Sonoma County Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force Family ...

Sonoma County 

Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force 

Family Recovery Project 

Final Report 

County of Sonoma 

Department of Health Services, 

Department of Human Services, 

and Probation Department 

January 2011

1. Sonoma Family Recovery Project 

a. Executive Summary 

b. Structure and Organization 


Final Report 

Table of Contents 

c. Collaborative Capacity Instrument 

d. Shared Values and Principles Statement 

2. SAFERR Workgroup 

a. Summary of Activities 

b. Virtual Walk Through of the Systems 

c. Focus Group Report 

d. Recommended Policy and Practice Changes 

e. Practice Protocol Flow Chart 

f. SURF Evaluation Findings 

g. SAFERR Protocol 

3. Data Workgroup 

a. Data Workgroup Summary and Final Recommendations 

b. Interagency Data Sharing: An Overview 

c. Sonoma County Summary Data 

d. Sonoma FRP Logic Model 

e. Sonoma County Data Sharing Plan Outline 

f. Data and Information Systems Workgroup 

4. Training Workgroup 

a. Training Workgroup Findings and Recommendations 

5. Funding Workgroup 

a. Summary of Activities 

b. Sonoma County DDC Cost Study Findings 

c. Funding Strategies: Substance Abuse Specialists in Child Welfare and the 

Courts 

6. Acknowledgements

Background 

Sonoma County Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force 


Executive Summary 

The impact of methamphetamine and other substances of abuse on individuals, families and 

public service systems can be felt across our community. In 2006, the Sonoma County Board of 

Supervisors requested that County staff develop a report on the impact of methamphetamine on 

the community and County service systems. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed with 

representatives from the Sheriff, Public Defender, District Attorney, Probation, Human Services 

and Health Services. In July 2006, the workgroup brought the Sonoma County 

Methamphetamine Profile to the Board. The report documented the impacts of 

methamphetamine addiction on crime and violence, child endangerment, environmental 

degradation, and negative health outcomes and highlighted the lack of sufficient treatment 

resources and the need for better information on local prevalence and impacts of 

methamphetamine use. 

At the Board’s direction, a countywide Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force was convened 

to develop a comprehensive prevention plan to reduce the impact of methamphetamine on 

County children, families and communities. In September 2008, at the end of a one year 

planning grant, the task force released their Methamphetamine Prevention Plan. The plan 

emphasized that, in order to achieve service effectiveness, methamphetamine prevention efforts 

must be fully integrated within other County and community planning processes. The Board 

directed staff to acquire any additional funding possible to implement these recommendations. 

In March 2009, the Sonoma County Department of Health Services received funding from The 

California Endowment to support systems integration and alignment across the child welfare, 

alcohol and drug treatment and probation in developing and financing comprehensive early 

intervention programs for families at risk of multigenerational methamphetamine use in Sonoma 

County. 

Sonoma County Family Recovery Project 

The Sonoma County Family Recovery Project (FRP), an initiative of the Methamphetamine 

Prevention Task Force, is the systems integration strategic planning process that was designed 

to help us better serve families with substance use disorders who are involved with child welfare 

and probation. The Task Force served as the Advisory Committee and was composed of key 

stakeholders who would be impacted by the work of the Family Recovery Project or who provide 

assistance to the target population. 

The Family Recovery Project involved the County of Sonoma Department of Health Services, 

Department of Human Services, and Probation Department. The goals of the project were: 

1. Improved coordination and systems integration among child welfare, AOD and probation 

departments to provide treatment and supportive services to drug-involved families, as 

evidenced by the active participation of division directors in the development of 

comprehensive and integrated models and protocols, data sharing systems, and crosssystem 

training that reflect the family-centered treatment paradigm 

1

2. Effective use of available resources and funding streams in developing prioritized 

programs for drug-involved families within the child welfare, AOD and probation 

systems, as evidenced by completion of a comprehensive analysis and inventory of 

current funding streams, staffing, and practices; identification of strategies to maximize 

resource availability (e.g., through funding realignment, administrative waivers, etc.), and 

identification of strategies to overcome funding stream gaps and regulations that 

systematically exclude certain family-centered services to target populations. 

3. 

Increased understanding of the strategies to address systemic barriers to improved 

coordination and comprehensiveness of family-centered treatment for drug-involved 

families, 

as evidenced by a written report to and discussions with statewide AOD 

administrators, child welfare directors, Chief Probation Officers and other state and local 

officials of recommendations and lessons learned through cross-system collaboration 

and funding approaches. 

The Steering Committee guided the work of the FRP [See Sonoma County Family Recovery 

Project Structure and Organization]. The Steering Committee conducted a kick-off meeting on 

August 20, 2009 and meetings on January 20, 2010 and November 16, 2010 for workgroups to 

provide progress updates. The Steering Committee administered a Collaborative Capacity 

Instrument [See Results of the Collaborative Capacity Instrument] and drafted a Statement of 

Shared Values and Principles [See Sonoma County Family Recovery Project Shared Values 

and Guiding Principles] for services to families affected by substance use disorders who are 

involved in child welfare and probation. The Steering Committee also provided regular update 

reports to the Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee (HHSCC). 

There were four areas identified as priorities for this project: (1) Daily practice; (2) Data and 

information systems; (3) Cross-training; and (4) Funding, capacity and sustainability. 

Workgroups engaged in each of these priority areas to achieve the goals of the FRP. The FRP 

Steering Committee oversaw the activities of each workgroup, ensuring cross-system 

representation in workgroup membership and collecting recommendations. The following details 

the purpose of each workgroup, and summarizes their activities and accomplishments. 

Daily practice in client screening, assessment, referral, engagement and retention in 

services 

This workgroup defined parameters for cross-system collaboration on behalf of families related 

to screening, assessment, engagement, communication, and information sharing, identifying 

opportunities for systems and daily practice changes to improve outcomes for children and 

families. Utilizing the SAFERR (Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement Retention 

and Recovery) framework, this workgroup reviewed and developed a summary of screening, 

assessment and client engagement practices across Child Protective, Probation, and AODS 

systems that includes current practices, services, resources available at the County level and 

protocols related to information sharing, screening, assessment, case planning and service 

delivery. Accomplishments include: 

• Gathered recommendations directly from youth and parents to inform policy and practice 

• Aligned screening and assessment processes to leverage each agency’s expertise 

• Developed and implemented a pilot phase to test policy and practice innovations and 

measure their effectiveness 

o Establishing AODS as a central point for conducting assessments and referral to 

treatment for both Probation and FY&C 

2

o Refining the substance abuse treatment assessment and referral process to 

streamline communication and create a mechanism for ongoing coordination 

o Defining the parameters for information sharing for release of confidential 

information forms, specifying what information needs to get communicated 

between systems 

• Prepared a cross-system screening, assessment, referral, engagement and retention 

protocol to improve outcomes for child welfare and criminal justice involved families that 

are struggling with substance use disorders 

Data and information systems 

The availability of solid data related to service needs, gaps, and outcomes will contribute to 

better collaboration between systems, as it raises awareness of County-specific issues and 

needs, and enables the systems to make informed decisions related to resource allocation, 

capacity expansion, and service delivery that improves the quality of and access to services for 

shared clients. This workgroup inventoried existing data sets and reports to identify what data 

elements are available. This workgroup also compiled and analyzed available local data on 

need, demand, and capacity for treatment and cross-system integration among child welfare, 

maternal child health, the courts, treatment agencies, juvenile and criminal justice, and other 

relevant partners. Accomplishments include: 

• Collected and analyzed data from existing data sets to identify how available information 

will be shared across systems 

o Developed additional guidance and expectations for data already being collected 

and reported by social workers in CWS/CMS 

o Used the ISD and AODS data integration collaborative project as a model for 

cross-system aggregate data upload and analysis. 

• Created a logic model that depicts how specific data is intended to positively impact 

practice and policy 

• Tested an innovative data matching methodology, utilizing a unique client identifier, to 

assess the number of clients in multiple systems. 

• Created the Sonoma Universal Referral Form (SURF) to accompany the Daily Practice 

pilot phase to test policy and practice innovations and measure their effectiveness. The 

SURF is intended to be developed as a web-based referral page where specific 

individuals in Probation and FY&C can have limited access to Sonoma Web 

Infrastructure for Information Services (SWITS) to create an electronic referral for AODS 

assessments and generate reports on treatment progress. 

Cross-system training 

Training to foster cross-systems understanding is crucial to support collaboration to achieve the 

stated outcomes for this initiative. A shared plan between Sonoma County partners for crosssystem 

training will benefit all stakeholders by enabling them to capitalize on the collective 

training resources of multiple systems. This workgroup developed a matrix of the existing 

training services and resources for each lead system, with established baselines that described 

the purpose and application for each training activity, how each is administered and paid for, 

and what level of flexibility or restrictions might apply. This workgroup also developed a 

summary of audience-specific training needs related to the other products that result from this 

initiative, with recommended training strategies and resources to address those needs. 

Accomplishments include: 

3

• Assessed the availability of basic training for AODS, FY&C and Probation on substance 

use disorders, child abuse/neglect and probation, as well as advanced training on 

working with families 

• Assessed need for training within each agency on key issues in substance abuse 

treatment, child welfare and probation services and cross-system coordination 

• Prioritized two training options that leverage existing training resources to enhance staff 

understanding of substance use disorders, increase staff ability to engage families in 

services, and provide a venue for ongoing cross-system communication 

Funding, capacity and sustainability 

Suggestions for resource management that provide for an increase in, and stability of, funding 

to support recommended strategies will be fundamental to the successful implementation of 

those strategies over time. As practice moves to focus on families, funding requirements need 

to be flexible to mirror the shared values to effectively serve the priority population. The 

activities of this workgroup focused largely on conducting a cost study of the Sonoma County 

Dependency Drug Court. The workgroup conducted an inventory of County-specific funding by 

compiling available data from AODS and FY&C on current treatment and family services. The 

Funding Workgroup, along with the SAFERR Workgroup and the Steering Committee also 

considered a variety of funding options to make the SURF pilot project sustainable. These 

considerations included looking at available and potential funding streams, new funds and 

redirection of existing funding. Accomplishments include: 

• Collected funding and budget information from FY&C and AODS to conduct a cost study 

of the Dependency Drug Court 

• Prepared preliminary cost findings that document a cost savings for children and parents 

involved in the DDC as compared to similar clients who did not receive DDC services 

