3a� 5z OV .uaalsAs Aouanbuqap buigixa uaunn Ameioadsa `ssaaboad pue spaoaaa Iauo!Teonpe buiaoTiuow s! oynn AlpeIo 4o )aei •ylno/( Jaaso4 <<TuanbuiIap„ J04 saainaas ui sdee . .qanoi( Jaiso4 gown buinaas s! weaboad s,j yoiynn buipaebaa (sTuaaed Ja1so4 `SJO JOnn !epos `sJogoeal) saapioualeis Jo4 uo!sn4uo3 . 7 4unoa e uiyfinn GAOW Lip -10A JOTso4 uayM sdigsuoigelaa 4o ssoI pue `saip iq!suodsaa 4o 6upJa4sueJT pue Iaoivuaded jo uoiTeoiidnp kiesseoauun . ��nsaa ueo swo goad panes •uoggeaado ui sweiboad sou aId!TInw ale aaayT sequnoo Ieaanas ui `AlluanbasuoO •(8z) waasAs Aouanbupp aLT Li! JOTso4 1e paTabaeT AIan!snIaxa aae JO (9) sToygsip ioouos uaoa. a1eaado sweaboad sou Ieuo!T!ppe 4o aagwnu pauwii e `aanannoH •uTnoi( JaTso4 4o Alpofew aye anaas sweaboad asauj pue (s.3oo) uoggeonpa Jo saoijjo Alunoo OnanAT una aae (L9) sweaboad s,j lsow `AITuauno •saainias u! sdefi pue sa:aue:aijjau: of spew swe rBo rd SAd Jo sada i a jdijjnw 5uiuund saOinaas 4o A4!I n° saseaa3aa ampruTs SAd Tuai3i44au1 c anssi .sluanbuiiap bu!pniou! `111noic Jalso4 He Jo4 sao!Nas 4o AouaTs!suoo aansua dial pue `AJaniIap aoinaas aU!IW aJTs `1ao44a 4o uo!leoildnp pue uo!sn4uoo AJesseoauun aieuiuu!Ia pInom abueuo sial •sweaboad 300 bu4sixe all of sa!TffiqHsuodsaa pue buipun4 ail buiiius pue siueab weaboad Sid Aouanbuiiap pue unaloiaisip aTeaedas an buqeu!W!Ia puowwooaa am `Alleoi4ioads •anal 30o eye go suisA ad Sold iu►jep:josuoa puauauroaar am SAO3 la sWeaboad SAd aTepmosuo0 —uo!TepuaWWooaH 111111111111111111 rOV LZ -(loog3s LAI -long sanlasweL oddns o1) >IJOM pue loops q oq sanlesweL 106 Alge!laa of sueow aney Tou op AeLll se `0601103 6u!Taldwoo pue u! 6uilloiue o1 aapJeq AJeua!ad e se sm alp /(I1uenbaa4 q no/( a0}so4 po1ed!3uewe pue 2uauno •uinoi( J01so4 J04 s03!AJOS uogelJodsuea1 ap!noad dloq o} wear's bu!punj pe1eu6!sop ou seq Allua.un3 e!w04!Ieo 1su!e6e 1301oad pasoddns oae Teull smeI 0617 8b Oyu a1!dsep Jean( eql jo Olpp!w 0q1 u! sloops J04suea1 o1 pooaol aae gTnoA Ja1so4 /(uew pue `lsoo aye aeaq II!M Am!mu0 ou Tet.11 ua1j.o s! lInsaa ayl .uo!1epodsuea1 }uapms soa!nbaa 1uawebueaae s!LIT 1! 1s03 OBIT saeaq O M A1!aelo Tou scop me! NT `s1u0W0oeld 6u!A!I a6uego ANT uegM uan0 Je0/ I003S 014140 Japu!euaaa aye 004 <<u!6!J0 40 sloog3s„ a!ay11e Ae1s o1 swepn1s Ja1so4 Z -yI 4o igbp aye s13a}oad 0617 8y u6nogTl`d • • :Alle3!4!30ds .sa!1!n!13e pa1elaa-Ioou3s pue loops 01106 waLIl dloq o1 e3ue}s!sse pue seam -lose.' OBIT re! ua14o LfnoA Jelsod •gjnoA Jajsoj Aiepuoaas;sod pue zi-yj gjoq Joj uopeanpa ssaooe lomsa,r sanss! Euipunj uopepodsueil uo!Te3npo1 sseaov T3!a1Se I senssi uol1e odsuEal enssI °VI 8Z .slueweoeld Alunoo-ssoao ssaippy .spaau uo!1epodsue4 pa1eloJ-looyos giiM wagl ls!sse oT se6e) gTno/( JoTsai. poled!ouewe pue 1ua uno eouejs!sse uoRepodsueaq ap!noad .A1!l!glsuodsaa le!oueu!1 6u!i(j!aep allgM uo!1eJodsue4 Jo wow 6u!pae6aa A1!l!q!xelJ pool Mow • .saellop uo!lelJodsuen aaeo aaasoj'eaam. Jo esn eziwixeij .ui6iao Jo pops J oq1 le aeeA ay} a}aldwoo 01 ewe eouepue e loops M2u e o1 pen= we oqM gfnoi( JGTsoJ Molle pUe 0617 9`d q1!M eoue!idwoo algeuD .ewe eouepualle imps awes eqT u!qpM q}noA Je;sol aoj sTueweoeld Mau pu!4 o� s.19)1JOM le!oos .Io4 san!Tueou! Glean pue sJejsueJT looyos Jee/ p!w a6eanoosia • • • . :wogs lepow bu!punj. aql .sawnlpe leuo!Teonpa o1 sseoae sA}n0A JeTsai. pa1ed!ouewe pue 1uauno enoadw! ll!M 1eg1 ppm 6u!pun4 uo!letodsuea1 e asinap sa!1!1ue S,td pue `s1o!a1s!p loops `sa!oua6e SMO Alunoo `sluewpedep owls `aanTels!be1 eql woaj. san!leluesaadeJ jo 6u!Ts!suoo dnoa6 e puewwooaa aM `Alleo!4!oedS •gjnoXiejsoj iLrepuooas.isod pue zi-}i jo spaau uoijepodsuerj eq.; ssaippe of dnoZfaom e euenuoa aanje js! 6e7 etp puewwooar am loouos 01 Tae gTnoA Jalsoi aoj sueaw dolanaa uo!TepUOWWooa� 6Z tpnoX iejsoj Aiepuooasjsod pue zi-m jo spaau uonepodsuerj eq. ssaippe driath poM e euenuop •j •s30j le swe,r6oid SA3 a.iepgosuo0 •� gjno� aejsoj pue lua r no dye o) sao1nJas uiepea ap!AoJd uea Xagj os saullapin6 we,rfioid SA3 a6ueq -z •spodssed uo:;eanpa jo uopejdwoo pue 6ui jasunoa o!wapeoe apn/oui o.j sanwsuodsa r wei6o rd SA3 puedx3 •1, .sluapnTs i(peau asogl Jol sai}iunpoddo leuo!ieonpa anoadw! diet.] ueo ales `suo!Tepuewwooaa 6uinnoIIoJ aqT 6uqueweldwi i(q }eq; anewq aM •uogeonpa pae6aa gpiv Apeinoped `sobuailega Auew eae). gfnoA Ja1sod AaeuauanS suon.epuauauaooael /A4/Jd/sl/no6raa.apa'MMM//:dfly :uoiTeanp.3 4o 1uaLuTaedaa aye of )uiI 6u!Mol1o4 auk eas ase* `Iaaaua6 Li! swa.i6oxl SAd Tnoge uo!TewaoJui aJOW and Aof ea'oe/"MMM 9££8-6U£-91.6 oue3Iad a!uejais :001440 s jsiCieuy ani1els0a1 auk peiuoa aseaid `uoiTequasaad siuT Li! SWOT! NT 4o Cue uo