Audit Finds Sex Offenders Living or Working in California Foster Homes

Just when you think you have read the worst headline, another one comes along. Audit report: Sex offenders are living or working in foster-care homes [Sacramento Bee 10/27/11 by Brad Banan]

The California State Auditor released the shocking report today. Over one thousand “registered sex offenders matched the addresses of licensed foster-care facilities and homes, auditors found. Almost 600 of those sex offenders were considered high risk.”

“The state Department of Social Services investigated the auditor’s findings and has begun licensing action against eight facilities and issued orders barring 36 individuals from facilities, according to the audit. Counties have separately taken action to remove children from homes or bar offenders from them. ”

The discrepancy on 1000 matches, 600 high risk offenders and only mentioning 36 individuals  and 8 facilities acted upon is mind-boggling! Are all the other 1000 being dealt with or just 600? Will there be any followup on when these children will be moved? Are there that many homes available to move kids to?

“The audit focused on Child Protective Services agencies in Sacramento, Fresno and Alameda counties. Los Angeles County was also selected for review, but officials there refused to provide information requested by the auditor.

The report found that Sacramento County had the highest number of deaths of children who had previous involvement with the child welfare system, out of the three counties reviewed. From 2008 to 2010, 15 children with prior abuse or neglect allegations died from subsequent abuse or neglect in Sacramento County. That compares to five such deaths in Fresno County and four in Alameda County.”

“Sacramento and the two other counties sometimes fail to promptly and thoroughly investigate abuse and neglect reports, the audit found. Auditors detail several cases in which Sacramento County social workers made questionable decisions in cases that ultimately resulted in death.”

Update: Find the 96-page pdf 96-page pdf of the report here .

Here are some excerpts:

• Page 6  “We estimate that the growth in the percentage of placements with foster family agencies has resulted in spending an additional $327 million in foster care payments between 2001 and 2010—costing an additional $61 million in 2010 alone.”
• Page 24 “Although Justice granted Social Services access to the sex offender registry, Social Services has not performed these comparisons because it did not get the resources that it felt were necessary to perform address comparisons and to follow up on the results. As discussed in the next section, Social Services implemented other measures, including checking the Megan’s Law Web site7 before it issues licenses, but none of these measures are a substitute for a full address comparison of all registrants in Justice’s sex offender registry.”
• Page 24-25 “In July 2011 our office provided Social Services the information necessary for them to investigate and take appropriate action on the address matches summarized in Table 1. In October 2011 Social Services stated it had completed over 800 investigations and county CWS agencies had completed nearly 250 investigations. Social Services indicated that it began legal actions against eight licensees (four temporary suspension orders and four license revocations) and issued 36 immediate exclusion orders barring individuals from licensed facilities. In six of the eight legal actions, Social Services found registered sex offenders living or present in licensed facilities. The department stated it issued the immediate exclusions for several reasons, including a sex offender owning the property, a sex offender’s spouse being the licensee, a sex offender living at a licensee’s personal residence, and a sex offender picking up mail at the facility.”
• Page 25 See exactly where the cases are in Table 1-Number of Sex Offender Addresses That Match Those of Licensed or Approved Facilities and Foster Homes
• Page 25 -26 “County CWS agencies conducted 248 investigations and found 36 registered sex offenders to have “some association” with foster homes. According to Social Services’ director, county CWS agencies took direct actions in eight cases, including removing foster children from homes, ordering registered sex offenders out of homes, and discontinuing relative caregivers’ participation in the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin‑GAP) program. Additionally, county CWS agencies found eight cases in which registered sex offenders were associated with foster homes but had no children living in the homes at this time. Of the 248 investigations, 15 resulted in the county agencies developing a safety plan where the registered sex offender was the “biological parent of a minor in the home or there was no condition placed by probation or parole to warrant removal of the child or ordering the [registered sex offender] out of the home.” We believe these results highlight the importance of Social Services establishing mechanisms to begin performing this type of address comparison on a regular basis”
•  Page 28 “A specific name must generally be provided for a background check. However, the Megan’s Law Web site can conduct address‑specific searches. This type of search can identify certain registered sex offenders living in the home or facility who were not identified during, or who moved in after, the background check process.
  After our April 2008 audit recommendation, Social Services implemented a requirement that its licensing analysts check the Megan’s Law Web site against the facility addresses for new applicants. Social Services also modified its licensing database so it could include any sex offender information gathered by its analysts and allow management to verify that the required Megan’s Law Web site check was completed. In addition, the department notified its licensees of the Megan’s Law Web site and encouraged its use.
  Social Services disseminated similar information to county CWS agencies. In 2008 legislation was proposed requiring that county CWS agencies use the Web site before licensing a foster home or placing a child with a relative; however, the legislation was not enacted. As a potential result, the counties we visited were not consistent in their use of the Megan’s Law Web site in their background check processes. Finally, in December 2008 Social Services submitted a budget change proposal requesting 30 positions ($3.5 million in the first year) to perform automated address comparisons using Justice’s sex offender registry, to follow up on the results, and to investigate arrest reports for persons previously criminally cleared to operate or work at licensed facilities. Although the governor’s proposed fiscal year 2009–10 budget included this proposal, it was ultimately rejected by the Legislature.
  The Megan’s Law Web site does not provide the work addresses of sex offenders and provides the residency addresses of only a portion of registered sex offenders. Registered sex offenders may apply for exclusion from the Web site if their only registrable convictions are for certain sex offenses, such as lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old in certain circumstances, felony sexual battery, or misdemeanor child molestation. The Megan’s Law Web site states that it excludes approximately 25 percent of registered sex offenders from public disclosure by law. Moreover, for the purpose of address‑specific comparisons or checks, this Web site discloses only zip codes for numerous offenders. Taking exemptions and zip code‑only offenders into account, the Megan’s Law Web site displays the full California home address of less than half of registered sex offenders (approximately 56,000 of 125,000 registrants).
  Conversely, Justice’s sex offender registry includes the home and work addresses of all registered sex offenders. This database is available to law enforcement agencies, including Social Services’ peace officers.”
• Page 30 “Community care facilities, such as group homes, specialized treatment facilities, foster family agencies, and state‑licensed foster family homes are required to be visited by licensing division staff at least once every five years.”
• Page 36 Counties also do not always report abuse to Justice. State law requires county CWS agencies to notify Justice in writing of every case they investigate where known or suspected physical or emotional abuse or severe neglect are either substantiated or inconclusive.13 Of the 60 cases we reviewed, 19 required a report to Justice. However, in 12 of these instances (nine in Sacramento alone) the agency failed to file the required report to Justice due to administrative oversight. In one instance, the Sacramento CWS agency investigated a referral of abuse against the relatives of a child. The agency substantiated emotional abuse, but evidence of physical abuse was inconclusive. The agency removed the child from the relative’s home but did not report the abuse to Justice.”