4

Practice/SAFERR 

Workgroup 

Co-chairs: Gino 

Giannavola, Nick 

Honey and Sheralynn 

Freitas 


Structure and Organization 

Oversight Committee 

Health and Human Services 

Coordinating Committee 

Advisory Committee 

Methamphetamine Task Force 

Data and Information 

Systems Workgroup 

Co-chairs: Katie 

Greaves, David Sheaves 

and Leo Tacata 

Steering Committee 

Nick Honey Gino Giannavola Sheralynn Freitas 

Katie Greaves Cathleen Wolford Cora Guy 

John Abrahams Donna Newman-Fields Maureen Donaghue 

Scope of Work 

and Work Plan to 

Achieve Priority 

Objectives and 

Outcomes 

Funding, Capacity 

and Sustainability 

Workgroup 

Co-chairs: Derrick 

West, Kathleen 

Halloran 

Consultants 

Nancy Young 

Cathleen Otero 

Training and Staff 

Development 

Workgroup 

Chair: Claudia 

Zbinden


Results of the Collaborative 

Capacity Capacity Instrument 

August 2009 

Insert NC logo 

Area of Primary Responsibility 

Percent 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

33.3 

29.6 

Substance Child Welfare 

Abuse Services Services 

N = 27 

18.5 

7.4 

11.1 11 1 

Probation Mental Health Other 

Percent 

Purpose of Collaborative Capacity Instrument 

• Self-assessment of collaborative efforts 

between alcohol and other drug (AOD) and 

child welfare service (CWS) agencies, 

probation and dependency courts 

• To assist in moving jurisdictions to a new level 

of collaboration 

• To assist in prioritization of collaborative efforts 

Staff Level 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

14.8 14.8 

37.0 

22.2 

11.1 

Front-Line Staff Supervisor Manager Administrator Other 

N = 27 

1

Percent 

Jurisdiction of Agency/Court 

Percent 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

N = 27 

81.5 

Race/Ethnicity 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

N = 27 

3.7 

18.5 

County Community-Based Organization 

88.9 

7.4 

Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian Other 

Description 

• Mean Age = 50.78 

Range 26 to 66 

• Mean Years of Experience = 18.31 

Range 2 to 30 

• 59.3% Female 

40.7% Male 

Scale Rating 

Disagree g 

= 1 

Somewhat Agree = 2 

Agree = 3 

Not Sure/Don’t 

Know 

Each item marked 

N/S for this response 

Not Included 

in Mean 

2

I I. Underlying Values And Principles of 

Collaborative Relationships 

II. Daily Practice — Screening and 

Assessment 

Values and Principles 

Probation officers & attorneys are viewed 

as partners in developing approaches N= 27 

Agencies & the probation department have 

used values assessment process N= 26 

Systems have negotiated shared principles 

N=26 

Region prioritized CWS parents for AOD 

treatment services N = 27 

CWS & probation view alcohol as important 

as illicit drugs N = 27 

Region responds to conflicting time frames 

N=27 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

11.1 

23.1 

14.8 

Percent Don’t Know or Not Sure 

1.29 

33.3 

37.0 

46.2 

1.60 

1.82 

2.21 

2.33 

2.57 

1 2 3 

Overall Mean 2.13 Mean Rating Score 

Screening and Assessment 

Joint policy on screening & assmt of AOD 

abuse N = 26 

AOD workers out-stationed at CPS or 

probation for screening & assmt N = 26 

MDT teams include AOD & CWS N = 26 

Coordinated AOD & CPS case plans N = 25 

CA/N risk assessment has an in-depth AOD 

assessment N = 26 

CPS intake identifies prior AOD treatment 

episodes N = 26 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

15.4 

1.25 

122 1.22 

30.8 

32.0 

38.5 

42.3 

1.50 

46.2 

2.06 

2.23 

1.93 

1 2 

Mean Rating Score 

3 

3

Screening and Assessment (2) 

AOD identifies parents in CWS system 

based on previously negotiated information 

sharing protocols N = 26 

AOD has sufficient CW information for 

quality assessments N = 25 

Information system documents AOD factors 

N = 26 

AOD assessment includes children in 

family, living arrangements, and child safety 

N = 26 

Monitors implementation and quality of 

protocols N = 26 

Overall Mean 1.84 

Engagement and Retention 

CWS staff have skills to talk to clients about 

AOD use N = 26 

AOD staff have skills to talk to clients about 

child safety and CWS issues N = 26 

Probation officers have knowledge of CWS 

and AOD issues N = 26 

Systems assess client drop-out points N = 

25 

Systems have integrated case plans with 

AOD recovery plan & CWS case plan N = 26 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.56 

36.0 

38.5 

1.64 

57.7 

42.3 

2.12 

38.5 

1.81 

2.33 

1 2 3 

26.9 



0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.21 

1.30 

23.1 

42.3 

44.0 

2.20 

57.7 2.18 

2.32 

1 2 3 


III. Daily Practice — Client Engagement 

and Retention In Care 

Engagement and Retention (2) 

Probation system has realistic expectations 

for CWS parents with AOD problems N = 26 

CWS staff outreaches to AOD clients who 

miss appointments or drop out of treatment 

N = 26 

Probation officers follows up with the 

parent's SA treatment agency N = 26 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.54 

1.58 

50.0 50 0 

53.8 

57.7 

2.18 

1 2 3 


4

Engagement and Retention (3) 

Developed and trained staff in approaches 

to improve treatment retention N = 25 

Agencies agreed on communicating about 

client progress in treatment N = 25 

Adequate system for monitoring outcomes 

programs and interventions N = 26 

Client relapse leads to collaborative 

iintervention t ti N = 26 

Drug testing is used effectively to monitor 

clients' compliance with treatment plans N 

= 26 



0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.11 

23.1 

30.8 

38.5 

40.0 

38.5 

1.60 

1.69 

2.07 

1.87 

1 2 


3 

IV. Daily Practice – Services To Children 

Rate your County’s CWS and AOD services on: 

Gender-specific 

Culturally-relevant 

Accessible 

Family-focused 

Age Age-specific specific 

Adolescent treatment 

Services to Children 

SA prevention and early intervention 

services have been implemented N = 26 

COSAs are targeted for specialized 

prevention programming N = 26 

All children in CWS have a comprehensive 

mental health assessment N = 25 

Our region's ILP includes significant 

content on the impact of AOD use N = 25 

Developed a range of programs for 

COSAs targeting special developmental 

needs N = 25 

Familiar with National models of 

prevention and intervention for AODaffected 

children N = 25 

CWS AOD 

1 2 3 4 5 

Poor Fair Excellent 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.30 

32.0 

1.56 156 

38.5 

144 1.44 

36.0 

36.0 

1.71 

2.00 

61.5 

2.00 

76.0 

1 2 3 


5

Services to Children (2) 

Children in CWS are screened for effects of 

prenatal substance exposure N = 24 

Children in CWS are screened for 

developmental delays associated with 

prenatal substance abuse N = 25 


emotional/MH problems associated with 

parental substance abuse N = 25 


substance use disorders N = 25 


Joint Accountability and Outcomes 

AOD identifies system outcomes and 

communicates them to CWS & probation N 

= 25 

CWS identifies system outcomes and 

communicates them to AOD & probation N 

= 26 

Probation system outcomes and 

communicates them to AOD & CWS N = 25 

Systems have developed shared outcomes 

for families & agree on how to use 

information N = 25 

Developed outcome criteria for CBO 

contracts N = 25 


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 

1.67 

37.5 

32.0 

32.0 

36.0 

1.62 

1.76 

1.94 

1 2 


3 

Percent Not Sure or Don’t Know 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.59 

32.0 

1.33 

30.8 

1.24 

32.0 

1.18 

32.0 

1.53 

40.0 

1 2 3 


V. Joint Accountability and Shared Outcomes 

Joint Accountability and Outcomes (2) 

Shifted funding to more effective providers 

N = 25 

Referrals to those parenting programs that 

have demonstrated results N = 25 

CWS shares accountability for treatment 

outcomes N = 25 

AOD shares accountability for safety 

outcomes t N = 25 

Drug testing not used court system as 

most important indicator of clients’ status 

N = 25 



0 20 40 60 80 100 

28.0 

1.64 

44.0 

32.0 1.88 

40.0 

1.64 

44.0 

2.00 

2.33 

1 2 3 


6

VI. Information-Sharing and Data Systems 

Information Sharing and Data Systems (2) 

Documentation of AOD factors in 

management information system N = 25 

AOD services generate data on clients' 

children and CPS involvement N = 25 

AOD agencies have reliable data on 

percentage of families involved in CWS N = 

25 

Data can track CWS/AOD clients across 

information systems to monitor outcomes N 

= 25 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

24.0 

1.13 


1.25 

1.79 

40.0 

1.88 

68.0 

52.0 

1 2 3 


Information Sharing and Data Systems 

Assessed data systems to identify gaps in 

monitoring clients N = 25 

Data system can retrieve percents of 

families in both agencies N = 24 

Have ID'd confidentiality issues & have 

communication sharing protocols N = 25 

Have working agreements with courts on 

how agencies will share information N = 25 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

24.0 

1.46 

1.42 

32.0 

1.84 

48.0 

50.0 

1.82 

1 2 


3 

VII. Training and Staff Development 

7

Training and Staff Development 

CWS ensures that all staff receive training 

on AOD-affected families N = 25 

AOD ensures that staff/providers receive 

training on families in CWS N = 25 

Probation officers are trained in effective 

drug treatment N = 25 

Have developed joint training programs 

for systems effectively working together N 

= 25 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

24.0 

1.18 

32.0 

1.62 

1.75 

52.0 

2.32 

68.0 

1 2 3 


VIII. Budgeting and Program Sustainability 

Training and Staff Development (2) 

Have a multi-year staff development plan N 

= 25 

Training programs include cultural issues N 

= 25 

Region universities & pre-service 

educational programs include cross-system 

issues N = 25 

Care providers are sufficiently trained on 

iissues of f substance-abusing b t b i families f ili N = 25 

Multidisciplinary training programs are 

offered N = 25 


Budgeting and Sustainability 

CWS uses its funding for AOD treatment 

(excluding drug testing) N = 25 

AOD uses its funding for parenting 

education N = 25 

AOD uses its funding for child 

development N = 25 

TANF allocations are used for programs 

ffor AOD-CWS AOD CWS clients li t N = 25 

Have jointly sought funding for projects to 

work together N = 25 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

20.0 

1.31 

1.27 

40.0 

24.0 

1.58 

48.0 

2.10 

1.55 56.0 

1 2 3 



0 20 40 60 80 100 

24.0 

1.33 

48.0 

52.0 

52.0 

2.21 

2.50 

76.0 

2.62 

2.75 

1 2 


3 

8

Budgeting and Sustainability (2) 

Identified potential funding from all 

sources to support changes to strengthen 

collaboration N = 25 

Identified whether Federal waivers are 

appropriate as available fund for families N 

= 25 

Multi-year budget plan to support 

integrated CWS-AOD services N = 24 

Probation dept has sought funding to meet 

the demand for services N = 25 


Working with Related Agencies 

MH & trauma issues are in assessments 

and case plans N = 25 

DV advocacy & services are in assessments 

and case plans N = 25 

Primary health & dental care are available 

for families N = 25 

Health services regarding HIV/AIDS & Hep C 

are available N = 25 

CWS staff know how to ID & link families 

with support services N = 25 


0 20 40 60 80 100 

1.00 

1.27 

1.50 

56.0 

66.7 

2.17 

76.0 

88.0 

1 2 3 

24.0 



0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 

32.0 

24.0 

36 36.00 

1.95 

48.0 

2.23 

2.16 

262 2.62 

2.65 

1 2 


3 

IX. Working with Related Agencies 

Working with Related Agencies (2) 