uoi]eWao4u! aaoua aoZI noA �u�yl PPIC PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Foster Care in California Achievements and Challenges Caroline Danielson • Helen Lee with contributions from Daniel Krimm and Jay Liao Supported with funding from the Stuart Foundation R Y AP PHOTO/BEBEW MA' i.f 1... California's foster care system, responsible for about 63,000 children and youth who have been removed from their homes because of maltreatment or neglect, has made some remarkable advances in the last decade. Foster care is an exceptionally sensitive component of the state's child welfare system because it can mean the removal of a child from a family. So the goal of the foster care system is to safely reunite children with their own families under improved conditions or to provide stable and beneficial home environ- ments elsewhere. Data show that the state has made great progress in moving children out of foster care. Since 2000, there has been a 45 percent drop in the share of California children in the system, a reduction achieved largely through shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. In 31 of California's 58 counties, the number of children in foster care declined by 10 percent or more between 2000 and 2009—even as the popula- tion of children in the state increased from 9.3 million to 10 million. The decline has been most pronounced among black children, who have long been overrepresented in the child welfare system. In 2000, 5.4 percent of California's black children were in foster care, but only 2.7 percent were in 2009. Furthermore, more foster children are remaining in their first out -of -home placement, rather than going in and out of multiple placements, than at the beginning of the decade; and more children who entered foster care later in the decade are eventually placed with relatives. www.ppic.org 2 Foster Care in California These reductions, which far outpaced those across the rest of the country, may have resulted at least in part from a more intense focus by local and state policymakers on the problems of foster care, which in turn led to innovations in child welfare policies and practices. The system still faces significant challenges. Payments to foster families and other out -of - home care providers have not kept up with inflation. Despite the reduction in the proportion of black children in the system, they are still substantially overrepresented. There has been a worrisome increase in the share of children who enter foster care more than once during their childhoods. And, despite the significant reductions, the number of children who age out of the system—often facing uncertain futures with too little adult guidance—has actu- ally risen since the beginning of the decade. The changes we find and report here are measures of process, not of outcome. Confirma- tion that California children are in fact better off because they either entered foster care or left it requires investigation into their circumstances. Toward that end, we recommend the gathering of broader data, including measures of the well-being of all children who come into contact with the child welfare system, but especially those who spend time in foster care. Tracking children over time, as well as linking child welfare records with educational, health, parental employment, and criminal records collected by other government agen- cies, would yield valuable information about children's well-being. It would also pave the way for policy and practice innovations that could extend the noteworthy changes that have occurred in this decade. Please visit the report's publication page http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=905 to find related resources. www.ppic.org Introduction Foster Care in California The child welfare system in California is a fundamental part of the state's social safety net, charged with the task of protecting children from harm and furthering their well-being. Child welfare departments in the state's 58 counties investigate hundreds of thousands of reports of suspected abuse or neglect annually. Responses by county caseworkers and courts to child maltreatment—defined as the neglect or abuse of a person under age 18—are tailored to the circumstances of the child and family and to the requirements of the law.' Most children whose maltreat- ment report has been substantiated remain in their homes with their families, with support services provided to them. But roughly one in three children with a substanti- ated report is placed in temporary, out -of -home foster care. In