Page36-37 General Recommendations

Social Services should begin to conduct regular address comparisons using Justice’s sex offender registry and its Licensing Information System and CWS/CMS. If Social Services believes it needs additional resources to do so, it should justify and seek the appropriate level of funding. If efforts to obtain additional resources fail, Social Services should assign this high‑priority task to existing staff.

To help keep children safe, the Legislature should consider enacting the following:

• A general prohibition of registered sex offenders living or working in licensed children’s facilities or CWS placements.

• A requirement that all law enforcement staff overseeing sex offenders make sure that the addresses sex offenders submit for registration do not match a licensed facility for children or a foster home.

• A requirement that Social Services make available to law enforcement in an efficient manner the addresses of its children’s facilities and foster homes.

To provide sufficient oversight of county CWS agencies with delegated authority to license foster homes, Social Services should complete comprehensive reviews of these agencies’ licensing activities at least once every three years.

To ensure that its licensees, including state‑licensed foster homes, foster family agencies, and group homes, are in compliance with applicable requirements and that children are protected, Social

Services should complete on‑site reviews at least once every five years as required by state law.

To encourage more effective communication from county CWS agencies regarding its licensees, Social Services should specify in regulations what types of situations or allegations the agencies
should forward to its licensing division.

To ensure that county CWS agencies send required reports of abuse and neglect to Justice, Social Services should remind these agencies of applicable requirements and examine the feasibility of using CWS/CMS to track compliance with these statutory provisions.”
More Specifics on Sacramento

When it comes to the money spent by the counties on playing the children, the report says counties could do a better job of saving money.

Margarita Fernandez is with the Auditor’s office. She says counties spent $327 million more on private agencies than they did ten years ago.

38% of Sacramento’s foster children are placed through a private service. The auditor’s report says a private agency placement typically costs counties twice what a family or group home placement would cost.”

San Joaquin Valley Specifics

Valley foster homes, day-care home shut down [Fresno Bee 10/27/11 by Barbara Anderson] says “The license of the day-care home in Fresno was suspended and the licenses for the foster homes were revoked when a check of addresses against the federal sex-offender registry found matches to registered sex offenders.

The names of the Valley businesses were not released Thursday, and it was not known when they were shut down. Children were removed from the Fresno County foster home sometime this summer, county officials said

The three businesses in the central San Joaquin Valley were among eight statewide that have been closed.

In Fresno County, 48 facilities were on the list and Tulare County had 15, said Michael Weston, spokesman for the state Department of Social Services. All were investigated, resulting in actions against three, Weston said. The rest were cleared for various reasons.

Social Services issued immediate exclusion orders against three people in Fresno County and two people in Tulare County, barring them from licensed foster homes and day-care homes.”

REFORM Puzzle Piece

unt