Assess rates of service completions & 

monitors access barriers N = 25 

AOD providers know how to ID & link 

families with other needed services N = 25 

AOD groups include a focus on CWS & 

child safety issues N = 25 

Law enforcement, AOD, and CWS 

coordinate for CWS families affected by CJ 

system N = 25 



0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 

1.55 

1.62 

1.71 

44.0 

56.0 

56.0 

68.0 

2.27 

1 2 3 


9

X. Working with the Community and 

Supporting Families 

Working with Community and Families (2) 

Community-wide accountability systems are 

used monitor AOD and CWS issues N = 25 

Have support for sober living communities 

and housing for parents in recovery N = 25 

Consumers, parents in recovery & graduates 

have an active role in 

planning, developing, implementing and 

monitoring services N = 25 

Aftercare services are provided to parents 

including a full array of income support 

programs N = 25 



0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 

1.17 

1.44 

36.0 

52.0 

64.0 

2.31 

2.00 

52.0 

1.00 2.00 3.00 


Working with Community and Families 

Have strategies to recruit broad community 

participation to address families' needs N = 

25 

Community members are included in 

program planning & development N = 25 

Prevention of child abuse & neglect and SA 

is at community & state levels N = 25 

Have formal mechanisms to solicit support 

& input from community members N = 25 

Staff have up-to-date resource directories 

for family support N = 25 


0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 

24.0 

1.47 

32.0 

32.0 

32.0 

1.38 

1.76 

48 48.00 

2.21 

2.35 

1 2 3 

Summary Scores 


10

CCI SUMMARY SCORES 

VALUES 

SCREEN/ASSESS 

ENGAGE/RETAIN 

CHILDREN 

OUTCOMES 

INFO SHARING 

STAFF DEVELOP 

BUDGETING 

RELATED AGENCIES 

COMMUNITY/FAMILY 

1.67 

1.60 

1.67 

1.84 

181 1.81 

1.73 

1.87 

2.13 

2.15 

2.13 

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 

CCI SUMMARY SCORES – Percent “Don’t Know” 

VALUES 

SCREEN/ASSESS 

ENGAGE/RETAIN 

CHILDREN 

OUTCOMES 

INFO SHARING 

STAFF DEVELOP 

BUDGETING 

RELATED AGENCIES 

COMMUNITY/FAMILY 

27.6 

38.0 

35 35.77 

32.3 

33.8 

36.4 

37.2 

41.8 

43.1 

49.0 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

11

Introduction 



Shared Values and Guiding Principles 

November 2010 

Probation, child welfare and substance abuse treatment each have unique mandates. Yet we serve 

many of the same clients and family members. 

In order to improve outcomes for children, adolescents and families, the participating organizations will be 

asked to agree to a set of shared values. 

This document will guide our collaborative work to improve systems and practice for families with 

substance use disorders who are involved in the probation and child welfare systems. 

Please review and discuss any modifications in your workgroups. Changes will be incorporated and 

brought back to the large group for final approval. 

Belief about our Responsibility to Children, Adolescents and Parents in our Community 

♦ Every child and adolescent has a right to be free of abuse and neglect. 

♦ Every child and adolescent has the right to a safe and permanent family, where possible within the 

biological family and where not possible with another permanent family. In all circumstances, 

compliance with the requirements of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 is paramount. 

♦ Every adolescent and parent will have the opportunity to be free of AOD abuse and develop new 

skills and competencies to live productively and responsibly in our community. 

♦ Every parent will have the opportunity to maintain their family unit while participating in services. 

Belief about the Nature of Addiction 

♦ Alcohol and other drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease that affects both the brain and 

behavior. 

♦ Addiction requires an ongoing and active disease management strategy. 

♦ Identification, screening and assessment for alcohol or other drug (AOD) use disorders is critical to 

intervening at the earliest stage in an individual’s use.

Joint Accountability and Shared Outcomes 

♦ In addition to mandates unique to each system: 

~ Probation has accepted a shared role for facilitating recovery outcomes for persons with an 

AOD use disorder and their families. 

~ Child welfare has accepted a shared role for facilitating recovery outcomes for persons with 

an AOD use disorder and their families. 

~ AOD has accepted a shared role for facilitating child safety for persons with an AOD disorder 

and their families. 

~ The court has accepted responsibility for monitoring the outcomes for children and families in 

the court system. 

♦ Outcome data from across the systems will be used to inform policy leaders and communities to 

develop, fund, locate and prioritize services that are known to be effective in improving outcomes. 

Principles of Daily Practice 

♦ Probation and child welfare will assume that each client has an AOD problem or suffers from a family 

member’s AOD problem, unless assessment and screening specifically confirm its absence. 

♦ Low risk to reoffend and high risk to reoffend individuals will not be mixed when providing services. 

♦ We will provide all children, adolescents and their families with access to the most appropriate and 

effective AOD treatment/prevention services in the least intrusive environment possible to ensure the 

best outcomes. 

♦ We will create multiple opportunities for children, adolescents and families to access and receive 

community-based services in a timely manner. Field practice and service delivery will be: 

∼ child, adolescent and-family focused 

∼ culturally appropriate 

∼ needs and strengths-based 

∼ age and developmentally appropriate 

∼ community-centered 

∼ evidence-based and data-driven 

∼ trauma-informed 

∼ recovery-oriented 

♦ We will provide a continuum of prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery supports which will 

be incorporated into the daily practice of all systems. 

♦ We will use a cross-systems multi-disciplinary team approach to treat children, adolescents and 

families in need of services.

Information and Data Sharing 

♦ Professionals and caregivers at both the state and community level need to develop common 

knowledge and shared values about probation, child protection and AOD issues in order to assist 

children, adolescents and families with AOD problems to achieve positive outcomes. 

♦ Federal, State, and pertinent Tribal government confidentiality laws, HIPAA Privacy provisions, and 

statutory requirements will guide and direct the client information sharing process between the 

probation, AOD and child welfare systems, the courts, and other related systems. 

♦ Information systems are needed that can be linked to share information and monitor family and 

treatment outcomes, and enable decision makers to manage resources and monitor performance. 

♦ Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) will be jointly prepared across systems to guide system 

collaboration and information sharing and communications protocols. 

♦ While each system may have data on individual children, adolescents and parents, accurate and 

meaningful data collection and reporting will support systems improvement with the understanding 

that families participate in all these systems 

♦ Information systems will collect and report on child, adolescents and family data for the purpose of 

measuring outcomes and reporting successes and challenges to: 

~ Describe the population being served 

~ Identify whether interventions are working or not working 

~ Move away from anecdotal evidence to objective evidence 

~ Provide outcome measures for children, adolescents and families involved in all three 

systems 

~ Make informed decisions for actions and data planning 

~ Ensure cost-effectiveness of interventions 

~ Document compliance with court orders to statutory regulations 

~ Document how policy and practice changes lead to improved outcomes 

Training and Staff Development 

♦ Training will include elements from the core competencies articulated in the field practice and 

services delivery portion of the “Principles of Daily Practice” section. 

♦ Services and supports for families affected by AOD disorders in the probation, child welfare and the 

court systems will be provided by knowledgeable, skilled service providers who understand the 

cultural diversity of the families and communities they serve. 

♦ Policies will support culturally competent service delivery in procedures, outreach, advocacy, and 

training throughout the service delivery system, and will incorporate knowledge of ICWA and tribal 

governments.

♦ Competencies - Federal and state confidentiality laws and HIPAA Privacy provisions will guide and 

direct the client information sharing process between the probation, AOD and child welfare systems, 

the courts, and other related systems. Staff will be trained in laws and regulations concerning these 

issues. 

♦ Agencies will provide on-going cross and joint-training opportunities. 

Budgeting and Sustainability 

♦ Planning across systems makes better use of limited dollars and reduces potential duplication of 

services while increasing the availability of services and supports for the child and family. Therefore, 

services and funding streams (flexible, joint, multiple) will be coordinated across systems to 

maximize the use of limited resources. 

♦ Sustainability will be fostered by cross-system coordination and joint advocacy for the availability of 

sufficient resources in each system to adequately serve families who have co-occurring problems 

affecting their parenting, family stability, and risks to children. 

♦ Everyone is entitled to participate in the appropriate level of AOD treatment. When resources are 

limited, priorities are determined in a collaborative manner that addresses the needs across the three 

systems. 

Working with Related Agencies 

♦ No one organization or system can address all of the AOD problems facing families and 

communities. Ensuring child safety and family health requires collaboration and partnership among 

families, professionals, agencies, organizations and communities. 

♦ Collaboration requires a shared vision, a commitment to effective communication, a willingness to be 

non-judgmental, and an understanding of how other systems work. 

♦ Communications by and about collaborators will be respectful and positive and any collaboration 

issues and concerns will be expressed and resolved privately between collaborating entities. 

♦ As appropriate, a family's AOD disorder will be addressed when working with related agencies, such 

as health care providers, housing, employment, education, domestic violence advocacy, and mental 

health services; and when working with the family involved in other courts such as domestic 

violence, criminal, and delinquency. 

Working with the Community and Families 

♦ The family will be part of the process at each level of planning, service delivery, and evaluation.


SAFERR Workgroup 

Summary of Activities and Final Products 


Prevention Task Force, is a strategic planning process that will help the County better serve 

families with substance use disorders who are involved with child welfare and probation. The 

FRP involves the County of Sonoma Department of Health Services, Human Services 

Department, and Probation Department. The goals of the project are: 

• Improved coordination and systems integration among FY&C, AODS and Probation to 

provide treatment and supportive services to drug-involved families. 

• Effective use of available resources and funding streams in developing prioritized 

programs for drug-involved families within the FY&C, AODS and Probation systems. 

• Increased understanding of strategies to address systemic barriers to improve 


families. 

There are four areas identified as priorities for this project: (1) Daily practice; (2) Data and 


Workgroups are engaged in each of these priority areas to achieve the goals of the FRP. This 

document summarizes the activities of the workgroup on daily practice in screening, 

assessment, service referral, client engagement and retention in services: the SAFERR 

Workgroup. 

Virtual Walk Through of the Systems 

The SAFERR Workgroup began by outlining the processes and pathways of communication 

with each of the systems [See Virtual Walk Through of the Systems]. This system outline 

identified the parallel processes that occur between the systems from screening, assessment 

and referral to case management and case closure. It aligned those processes to demonstrate 

how agencies can leverage each other’s expertise. The Virtual Walk Through of the Systems 

also identified potential gaps in communication between the systems. 