the 2008-2009 fiscal year, close to 32,000 California children were placed outside their homes because juvenile dependency courts deemed that the child's removal and intervention services to the family were necessary before the child could safely return home. The foster care caseload thus encompasses the most severe and difficult cases of maltreatment and neglect. The goals of those who administer foster care are to place children in the most family -like settings as pos- sible, to keep their stays in foster care short, and, as much as possible, to return children to their own families. If children cannot safely reunify with their parents, the emphasis shifts to creating a permanent placement with a legal guardian or adoptive family. Foster care is a dynamic, high -turnover system: Tens of thousands of children enter in any given year, but the state also reunites about the same number of children with their families or places them with adoptive families or legal guardians. However, each year, several thousand children also leave foster care only because they age out of eligibility, an outcome that makes them the focus of great concern. A wealth of evidence indicates that young adults who age out of foster care are at significant risk of poor outcomes in education, employ- ment, health, homelessness, and crime. 3 (STOCK o MIROSLAV GEORGI/EVic More than 30,000 children enter foster care in California each year, but even more leave. In this report, we focus specifically on describing and discussing issues central to foster care in California and on the significant advances that have occurred since 2000. Foster care serves a relatively small share of children and families who come into contact with the child welfare sys- tem in any given year, but the costs to support out -of -home care for children are among the largest in the child welfare system. Specifically, California and its counties (which administer most of the direct services to children) spent about $5.4 billion on child welfare services in 2008-2009. Foster care support payments make up approximately one- quarter of that; allocations for ongoing support payments to adoptive parents and to guardians cost nearly an addi- tional $1 billion (Mecca 2008, Reed and Karpilow 2009). The foster care system has suffered from perennial challenges (County Welfare Directors' Association 2007, Little Hoover Commission 2003). These included, in previous decades, a higher share of children in foster care in California than in the rest of the nation and persistent racial and ethnic disparities, particularly for black chil- dren. Counties also have had to deal with a shortage of foster family homes. www.ppic.org 4 Foster Care in California But since the beginning of the decade, there have been notable changes in foster care policy, process, and practice. Policymakers have intensified their focus on foster care issues: Most recently, in 2009, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care released recommendations to improve the courts' role in foster care (California Blue Rib- bon Commission on Children in Foster Care 2009). Earlier, in 2006, the legislature created the Child Welfare Council, a permanent advisory group developing recommendations for improved collaboration and coordination across the courts, agencies, and departments that serve children (Child Welfare Council 2008). The introduction in 2000 of a state assistance program, the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin -GAP) program, was an initiative to increase the share of foster care children permanently placed with relatives. Another major change is the movement toward outcomes -based reporting. This was motivated in part by the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997), which created outcome measures and required systematic data col- lection on child welfare services for all states. These federal Since the beginning of the decade, there have been notable changes in foster care policy, process, and practice. standards are by design challenging to meet. Although California has shown steady progress, it has not yet met federal standards in either its first or second review (Califor- nia Department of Social Services 2004, 2009a; U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services 2008).2 Despite this focused attention, policymakers and practitioners continue to voice grave concerns. Given this and current budget constraints, it is all the more critical to reassess how foster care, the most intensive and one of the most expensive components of child