The second component of the Virtual Walk Through of the Systems involved the incorporation of 

data from each of the systems. This data outlined the number of individuals within each system 

that experience each step of their respective processes. This data was later used to develop the 

size and scope of a practice change pilot process. 

Focus Group Report 

The SAFERR workgroup determined that gathering recommendations directly from youth and 

parents would provide useful information in developing policy and practice changes. A 

subcommittee of the SAFERR Workgroup identified groups of parents and youth who were 

affected by substance and who were involved in the Probation and/or child welfare systems, 

developed an interview guide, and then conducted a series of focus groups. See Focus Group 

Report: Client Feedback on Service Delivery and Utility for a summary of the focus group 

participants and key findings. 

1

Recommended Policy and Practice Changes 

As the SAFERR workgroup discussed the identified gaps in communication and the focus group 

findings, the workgroup engaged in a process of detailing “who needs to know what, when.” As 

a client progressed through each step of each system’s respective process, the SAFERR 

workgroup members identified what information needed to be communicated about that client to 

other professionals. These key pieces of information enhance each agency’s ability to support 

clients by coordinating with and reinforcing the objectives and mandates of partner agencies. 

[See Sonoma County Family Recovery Project: Identified Change Opportunities], The SAFERR 

Workgroup ultimately identified five key policy and practice changes on which to focus the 

efforts of the workgroup: 

1. Identify clients involved in other systems (Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, FY&C and 

AODS) 

2. Identify clients for referral to treatment or child welfare 

3. Establish AODS as a central point for conducting assessments and referral to treatment 

for both Probation and FY&C 

4. Revise Confidentiality and Universal Release of Information Forms as a prerequisite for 

ongoing information sharing 

5. Create ongoing communication mechanisms for joint case planning and coordination 

The SAFERR workgroup also revised the Virtual Walk Through of the Systems to reflect the 

desired pathways of communication [See Family Recovery Project SAFERR Protocol Flow 

Chart]. The SAFERR Protocol Flow Chart served as the basis for a pilot phase of key policy and 

practice changes. 

SURF Evaluation Findings 

In September 2010, the SAFERR Daily Practice workgroup developed and implemented a sixweek 

pilot phase of the Sonoma Universal Referral Form (SURF). The SURF process was 

developed to address the identified practice change of establishing AODS as a central point for 

conducting screening and referral to treatment for both Probation and FY&C. The SURF 

process also served to identify and track clients for referral to treatment. The pilot phase was 

intended to demonstrate faster access to substance abuse screening, assessment and 

treatment services through the development and implementation of improved cross-system 

communication. The SURF process incorporated and tested out several practice and 

communication changes [See Sonoma Universal Referral Form: Process and Findings]. 

SAFERR Protocol 

The final product of the SAFERR workgroup is the Screening and Assessment for Family 

Engagement, Retention and Recovery (SAFERR) Draft Protocol. The SAFERR workgroup 

defined the parameters for cross-system collaboration on behalf of families related to screening, 

assessment, engagement, communication, and information sharing, identifying opportunities for 

systems and daily practice changes to improve outcomes for children and families. This draft 

protocol is the culmination of the workgroup’s review and development of a summary of 

screening, assessment and client engagement practices across FY&C, Probation, and AODS, 

including current practices, services, and protocols related to information sharing, screening, 

assessment, case planning and service delivery. 

2

Adult Probation 

Screen 

STRONG presentencing 

phase 

Assessment 

STRONG High Risk 

Case Referral 

Receive cases from 

ECR, pre-sentence 

investigation to ECR, 

summarily submitted to 

probation (e.g. DV 

court), specialty court 

Case Plan and 

Services 

Case plan based on 

assessment and update 

Case Monitoring and 

Transition Planning 

case plan entries and 

updates 

Outcome Monitoring 

STRONG 


Juvenile Probation 

Screen 

PACT pre-screen and identify 

dual system cases 

Diversion/Disposition 

PACT Low and Low/Moderate 

PACT Moderate/High and High 

Risk 

Assessment 

PACT Moderate/High and 

High Risk 

Adjudication or preadjudication 


High Risk 

Disposition – Case Plan and 

Services 

PACT case plan entry/updates 



PACT case plan entry and 

updates (aftercare) 


PACT – aftercare and 

proceedings terminated 

Case Mgmt Screen 

SWITS and 

ASAM 

AODS FY&C 

Provider Intake 

SWITS Intake 

Admission Record 

Assessment 

SWITS ASI Lite (adult) 

or ADAD (adolescent) 

Tx Plan and Services 

SWITS capacity fully 

implemented Jan 2010 

Tx Monitoring 



Aftercare Planning 

Discharge plan 

Selfreferral 


SWITS – annual update 

and discharge record 

Child Abuse Report 

CAT Response 

Determination Assessment 

Safety Assessment 

CAT Safety Determination 

Family Risk Assessment 


Placement Assessment 

Case Plan Development 

and Services 

CAT Case Planning 


Case Plan Monitoring, 

Permanency Decision 


Family Well-Being 

CAT Case Closure 

Assessment 


CWS/CMS


Screen 

STRONG presentencing 

phase 

Assessment 


Case Referral 

Receive cases from 






Case Plan and 

Services 



Pathways of Communication – Screening, Assessment and Case Planning 


Screen 

PACT pre-screen and 

identify dual system 

cases 




High Risk 

Assessment 

PACT Moderate/High 

and High Risk 



and High Risk 

Case Plan and 

Services 

PACT case plan entry 

and updates 

AODS FY&C 


SWITS and 

ASAM 


SWITS Intake 


Selfreferral 

Assessment 






Dual Dependency cases 

DDC 


CAT Response 







and Services 


Placement Assessment



Virtual Walk Through of the 

Systems S t and d Pathways P th of f 

Communication 

Substance Abuse Treatment, Child 

Welfare and Probation 

• How are adults, youth and children screened, 

assessed assessed, referred referred, admitted and engaged in 

services? 

• What information is collected on risks and 

needs? 

• How is that information stored and accessed? 

• What information is currently communicated to 

partner agencies? 

• What additional information would be helpful to 

share? 

Multiple Systems, Partners and Opportunities 


• 518 Juveniles diverted 

• 369 Juveniles rated as 

Moderate/High risk 

• 275 reported current drug or 

alcohol use (74.5%) Jan-Jul 09 

FY&C 

• 824 substantiated child 

abuse/neglect cases 

• 442 case plans with parent 

service objective j related to 

alcohol or drugs 2008 

Drug Free Babies 

• 54 women met with PPS 

• 44 women agreed to 

participate in DFB 2008 


• 2253 felons 

• 803 misdemeanants 

current caseload 

DDC 

• 14 women 

2008 

AODS 

• 5,868 Tx admissions 

• 1,969 adults had at least 

one child 

• 3,634 children 

• 1,978 children living with 

someone else because of 

child protection p court order 

FY 08-09 

Public Health Field 

Nursing 

• 129 open cases involve 

substance abuse (40% 

of 320 cases) Aug 09 

Alcohol and Other Drug 

Services 

Maureen Donaghue 

Program Manager 

1

7/1/08-6/30/09: 

1,270 Case Mgmt 

Admissions 

• 37% Female 

• 63% Male 

• 3.2% Pregnant 

1054 ASAMs 


Referral source: 

• 70.5% Criminal 

Justice 

• 30.5% Non SACPA 

Court/Criminal Justice 

• 35.2% SACPA OTP/ 

Probation 

• 4.6% SACPA OTP/ 

Parole 

• 0.2% DUI/DWI or 

TASC 

• 12% self-referral 

• 11.7% Sonoma Works 

• 5.9% other 

7/1/08 – 6/30/09: 

Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AODS) 


SWITS and 

ASAM Self 

Referral 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 

SWITS ASI Lite (adult) or 

ADAD (adolescent) 




Tx Monitoring 










55,868 868 T Treatment Ad Admissions i i 

• 70.2% Male 

• 29.8% Female 

• 1.5% Pregnant at admission 

• 24% Medi-Cal recipient 

• 2.8% CalWORKs recipient 

• 53.3% No Criminal Justice Status 

• 35% On probation 

• 8.3% On parole by CDC or any 

other jurisdiction 

• 3.5% Incarcerated; awaiting trial, 

charges or sentencing; diversion; 

or unable to answer 


SWITS and 

ASAM Self 

Referral 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 






Tx Monitoring 








7/1/08 – 6/30/09: 



• 55,868 868 

Admissions 

into Treatment 

Providers (not 

including Case 

Management) 

7/1/08 – 6/30/09: 

• 3,932 ASI Lites 

or ADADs 

• 67% of Tx 

providers 

entered ASI 

Lite or ADAD 

data in SWITS 


SWITS and 

ASAM Self 

Referral 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 






Tx Monitoring 










Referral Source (7/1/08 – 6/30/09): 

• 54 54.7% 7% Individual/self-referral 

• 33.9% Criminal Justice 

• 18.6% Non SACPA Court/Criminal Justice 

• 6.4% SACPA OTP or Case Mgmt/ Probation 

• 0.6% SACPA OTP / Parole 

• 1.1% DUI / DWI 

• 0.7% State DCP, CDCI or Adult Drug Court 

• 6.6% TASC 

• 2.5% Alcohol/Drug Abuse program 

or 12 Stepp 

• 1.3% Dependency Court / Child 

Protective Services 

• 7.8% Other Community Referral; Orenda Detox 

School/ Educational; Employer/EAP; Out of County; 

SonomaWorks - Case Management; Other Health 

Care Provider; Prenatal Health Care Provider; or 

Hospital Labor 


SWITS and 

ASAM Self 

Referral 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 






Tx Monitoring 








2




SWITS and 

ASAM Self 

Referral 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 






Tx Monitoring 








Family, Youth and Children’s 

Services 

Nick Honey 

Director 

7/1/08 – 6/30/09: 

Average length of 

stay – 74 days 

Discharge Status 

(1st Tx episode): 

• 50.7% 

Completed Tx 

• 17.4% Left prior 

to completion completion, 

satisfactory 

progress 

• 29.6% Left prior 

to completion, 

un-satisfactory 

progress 

Coordinate 

with: 

• Probation 

• SACPA 

• DDC 

In 2008: 

• 10,051 reports 

• 22,638 638 reports t 

that led to 

investigation 

(26%) 

In 2008: 

• 566 

substantiated 

child abuse/ 

neglect cases 

opened (21% 

of 

investigations) 




SWITS and 

ASAM Self 

Referral 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 






Tx Monitoring 









Family, Youth and Children’s Services (FY&C) 


CAT R Response 







and Services 







Assessment 


CWS/CMS 

Coordinate 

with: 

• Probation 

• SACPA 

• DDC 

3







and Services 


In 2008: 

• 701 children in 

out-of-home 

care 

• 22% age 0-3 






• 17% age 4-7 

• 19% age 8-11 

• 24% age 12-15 

• 10% age 16+ 

In 2008: 