welfare services, is faring. Doing so lays the groundwork for identifying cost-effective ways to sustain and expand on progress in upcoming years. This report offers both a detailed examination of the transformation that has occurred in the foster care system since 2000 and its continuing challenges. We identify key processes underlying the changes, so that stakeholders can plan how best to sustain efforts that promote success and policymakers can focus scarce resources on the system's most pressing problems. System Overview A child's first point of contact with child welfare services in a county is typically through the 24-hour emergency response hotline that all counties maintain. Although most referrals are made by mandated reporters such as medical professionals, police officers, and teachers, ordinary citi- zens can use these hotlines to make reports of suspected abuse or neglect, anonymously if necessary. If investiga- tion by county caseworkers confirms evidence of abuse or neglect, the report is said to be substantiated. Relatively few children for whom reports are made, about one in five, have a substantiated report in any one year.' Substantiated allegations fall into nine official catego- ries, ranging in severity from caretaker (parental) absence or incapacity to sexual abuse; the category of general neglect makes up about half of all substantiated allega- tions' All counties have implemented standardized assess- ment tools to guide them in appropriate levels of response. For most children, family maintenance—that is, providing services to families to help avoid a foster care entry—is a primary goal. These services encompass substance abuse treatment, emergency shelter, respite care, and parenting education classes, among others. If a report is substanti- ated, and the county concludes that the child's removal from his or her family is required, a dependency petition seeking that removal is filed with the juvenile dependency court, where a judge hears both sides and decides whether the petition is justified. (In emergency situations, removal of a child from the home can occur without a court order but the decision must be reviewed by a judge later.) If removal is ordered, the child becomes a dependent of the www.ppic.org Foster Care in California 5 court and officially enters foster care.' In cases where the child is removed from the home, child welfare case- workers strive to return the child to the birth parents or to find a permanent placement with alternative caregivers, most commonly through adoption or legal guardianship. In recent years, about one in three children with a substantiated maltreatment report was placed in tempo- rary out -of -home care because juvenile dependency courts determined a need for intervention and support services to the family before the child could safely return.' In total, about 32,000 children entered foster care in fiscal year 2008-2009, and approximately 63,000 children and youth were in child-welfare–supervised foster care as of July 2009. An additional 3,000 entered foster care in 2008-2009— and 5,000 were in the system as of July 2009—because of their involvement with the criminal justice system.' (It is also possible for a child who first enters foster care under the supervision of county child welfare departments to later become probation -supervised.) In the context of the state's entire population of chil- dren, foster care placement is relatively rare (Figure 1). In any one year, just under 5 percent of the state's children come to the attention of child welfare services through a Figure 1. Although the number of allegations of abuse or neglect of children seems high, few cases actually result in foster care intervention 5 o+ 3 a 2 Allegations Substantiations Foster care entries SOURCE: 2008-2009 data, authors' calculations from Needell et al. 2010. NOTES: The bars include children in child-welfare—supervised foster care. If a child is the subject of more than one allegation or substantiation, or has multiple foster care entries within the year, only one is counted. maltreatment report and 1 percent are the subject of a sub- stantiated report. However, only about 0.3 percent eventu- ally enter foster care. Across ages, infants are much more likely to be the subject of a maltreatment report, to have their reports substantiated, and to enter foster care. Infants are more likely than older children to come into contact with mandated reporters such as doctors and nurses, and they are more vulnerable. By law, children who are removed from their homes and