Point in time 

• 174 entries t i 

into out-ofhome 

care 





Assessment 

3/30/09 

• 824 children 

under CPS 

• 29% age 0-3 

supervision 

• 18% age 4-7 

• 19% age 8-11 

• 24% age 12-15 

• 10% age 16+ 


CWS/CMS 

• 604 court 

ordered 

• 216 voluntary 

Refer to: 

• AODS 











and Services 







Assessment 


CWS/CMS 

Refer to 

AODS 

Coordinate 

with: 

• Juvenile 

Probation 

for Dual 

Dependdents 

t 

• DDC 











and Services 







Assessment 


CWS/CMS 

Juvenile and Adult Probation 

Services 

Sheralynn Freitas 

Deputy Chief Probation Officer 

In 2008: 

• 442 case plans 

with ith parent t 

service objective 

related to 

alcohol or drugs 

• 410 case plans 

with parent 

planned service 

related to 

alcohol or dr drugs gs 

• 12 months to 

reunification 

• 25 months to 

adoption 

4


1/5/09 - 7/31/09: 

1450 Juveniles 

received PACT pre- p 

screen 

• 27.2% reported 

no past drug use 


past drug use 


no current t drug d 

use 


current drug use 

Refer to: 

• CBO for 

AODS 

assessment 

Refer to: 

• AODS 

Coordinate 

with: 

• FY&C for 

Dual 

Dependents 


Screen 

PACT pre-screen pre screen and ID 



PACT Low/Moderate 


and High Risk 

Assessment 


and High Risk 



High Risk 

Disposition 

Case Plan and Services 











Screen 






and High Risk 

Assessment 


and High Risk 



High Risk 

Disposition 











1/5/09 - 7/31/09: 

369 Juveniles 

received PACT full 

assessment 

• 9.2% reported no 

past drug use 


past drug use 


current drug or 

alcohol use 



• 87.3% marijuana 

• 10.9% 

amphetamine 

• 11.3% ecstasy 

• 11.3% reported no 


2,253 felons 

Based on 2006: 


Screen 






and High Risk 

Assessment 


and High Risk 



High Risk 

Disposition 












• 79% male 

• 21% female 

• 20% charged with 

crime against 

person 


property offense 

• 32% charged h d with ith 

a narcotics offense 


Drunk Driving 


public order 

offense 

Screen 

STRONG pre- 

sentencing t i phase h 

Assessment 


Case Referral 

RReceive i cases f from 








assessment and updates 



Case plan entries and 

updates upda es 


STRONG 

5



803 misdemeanants 

Screen 

Based on 2006: STRONG pre- 

• 83% male 

• 17% female 


• 14% charged with Assessment 

crime against 

person 



property offense Case Referral 

• 17% charged with a 

narcotics offense 


Drunk Driving 







public order offense 




assessment and updates 






STRONG 

2,253 Felons 

• 99.6% Chem 

test condition 

803 mis- 

demeanants 

• 88.8% Chem 

test condition 



Screen 

STRONG pre- 


Assessment 


Case Referral 









Refer to: 

assessment and updates • AODS 






STRONG 

6


Family Recovery Project (FRP) 

Focus Group Report: 

Client Feedback on Service Delivery and Utility 

Sonoma FRP Focus Group Report Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 3 

I. PURPOSE .......................................................................................................................... 6 

II. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 6 

III. FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 7 

a. Demographics ................................................................................................................. 7 

b. Focus Group Dynamics ................................................................................................... 8 

c. Participant Advice to Other Parents and Youth ...............................................................11 

IV. STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF SYSTEMS AND SERVICES ................................11 

V. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................19 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose: During December 2009 four focus groups were conducted to solicit feedback on the 

strengths and challenges of Sonoma County child welfare, substance abuse treatment and 

probation programs to improve service delivery. The groups were facilitated by staff from 

Children and Family Futures (CFF), staff from the Sonoma County Human Services 

Department, and staff from the Sonoma County Department of Health Services. 

Methods: The focus groups consisted of four groups: 

1. Native American Parents and Youth – These individuals were at some point involved 

with child welfare, probation and/or substance abuse treatment services. 

2. General parents – These individuals were at some point involved with child welfare, 

probation and/or substance abuse treatment services. 

3. Probation youth – These individuals were at some point involved with probation and 

substance abuse treatment services. 

4. Foster care youth – These individuals were at some point involved with child welfare 

services and aged out of the foster care system. 

One focus group session was held on each day: December 1, 2, 3 and 15. Each group lasted 

about 1 ½ hours. Participants were asked 13-14 questions and prompts about their experiences 

in each of the three systems: child welfare, probation and substance abuse treatment. Based on 

verbal responses and non-verbal cues, group facilitators recorded participant’s perspectives. 

Specifically, one staff facilitated the discussion and identified and recorded themes of 

discussion. The second facilitator transcribed quotes and summaries that were representative of 

participants’ ideas and perspectives. 

Responses were reviewed and coded in two phases. The first phase identified strengths and 

challenges of Sonoma County child welfare, probation and substance abuse treatment systems 

and services, specifically: 1) CPS and Social Workers, 2) Probation and Probation Officers, 3) 

the Substance Abuse Assessment and Referral process, 4) Treatment Providers and 

Counselors, and 5) Engagement and Retention in services. The second phase considered the 

general themes and ideals of the entire discussion, as well as implications for the Sonoma 

County Family Recovery Project. 

Findings and Recommendations 

Focus group participants identified strengths and challenges of Sonoma County child welfare, 

probation and substance abuse treatment systems and services, specifically: 1) CPS and Social 

Workers, 2) Probation and Probation Officers, 3) the Substance Abuse Assessment and 

Referral process, 4) Treatment Providers and Counselors, and 5) Engagement and Retention in 

services. 

General themes that cut across the identified systems and services resulted in 

recommendations developed in eight categories: 1) Developing a Positive Relationship, 2) 

Continuity and Accessibility in Assigned Staff, 3) Access to Treatment and Appropriate 

Services, 4) Cross-system Communication, 5) Clear Expectations, Goals and Timelines, 6) 

Maintaining Family Contact, 7) Change is Possible, and 8) Cultural Sensitivity. 


To serve the purpose of improving service delivery, findings from these focus groups will be 

used to inform the work of the Sonoma County Family Recovery Project (FRP). Following are 

recommendations generated from the entire discussion of strengths and challenges across all 

systems and services as they can be applied to the FRP Workgroup planning, activities and 

final products. 

Training and Supervision 

• Train child welfare workers and Parole Officers on substance use disorders, treatment 

and recovery to enhance understanding of use, abuse, dependence, treatment and 

recovery. 

• Assess how Probation Officers are implementing Motivational Interviewing, including 

successes, challenges and needs for supervision and on-going training. 

• Train child welfare workers on motivational enhancement. 

• Train treatment staff on adolescent development. 

• Train all staff on being approachable, client-centered, and how to create a safe 

environment which fosters trust. 

• Train those conducting screening, assessment and referrals on Motivational Interviewing 

or motivational enhancement strategies. 

• Train on ICWA 

Practice Issue – Screening, Assessment, Referral and Engagement 

• Establish a clear and effective referral process that can be easily explained to and 

understood by parents and youth, as well as other system partners 

• Assume substance abuse is an issue when identifying service needs. 

• Initial motivation should not be a factor in determining treatment need. 

• Explore the use of parent partners or recovery coaches. These individuals could allow 

parents to feel that they have been “matched” with someone who understands them and 

can advocate on their behalf. 

• Restructure initial orientation processes and materials to ensure the parents and youth 

understand timelines, requirements and commitments. 

• Ensure parents and youth have a clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities and 

expectations of the social worker and the PO. 

• Give parents and youth clear and direct information on how to access their social worker 

and PO, and what do to if they cannot reach their social worker in a timely manner. 

• Increase continuity of staff with whom parents, youth and children interact. 

• Support parents through social worker and PO transitions. There should be a warm 

hand-off, introductions, and any clarification on changing roles and responsibilities. 

• Support parents through coordinated case planning when there is more than one case 

plan and social worker involved with the family. 


Practice Issue – Program Planning and Service Delivery 

• Ensure program structure, requirements and expectations are connected to evidencebased 

therapeutic strategies and anticipated outcomes. 

• Offer clients the opportunity to practice life skills in the context of their treatment program 

as part of treatment discharge planning. 

• Connect parents and youth to available resources in their local community as part of 

treatment discharge planning. 

• Provide aftercare and other opportunities to stay connected to treatment staff and 

clients. 

Practice Issue – Family-Centered Services 

• Review nature of support offered to parents for arranging visitation. 

• Review rationale for requiring probationers to not associate with family members as a 

condition of probation. 

• Visitation should never be used as a reward or punishment. 

• Explore opportunities for increasing family therapy sessions across all systems. 

• Review nature of support offered to family members to help them become relative 

placements for Native American children. 

Practice Protocol – Cross-System Communication 

• Use the cross-system practice protocol to establish clear lines of communication and 

specific information that needs to be shared between social workers, attorneys, POs, 

treatment counselors, etc. 

• Use the cross-system practice protocol to create clear communication and messages 

between system partners, which can then be clearly communicated back to parents and 

youth. 

• Review how parents and youth are updated on progress made toward child welfare and 

probation case plan completion, how changes are identified and implemented, and how 

changes are communicated to parents and youth. 

• Involve treatment staff, relapse prevention planning, and child safety planning into the 

discussion of what to do if parent relapses. 


I. PURPOSE 

On December 1-3 and 15, 2009 four focus groups were conducted to solicit client feedback on 

the strengths and challenges of Sonoma County child welfare, substance abuse treatment and 

probation programs to improve service delivery. The groups were facilitated by staff from 

Children and Family Futures (CFF), staff from the Sonoma County Human Services 

Department, and staff from the Sonoma County Department of Health Services. 

II. METHODOLOGY 

a. Participant Recruitment 

• Native American Parents and Youth – These parents and youth were at some point 

involved with child welfare, probation and/or substance abuse treatment services. 

Participants were identified and invited by staff of the Indian Health Project. 

• General parents – These parents were at some point involved with child welfare, 

probation and substance abuse treatment services. Participants were identified and 

invited by staff from Sonoma County Human Services Department. 

• Probation youth – These youth were at some point involved with probation and 

substance abuse treatment services. Participants were identified and invited by staff 

from the Probation Department. 

• Foster care youth – These youth were at some point involved with child welfare 

services and aged out of the foster care system. Participants were identified and invited 

by staff from the Voices Youth Center. 

b. Assessment 

One focus group session was held on each day: December 1, 2, 3 and 15. Each group lasted 

about 1 ½ hours. Participants were asked 13-14 questions and prompts about their experiences 

in each of the three systems: child welfare, probation and substance abuse treatment. 

Questions and prompts were designed to elicit feedback from participants regarding strengths 

and challenges of the program, interactions with personnel from each system (e.g. Child 

Welfare Workers, Probation Officers and Treatment Counselors), and any suggestions 

participants had for program improvement. See Appendix A for the list of questions for each 

focus group. Participants were informed at the beginning of each session that their comments 

were being transcribed but would remain anonymous. 

Participants were compensated with a $20 Target gift card or their time and travel efforts. Food 

and beverages were provided at each session. 

c. Analyses 

Based on verbal responses and non-verbal cues, group facilitators recorded participant’s 

perspectives. Specifically, one staff facilitated the discussion and identified and recorded 

themes of discussion (e.g., the need for greater clarity and communication of program 

expectations, feelings of being overwhelmed, uncertainty of what will happen). The sessions 


were not tape recorded. The second facilitator transcribed quotes and summaries that were 

representative of participants’ ideas and perspectives. 

Responses were reviewed and coded in two phases. The first phase identified strengths and 

challenges of Sonoma County child welfare, probation and substance abuse treatment systems 

and services, specifically: 1) CPS and Social Workers, 2) Probation and Probation Officers, 3) 

the Substance Abuse Assessment and Referral process, 4) Treatment Providers and 

Counselors, and 5) Engagement and Retention in services. The second phase considered the 

general themes and ideals of the entire discussion, as well as implications for the Sonoma 

County Family Recovery Project. 

III. FINDINGS 

a. Demographics 

A total of 33 participants joined in one of the group discussions. The specific break down of the 

groups is: 

Focus Group 1: Twelve Native American parents and youth (36.4%) 

Of the 12 participants in Focus Group 1, eleven were female (91.7%) and one was male (8.3%). 

The one male and one of the females identified themselves as spouses/partners. Participants 

were not asked to specify their age, however, the facilitators estimate that participants varied in 

age from late-teens to late-forties. Participants were also not asked their ethnic background. 

The facilitators assumed that all 12 participants (100%) were Native Americans. 

Focus Group 2: Seven general parents (21.2%) 

Of the 7 participants in Focus Group 2, five were female (71.4%) and two were male (28.6%). 

The two males and two of the females identified themselves as spouses/partners. One women 

attended with her teenage daughter. Participants were not asked to specify their age, however, 

the facilitators estimate that participants varied in age from mid twenties to late-forties, with the 

exception of the one mid-teenage daughter. Participants were also not asked their ethnic 

background. Therefore, any estimates related to ethnicity are based upon appearance and/or 

names. The facilitators estimate the group was comprised of three Caucasians (42.9%) and four 

Hispanic/Latinos (57.1%). 

Focus Group 3: Three probation youth (9.1%) 

Of the 3 participants in Focus Group 3, all were female (100%). Two of the females identified 

themselves as best friends and roommates. Participants reported to be between seventeen and 

eighteen years old. Participants were also not asked their ethnic background. Therefore, any 

estimates related to ethnicity are based upon appearance and/or names. The facilitators 

estimate the group was comprised of three Caucasians (100%). 

Focus Group 4: Eleven foster care youth (33.3%) 

Of the 11 participants in Focus Group 3, five were female (45.5%) and six were male (54.5%). 

Two of the females identified themselves as sisters. One male and one female identified 

themselves as cousins. Participants were not asked to specify their age, however, the 


facilitators estimate that participants varied in age from late teens to early twenties. Participants 

were also not asked their ethnic background. Therefore, any estimates related to ethnicity are 

based upon appearance and/or names. The facilitators estimate the group was comprised of 

two Caucasians (18.2%) and nine Hispanic/Latinos (81.8%). 

b. Focus Group Dynamics 

Overall, participants were exceedingly eager to share the aspects of Sonoma County programs 

with which they were both satisfied and dissatisfied. Though their comments highlighted 

components that they felt needed improvement, they also talked freely about aspects of 

programs they felt were helpful to their recovery and family stability. 

While the groups varied both in size and age, the comments and opinions expressed were 

remarkably consistent across all four groups. A brief description of the facilitator’s perception of 

each group’s personality and behavior is provided below. 

1. 

Focus Group 1: Native American Parents and Youth 

Of the twelve participants, two of the participants arrived approximately fifteen minutes prior to 

the start of the group. Six participants arrived by the designated starting time. Four participants 

arrived approximately ten minutes after the designated starting time. Of the twelve participants, 

four came with a spouse or family member. Both parents were in some way involved with child 

welfare, probation or substance abuse treatment services. 

Participants did not appear to know each other prior to their attendance in this focus group. Four 

participants contributed a great deal throughout the session, while two participants remained 

silent. The other six participants appeared to become more comfortable as the session began 

and contributed more as the session continued. One of the participants who remained silent 

throughout the session approached the facilitator after the session ended and engaged the 

facilitator in conversation. 

Responses to questions and spontaneous comments about Sonoma County programs were 

relatively consistent across this group, as indicated by both verbal (e.g. “me too”) and nonverbal 

cues (e.g. nodding heads). Not all participants appeared to have direct contact with all three 

systems. However, all participants appeared to have had direct contact with at least two of the 

three. 

Focus Group 1 participants expressed strong opinions about what worked and didn’t work 

among the variety of services they experienced. Their comments reflected a Native American 

world view and some things they said were specifically Indian. Three examples are: 

• “You don’t know what a person is capable of doing until you give them a chance.” 

Participants expressed a sense of injustice in the ways child welfare and probation use 

past issues to judge current situations. Participants felt that they are never allowed to 

change because the past is always brought up. This is consistent with Native American 

communities and relationships. For example, the Navajo focus on today and interact with 

each other based on what is happening today. They are accepting of each other 

regardless of past behavior or injuries. 

• “It’s an illusion that they’ll help us.” Participants expressed a sense that child welfare, 

probation and treatment programs do not understand Native American culture and do 


not offer programming that is sensitive to Native American culture. For example, they 

wondered (a) why their traditional healing practices do not “count” toward treatment and 

recovery for probation or child welfare case plans, (b) why a relative could be deemed 

an inappropriate placement setting because three children would be sharing a room, and 

(c) why probation requirements would include an order to stay away from their own 

relatives. 

• Participants also discussed a sense of disappointment with their ICWA (Indian Child 

Welfare Act) workers, even though these are the tribal ICWA liaisons who presumably 

represent the tribal perspective. They do not think their ICWA workers represent their 

best interests. They also do not believe ICWA is being applied appropriately to maintain 

family connections and place children in Native American homes. 

When the group ended the participants accepted their Target gift cards and thanked the 

facilitators for asking their opinions about the program. Two participants expressed a desire for 

opportunities to offer this kind of feedback more often. 

2. 

Of the seven participants, two of the participants arrived approximately fifteen minutes prior to 

the start of the group. Three participants arrived by the designated starting time. Two 

participants arrived approximately ten minutes after the designated starting time. Of the seven 

participants, six came with a spouse or family member. All parents were in some way involved 

with child welfare, probation or substance abuse treatment services. There were 2 children 

present during this session; one baby and one toddler. Older children remained outside of the 

session in the designated child care area. 

Participants did not appear to know each other prior to their attendance in this focus group. Six 

participants contributed a great deal throughout the session, while one participant remained 

silent. As with the first Focus Group, participants in Focus Group 2 were polite and attentive. 

They had suggestions about program improvements, but they also talked openly about 

programs that did not work for them. 

Four participants who were primarily engaged in the discussion openly acknowledged their 

problems with substance abuse and the impact their use had on their families. Though 

participants in this group expressed many of the same concerns and suggestions as Focus 

Group 1, they expressed feelings of being overwhelmed and more clearly expressed a desire 

for both (a) communication between substance abuse treatment, child welfare and probation 

staff, as well as (b) consistency and clarity in the requirements they are being expected to meet. 

Additionally, finding and maintaining housing and employment were primary concerns. 

When the group ended the participants accepted their Target gift cards and also expressed a 

desire for more opportunities to offer this kind of feedback. 

3. 

Focus Group 2: General Parents 

Focus Group 3: Probation Youth 

Focus Group 3 was the smallest of the four groups, with 3 probation youth participants. One 

participant arrived approximately thirty minutes prior to the start of the group. Two participants 

arrived by the designated starting time. All participants were involved with probation, where 

substance abuse was a factor in their being on probation and was also an issue noted in their 


families. Two participants had been involved with child protective services, although one 

participant’s involvement entailed a referral that did not result in an opened case. 

All three participants contributed a great deal throughout the session. Two of the three 

participants identified themselves as best friends and roommates. As with Focus Groups 1 and 

2, the participants in this group talked freely with each other about their involvement with 

probation and treatment programs. All participants reported having been good students prior to 

their probation involvement. All participants also reported that their family had started to “fall 

apart” around the same time that they became involved with probation. 

They were thankful for the involvement of probation, particularly in the way that it forced them to 

get treatment. The participants expressed a clear desire of wanting to be treated as individuals, 

and feeling that they wanted staff to know them as unique individuals before offering advice or 

assuming what services are needed. They reported that the hardest thing about treatment was 

the structured routine, largely because it forced them to be alone with their own thoughts, but 

they recognized that this is what led to gaining insight and perspective. 

4. 

Focus Group 4: Foster Care Youth 

All 11 participants arrived by the designated starting time. All participants were involved with 

child welfare, and were also involved with substance abuse treatment programs, either for their 

own substance use disorder or related to a parent’s substance use disorder. Approximately half 

of the participants had also been involved with probation at some point. There was one baby 

present during this session. 

The majority of participants contributed a great deal throughout the session. Two participants 

remained silent throughout the session, and one left early reporting she had a class to attend. 

Many of the participants in this group knew each other and talked freely with each other about 

their experiences. While they were polite and responsive to the questions, they also engaged in 

many side-bar conversations, making it challenging at times to keep them focused. At one point, 

one of the participants reminded the others of the importance of their input, and asked for their 

attention and focus. Some participants began raising their hands, eagerly wanting to provide 

feedback. 

As with Focus Group 3, the participants expressed a clear desire of wanting to be treated as 

individuals, and wanting staff to know them as individuals before offering advice or assuming 

what services are needed. However, Focus Group 4 expressed significant ambivalence about 

their involvement in any of the systems. While they saw some benefits to their involvement (e.g. 

in getting them into needed treatment services), many of them felt that their involvement may 

have done as much harm as good, and that their successes were in spite of their involvement. 

Many participants discussed negative experiences in court, in residential treatment programs 

and in group home settings. They expressed a sense of distrust in the purpose, intent and 

outcomes of any of the services and programs they experienced. 


c. Participant Advice to Other Parents and Youth 

“It wasn’t like I asked for help. CPS came in and took my child, but that was how I got what I 

needed.” 

“Before I was arrested, I was using every day and couldn’t find a way out of it. I wanted out of it, 

and I prayed to God to get me out of it. Being arrested was like God answering my prayer.” 

“Use it to your advantage. Take what you can and don’t get stuck into the system. Use it as your 

stepping stone and don’t stay there long term.” 