enter temporary foster care must be placed in the most In the context of the state's entire population of children, foster care placement is relatively rare. family -like, "least restrictive" setting, and, when possible, kept in the same community and schools. In addition, caseworkers try to place children in a setting that will offer stability and that will most likely transition into a permanent placement. For these reasons, foster care place- ments with relatives or adults with "an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child," as the statute describes them, are a priority. Although all foster care is licensed or certified by coun- ties or the state, the types of foster care placements differ considerably in their levels (less versus more formal treat- ment), structure (less versus more supervision), and setting (more family -like versus more institutional) (Table 1). They also vary in cost because maintenance payments by the state and counties differ according to the needs of the child and the types of services provided.' On the less institutional and less costly end of the spectrum, placements include licensed foster family homes (including with relatives) and families identified and certified through foster family agencies (FFAs). FFAs were intended originally for children with special or behavioral needs and to find alternatives to group homes. They have long appeared to have a broader mission, serving both www.ppic.org 6 Foster Care in California Table 1. Out -of -home care settings range from family -like to institutional Typ. Description Foster family home (includes relative care and nonrelated extended family care) Families located through FFAs Group homes CTFs Family residences that provide 24-hour care for no more than six children (with the exception of sibling groups) Nonprofit agencies licensed to recruit, certify, train, and support foster parents for hard -to - place children who would otherwise require group home care Structured, residential facilities that have a treatment component Secure residential treatment facilities SOURCE: Reed and Karpilow 2009. children who could be placed with foster families as well as children who would otherwise be placed in group homes (Foster 2001). In terms of base payment rates, FFAs are also more costly for the state on average than foster family homes, even with additional clothing allowances and pay- ments to the latter (Legislative Analyst's Office 2008). More structured (and thus more costly) temporary placements include group homes with trained, 24-hour staff support and which can include a mental and behav- ioral health treatment component. In size, they can range from two to more than 100 children, although most are licensed for six (California Department of Social Services 2010a). Older youth may be placed in independent living Over half of children entering foster care for the first time leave to be reunified with their birth parents. or transitional housing programs. The most institutional and intensive setting is the community treatment facility (CTF), for children with severe emotional problems who cannot be treated in a group home setting. Target population Children without serious disabilities or special needs Children with emotional, behavioral, or other special needs; children awaiting adoption; children for whom a foster family placement cannot be found Children with more serious special needs Children with severe mental health needs but not severe enough for a psychiatric hospital Length of time in foster care varies depending on the needs of the child and of birth parents, the resources available within their families and communities, and the resources that child welfare services departments and dependency courts can muster. Just over half of children first entering foster care will stay in foster care for a year or less. However, about one in five of all children currently in foster care started his or her current stay at least five years ago. Moreover, most children who remain in state care for any length of time change placements at least once, so improving placement stability continues to be an impor- tant goal. Not surprisingly, the longer a child's stay in foster care, the more likely are multiple placements. Over half of children entering foster care for the first time leave to be reunified with their birth parents (57%). If family reunification will not occur, the child welfare services goal shifts to one of establishing permanent con- nections with caring adults. So that permanent homes for children can be found as