Each focus group began with the question “If you could give one piece of advice, what would 

you say to someone who has just been referred to child protective services, a treatment agency 

or the Probation Department?” Despite their varied experiences and ages, there were four main 

themes that arose in response to this initial question: 

1. “Be open-minded and take advantage of the services being offered.” Although participants 

acknowledged feelings of anger and frustration, they were also appreciative of the services 

they received. They understood that their involvement with probation and child welfare 

resulted in accessing treatment and other services. Participants also stated that parents and 

youth need to be clear about and advocate for the services they need. They indicated that 

there were more services they needed and wished they could have accessed, including 

mental health treatment and one-on-one counseling services. 

2. “You have to be ready.” To benefit from the services being offered, participants indicated 

that one has to “be ready” to receive the services. Participants acknowledged being initially 

resistant to services, but being motivated by a desire to reunify with children, recover from 

their substance use disorder and/or avoid incarceration. Youth participants differed from 

parent participants by expressing a sense that being forced into services before one is 

“ready” can be a waste of resources and can even be damaging to the individual. 

3. “Just do what you need to do.” Despite initial resistance, participants indicated that there is a 

point in which they accepted the requirements of child welfare, probation or treatment. 

Participants expressed a sense of acceptance, realizing that they could either meet the 

requirements or continue to be involved with the system indefinitely and experience the 

associated consequences (i.e. incarceration or termination of parental rights). 

IV. STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF SYSTEMS AND SERVICES 

a. Child Protective Services (CPS) and Social Workers 

In discussing their respective experiences with CPS and Social Workers, both parents and 

youth were forthcoming and clear about what was helpful and what was not helpful. 

A Positive Relationship. Both parents and youth felt that the most helpful aspect of child 

welfare services was having a social worker with whom they felt a genuine connection. 

Participants reported successful experiences with social workers who were encouraging, who 

treated all family members with dignity and respect and who advocated on behalf of the family. 

Participants also appreciated social workers who actively listened to and heard them. 


Participants also discussed experiences of being judged and 

interacting with social workers who appeared insincere. Parents 

reported that social workers often do not understand how much 

grief parents are going through when their children are removed, 

or the constant fear that a child may not be returned. Both parents 

and youth reported experiences with social workers that only 

appear to be managing the case plan according to review and 

court dates rather than from a true investment in the family. 

Participants acknowledged that this lack of rapport and 

understanding hinders their ability to engage in services. One 

parent stated, “When a worker is putting you down, you’re not 

going to ask for help.” 

Participants wondered how social workers were assigned to 

families. Parents wanted to know that their social worker was 

assigned based on having a set of skills and field experience in 

working with similar families and issues. Parents clearly 

understood that the role of CPS and Social Workers is to protect 

children from abuse and neglect, and were thankful that the 

system stepped in to protect their children. At the same time, they 

recognized the quick timelines they are under to reunify with their 

children, and felt a sense of anxiety that if they did not have a 

positive relationship with their Social Worker that they should have 

the opportunity to seek out a better match. One parent asked, 

“Could we have an opportunity to opt out of working with a 

particular case worker?” 

Continuity and Accessibility. Both parents and youth indicated 

another helpful aspect of child welfare services was having 

continuity in their relationships with a social worker. Parents even 

indicated a sense of fear associated with a transition in the 

assigned social worker. If a parent felt a genuine connection with a 

social worker, they feared losing that rapport, facing an unknown 

person who would not be as familiar with the case, and with whom 

they may not be able to develop a positive relationship. Parents 

were also overwhelmed by the number of social workers they may 

interact with throughout the course of their case (based on 

transition between social workers and on having a separate social 

worker for each child). 

Foster care youth in particular felt that they were never quite sure 

who their assigned social worker was, or how to contact that 

person. The youth agreed it was not unusual to have multiple 

social workers over the course of their involvement with child 

welfare. They felt that when they were “ready” to call the social 

Recommendations 

• Train child welfare 

workers on Motivational 

Interviewing (MI) 

• Train all staff on being 

approachable, clientcentered, 

and how to 

create a safe 

environment which 

fosters trust 

• Explore the use of parent 

partners or recovery 

coaches 


• Give parents and youth 

clear and direct 

information on how to 

access their social 

worker and what do to if 

they cannot reach their 

social worker. 

• Increase continuity of 

staff with whom parents, 

youth and children 

interact. 

• Support parents through 

social worker transitions. 


coordinated case 

planning when there is 

more than one case plan 

and social worker 

involved with the family. 

worker (e.g. to request services), they were either not able to reach anyone or didn’t know who 

to contact. The youth wanted not only a direct phone number to reach their assigned social 

worker, but multiple phone numbers for the social worker and a direct line to someone who 

could respond to their questions. 


Cross-System Communication. Parents in particular 

acknowledged feeling overwhelmed and confused in trying to 

resolve different messages from different people involved in their 

cases (i.e. Probation Officer, Attorney, Social Worker and 

treatment counselor). Participants indicated it was helpful when 

staff communicated across agencies. Parents recognize that 

Probation, CPS, and treatment providers all know each other, 

and “they need to communicate, watch us do the case plan, and 

watch us succeed.” 

Clear Expectations, Goals and Timelines. Participants 

expressed a sense of general confusion and frustration in 

discrepancies they experienced between what their Social Worker 

said, what the case plan indicated, and what actually happened. 

Parents wanted their case plan expectations, goals, objectives and 

timelines to be clearly outlined. When any of these case plan 

factors changed, parents felt confused, frustrated and betrayed – 

either because they did not understand or were not aware of the 

change. One parent stated, “When [CPS] tells you that they’re 

going to give you a certain amount of time to do your case plan, I 

want them to abide by that.” Parents reported following what they 

thought were the requirements of their CPS case plan, only to be 

told later that they did not meet the requirements and being 

surprised by a termination of parental rights. One parent 

commented, “CPS gave me 18 months to get my kids back… I was 

in the treatment program for only 3 months and then they 

terminated my parental rights.” 

Parents also wanted to understand what to expect of their social 

worker. They understood that they had a variety of requirements to 

meet, but they wanted to know how to measure and assess the 

success and progress of the social worker in fulfilling his or her 

roles and responsibilities. One parent stated, “I completed 

everything in my case plan and wish I could go back to ask them 

“how are you going to help me?” What’s their plan? What are they 

responsible to do?” 

Maintaining Family Contact. Parents clearly appreciated the 

opportunities CPS provided to take their children with them into 

residential treatment settings and transitional housing. However, 

parents were frustrated at feeling a lack of support in trying to 

arrange visitation with children. Even if they could not see their 

own children, parents wanted to ensure that their children were at 

least able to maintain contact with extended family members. 

Parents reported that when CPS does not allow or arrange for 

children to maintain contact with the family, the children think that 

the family does not want them. This was of particular concern to 

the Native American parents, one of whom stated, “They have 

expert witnesses that testify that it’s not in the child’s best interest 

“I got to a point where I started 

asking if we could all just get 

together in a room and have a 

meeting because I can’t be 

the one trying to resolve who’s 

saying what.” 


• Revise orientation 

processes and materials 

to ensure the parents and 

youth understand 

timelines, requirements 

and commitments 

• Ensure parents and 

youth have a clear 

understanding of the 

roles, responsibilities and 

expectations of the social 

worker 

• Use the cross-system 

practice protocol to 

create clear 

communication and 

messages 

• Review how parents and 

youth are updated on 

progress made toward 

case plan completion 


• Review nature of support 

offered to parents for 

arranging visitation. 

• Visitation should never 

be used as a reward or 

punishment. 


to be with the parent, but they make the judgment that it’s not in the best interest of the child to 

know the rest of the family.” 

Change is possible. Participants clearly wanted child welfare 

workers to acknowledge the potential to change, to be 

encouraging, and to recognize progress. They want to be judged 

based on current behavior. Participants expressed frustration at 

feeling that they had demonstrated up to two years of being “clean 

and sober and yet still being judged based on past behavior. 

There was also a sense that the phrase “relapse is a part of 

recovery” is being used against them. Parents reported that Child 

Welfare brings expert testimony on whether or not a parent will 

relapse, establishing an assumption that the parent will relapse 

and thus it is not in the best interests of the child to reunify. 

Parents expressed a sense that this underlying assumption that 

the parent will relapse was being used as a punitive measure 

rather than as an opportunity to support a parent in relapse 

prevention efforts. 

Cultural Sensitivity. Native American participants in particular 

expressed frustration with the lack of cultural sensitivity they 

received in two key areas: (a) supporting family members to 

become relative placements for children, and (b) interactions with 

ICWA workers. Parents reported instances where friends and 

family members were disqualified from becoming Native American 

placements for children for seemingly arbitrary reasons, including 

the water heater temperature setting, single parents, and children 

sharing a room. They also do not believe ICWA is being applied 

appropriately to maintain family connections and place children in 

Native American homes. Parents reported negative experiences 

with ICWA workers, and even felt that ICWA involvement made 

services more challenging because it is such a small community 

where most people know and talk about each other. In general, 

Native American participants wanted to know that ICWA was 

being applied consistently and appropriately. 


• Train child welfare on 

substance use disorders, 

treatment and recovery 

• Involve treatment staff, 

relapse prevention 

planning, and child safety 

planning into the 

discussion of what to do 

if parent relapses 



• Review nature of support 

offered to family 

members to help them 

become relative 

placements for Native 

American children. 


. Probation 

In discussing their respective experiences with the Probation 

Department and Probation Officers, both parents and youth were 

forthcoming and clear about what was helpful and what was not 

helpful. 

A Positive Relationship. As with Child Welfare Workers, both 

parents and youth reported one of the most helpful aspects of 

being on probation was developing a positive relationship with 

their Probation Officer (PO). Parents and youth reported it was 

helpful to have a PO who was more concerned about helping 

them develop an honest and trusting relationship than trying to 

“catch” them in a violation. One youth reported still visiting her PO 

after completing her probation requirements. One youth reported 

being on probation for a year, seeing her PO regularly for urine 

tests, but never having a conversation with her PO. 

Access to Treatment and Cross-System Communication. 

Parents and youth both recognized that probation allowed them 

the opportunity to access needed treatment services, even if they 

did not initially recognize the need for that treatment. Participants 

indicated that “most” people who are arrested are using alcohol 

and drugs, and can benefit from treatment services even if it was 

the arrest and not the drug or alcohol issue that brought them in to 

treatment. Youth in particular saw the direct connection between 

arrest and referral to treatment services. Parents more clearly saw 

the communication between probation and treatment providers 

and ensuring that probation requirements did not conflict with 

treatment or CPS case plans. 

Clear Expectations, Goals and Timelines. Participants agreed 

that the expectations, goals and timelines associated with 

probation were often “good and clear.” Although timelines and 

expectations for extended probation or required treatment 

services may have changed, these changes seemed clearly 

understood. Some participants expressed initial anger and 

resistance to the requirements, but eventually reaching a level of 

acceptance, realizing that they could either meet the requirements 

or continue to be involved with the system indefinitely and 

experience the associated consequences (i.e. incarceration). 