quickly as possible, policies require concurrent planning for family reunification and for possible alternative permanent placement. Counties and courts also follow established time lines for terminat- ing parental rights. About one in five children who leaves foster care is adopted, although adoption patterns vary by age; a smaller share (about 8%) leave foster care because www.ppic.org Foster Care in California 7 an adult—often a relative—has become the child's legal guardian.9 Several thousand children every year leave foster care because they are age 18 or older and no longer eligible for services. The goal is to help these youth transition suc- cessfully to independent adulthood. The main program to provide this help is the state -funded Transitional Housing Placement Plus Program. Although enrollment is volun- tary, youth are eligible for its services up to age 25, so that in any one year, roughly 25,000 to 30,000 former foster youth could receive its services. However, the program has a capped, yearly allotment and can serve only a portion of this population—about 2,300 in 2008-2009 (John Burton Foundation 2009). It is not unusual for some children to cycle in and out of foster care. For one in five children who entered foster care in 2008-2009, for instance, that entry was not the first. Older children in particular are more likely to enter foster care for a second or subsequent time. Achievements The changes since 2000 in California's foster care system are unmistakable. Most notably, the share of children in foster care has dropped substantially since the decade began. Moreover, the drop was most pronounced for black children, who have long been overrepresented in the system. Our research indicates that the overall decline has been driven by reductions in the time that most children spend in foster care, rather than by reductions in the number of children entering foster care. In addition, more children remain in their first placement during their first year in foster care than they did in the past, and more chil- dren who stay in foster care for any length of time now are eventually placed with relatives or extended family. Foster Care Caseload Decline The foster care caseload in California has been steadily dropping for a decade (Figure 2). In July 2009, 59,686 children under the age of 18 were living in foster care.10 Figure 2. More exits than entries resulted in falling caseloads 100,000 75,000 Number of children 50,000 25,000 0 In foster care Exits Entries 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 SOURCE: Authors' calculations from Needell et al. 2010. NOTES: The graph shows child-welfare—supervised children of all ages and shows entries and exits over each state fiscal year (July—June); the caseload is as recorded at the start of the subsequent fiscal year. The figure shows the number of children entering and exiting, not the total number of entries and exits. A few children enter or exit foster care more than once a year. With about 10 million children under age 18 in California, this is equivalent to six of every 1,000 children in state care, compared to 10.9 of every 1,000 children in July 2000. Although caseload trends vary by county, 31 of the state's 58 counties saw the number of children in foster care decline by 10 percent or more between 2000 and 2009— over a period when the population of children in the state increased from 9.3 to 10.0 million. Los Angeles County saw its foster care caseload drop by 57 percent between 2000 and 2009. Put another way, 43 percent of the state's foster children lived in Los Angeles County in 2000, but by July 2009, less than a third did.'t These declines are a sharp reversal of historical trends. Data for the 1980s and 1990s (although more limited) indi- cate that California's foster care caseload grew from about 30,000 children in the early 1980s to a peak of over 100,000 in the late 1990s (Wulczyn, Hislop, and Goerge 2000). We find one main factor behind these declines. Since 2000, the number of children leaving foster care each year has consistently exceeded the number entering. Between the 1999-2000 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, the number of children entering foster care was between 32,000 and 38,000, whereas the number exiting, including those who aged out of the system, exceeded 39,000 each year.12 www.ppic.org Foster Care in California (STOCK o NATHAN GLEAVE The majority of children who enter foster care leave within a year. As long as exits continue to outpace entries, caseloads will continue to drop. The