Change is possible. Participants clearly wanted POs to 

acknowledge the potential to change, to be encouraging, and to 

recognize progress. They want to be judged based on current 

behavior. More importantly, youth wanted to be judged based on 

their own behavior and not their family history. In this case, youth 

want the Probation Department to understand that it is possible for 

them to be different from what their family history may lead one to 

assume. Youth reported several instances where they were 

required to receive drug testing solely due to a family history of 

“My PO was really cool. She 

talked to me and that was 

really important.” 


• Assess how POs are 

implementing MI, 

including successes, 

challenges and needs for 

supervision and on-going 

training 

• Ensure parents and 

youth have a clear 

understanding of the 

roles, responsibilities and 

expectations of the PO 

• Support parents and 

youth through PO 

transitions. 

“When you’re not doing what 

you’re supposed to do, it’s 

hard. But when you’re doing 

what you’re supposed to do 

then it’s easy.” 

“You’ve got to let someone 

at least show you who you 

are. Don’t make 

assumptions about people 

just because of their history.” 


• Train POs on substance 

use disorders, treatment 

and recovery 

• Involve treatment staff 

and relapse prevention 

planning, into the 


if parent or youth 

relapses 


substance use. Youth discussed feeling that they were being judged based on the past (or 

current) behavior of their parents, and not based on their individual experiences or behavior. 

One youth reported she had never used drugs, had gone through a year of negative drug 

testing, and was still required to submit to regular urinalysis. 

Maintaining Family Contact. Native American participants in 

particular expressed confusion regarding the rationale behind 

probation requiring an individual to stay away from specific family 

members. This appeared to be largely gang related, in that a 

probationer was not to associate with any known gang members. 

However, parents were confused at what they were expected to do 

when a brother or cousin is a gang member, and thus on the list of 

individuals with whom they should not associate. For probation 

youth, this issue was related to being placed in residential settings 

at a time when their families were “breaking apart.” 

c. Assessment and Referral 

In discussing how individuals access treatment services, 

participants reported varied experiences of assessment and 

referral. Of their experiences, two clear issues arose. 

Need for a Clear Effective Referral Process. Parents reported a 

variety of miscommunications and lack of support in obtaining 

assessments and referrals to treatment services, particularly when 

being referred from child welfare. Some parents reported that they 

had been directed by their social worker to schedule an 

assessment appointment at a specific treatment provider agency. 

When these parents received an assessment of “no treatment 

need indicated,” the social worker mandated that they attend 

treatment services anyway. Even though the parents recognized 

that they did need treatment services, as one parent stated, “It 

would have been nice to know if she was going to make us go to 

treatment anyway rather than doing this run around.” Other 

parents reported that they got little or no support from child welfare 

in getting a substance abuse treatment assessment and referral. 

As one parent stated, “I was the one who walked into the 

treatment agency to get what I need.” 

For parents and youth involved in probation, the assessment and 

referral process was more obvious. For parents, admitting 

substance use allowed for treatment as an alternative to 

incarceration. For youth, there is a sense that the screening 


• Review rationale for 

requiring probationers to 

not associate with family 

members as a condition of 

probation. 

“It’s scary because you 

don’t know what’s going 

to happen to you.” 


• Establish a clear and 

effective referral process 

that can be easily 

explained to and 

understood by parents 

and youth, as well as 

other system partners 

• Assume substance 

abuse is an issue when 

identifying service needs. 

• Initial motivation should 

not be a factor in 

determining treatment 

need. 

process is for the purpose of obtaining a substance abuse treatment referral. As one youth 

stated, “If they’re screening you for something, you pretty much know that they’re doing that 

because they want you to go to treatment.” 

In both instances, whether the assessment and referral happens through child welfare or 

probation, participants expressed a sense of confusion and fear about the entire process. 

Participants reported wishing someone had taken the time to explain the process, including how 

the screening and assessment would affect their requirements and outcomes. 


Issue of Trust and Honesty. Youth in particular reported difficulty 

in trusting the individuals that were conducting the screening and 

assessment process, and reported not having been honest during 

that part of the process. Youth expressed a sense that if the 

person conducting the screening and assessment had “just taken 

a little more time and been a little more sincere,” then they might 

have been more forthcoming in their responses. 

d. Treatment Programs and Providers 

There were a variety of treatment programs participants 

experienced and discussed. In discussing their respective 

experiences with treatment agencies and counselors, both parents 

and youth were forthcoming and clear about what was helpful and 

what was not helpful. 

Positive Relationships. As with child welfare and probation, both parents and youth reported 

that treatment was most helpful when they were able to develop positive relationships with staff, 

counselors and other clients. Participants reported still maintaining relationships with and 

visiting staff and counselors, as well as maintaining the friendships they developed. Participants 

also discussed experiences of interacting with disingenuous, controlling, and judgmental 

treatment staff. Participants acknowledged that this lack of rapport hinders their ability to 

engage in services. 

Youth in particular were clear that being understood and treated 

as a unique individual was central to developing a positive 

relationship with treatment counselors. Participants want 

counselors to know them as individuals before offering advice or 

assuming what services are needed. 

Structured Therapeutic Setting. Both parents and youth noted 

that one of the most helpful aspects of treatment was the 

structured environment. Probation youth in particular reported that 

the hardest thing about treatment was the daily routine, largely 

because it forced them to be alone with their own thoughts. 

However, they recognized that this is what led to gaining insight 

and perspective. What was least helpful for foster care youth was 

when the structure and rules felt arbitrary and seemed to have no 

basis in therapeutic strategies. 


• Train those conducting 

screening, assessment 

and referrals on MI 

“Treatment was the most 

helpful and I turned my life 

around.” 

“The best counselors don’t 

read the file before working 

with me.” 

“It’s hard to sit inside 

yourself and deal with your 

problems. I drove myself 

crazy before I got sane in 

the program.” 

Access to Needed Services. Participants discussed the benefit of getting access to a variety of 

needed services through their respective treatment agencies. There was also a desire to 

understand how effective treatment programs are in general and how the services are matched 

to meet the needs of each individual. Both parents and youth reported examples of friends and 

family either trying to access services, or receiving treatment and being unsuccessful in 

achieving recovery. 

One area highlighted by the foster care youth in particular was the need for effective discharge 

planning. Participants were concerned about (a) family members going from the therapeutic 

structured treatment setting to a daily life that is completely void of structure, (b) counselors 

discharging clients without giving them enough reliable resources in their own community, and 


(c) clients learning life skills in their treatment program, but not 

having an opportunity to practice those skills in the real world 

prior to discharge. 

Maintaining Family Contact. Parents discussed this as 

different from what child welfare or probation does in separating 

the family. Participants discussed treatment agencies as trying 

to “get you to focus on yourself.” Over time treatment counselors 

get the family to come into the agency and do therapy together, 

thus helping to repair relationships and heal the family. 

Youth however saw their experiences with treatment as 

episodes of family separation. Youth had mixed experiences 

with family therapy sessions. In some instances the experiences 

were positive and led to improved family relationships. In other 

instances the youth felt that the discussions were either onesided 

(i.e. their parent monopolized the session), or the session 

would bring up bad memories and then not get anything 

resolved. Despite these mixed experiences, youth agreed that 

there were not nearly enough opportunities to bring the family 

together for effective joint sessions. 

Participants reported that the least helpful aspect of treatment 

was instances where visitation with family was used as part of a 

punishment or reward. Youth in particular reported that some 

treatment programs would restrict family visitation time as a 

punishment for bad behavior. Youth saw their connection to 

family as a fundamental right. 

e. Engagement and Retention 

There were two main reasons that participants reported as their 

motivation for engaging and remaining in treatment services, as 

well as meeting their child welfare and probation case plan 

requirements: family and recovery. However, neither of these are 

mutually exclusive, and both parents and youth discussed both 

factors together. 

Family. Most participants reported their children or a family 

member as being the main motivating factor. For parents, it was 

the sense of urgency to reunify with their children, healing their 

family, and being a better parent. As one parent stated, “Having my kids removed got me into 

treatment.” For youth, it was trying to be a role model for siblings, trying to prove to family that 

they could be successful, or trying to reconnect with family 

members in recovery. 

Recovery. Participants also reported engaging in services to 

achieve recovery as a personal goal. Participants discussed 

becoming self-motivated to participate and engage in treatment, 

child welfare and probation. Parents and youth acknowledged 

feeling that they had nowhere else to go but to treatment. 


• Train treatment staff on 

adolescent development 

• Provide aftercare and 

other opportunities to 

stay connected to 

treatment staff and 

clients 

• Ensure program 

structure, requirements 

and expectations are 

connected to evidencebased 

therapeutic 

strategies and outcomes 

• Offer clients the 

opportunity to practice life 

skills in the context of 

their treatment program 

• Connect parents and 

youth to available 

resources in their local 

community as part of 

treatment discharge 

planning. 

“Seeing your family is 

treated as a privilege rather 

than a right.” 

“For me it was family and 

my kids – my son. I did it 

for my family.” 

“You have to want it for 

yourself. You have to have 

that moment of clarity.” 


f. Suggestions and Recommendations 

There were a variety of services both parents and youth suggested could be added to or 

enhanced in existing child welfare, probation and substance abuse treatment services, 

including: 

• Section 8 housing information, guidance and resources. As one parent stated, “I had 

section 8 before going into treatment, and if there was some way that that could have 

been salvaged, then the transitional housing I have now could have gone to someone 

else.” 

• Child care, particularly for infants and young children, after family reunification. As one 

parent stated, “Child care is expensive. Now that we have the baby back, we’re having 

trouble finding child care for him to do all of our other requirements. And I can’t pay all 

that money to someone for just two hours at a time.” 

• Aftercare services for youth to support transition from group home to reunification or 

relative placement 

• Job-training and skill-building activities for youth in residential treatment or group homes 

(i.e. experience that can help build their resume) 

• Opportunities for youth in residential treatment or group homes to explore different 

hobbies and interests 

• Family therapy 

V. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 

The preceding section identified strengths and challenges of Sonoma County child welfare, 

probation and substance abuse treatment systems and services, specifically: 1) CPS and Social 

Workers, 2) Probation and Probation Officers, 3) the Substance Abuse Assessment and 

Referral process, 4) Treatment Providers and Counselors, and 5) Engagement and Retention in 

services. Following are general themes and recommendations generated from the entire 

discussion of strengths and challenges across all systems and services, as well as implications 

for the Sonoma County Family Recovery Project. 

Developing a Positive Relationship 

• Train child welfare workers on motivational enhancement. 

• Train child welfare workers and Probation Officers on substance use disorders, 

treatment and recovery to reduce stigma and judgment. 

• Assess how Probation Officers are implementing Motivational Interviewing, including 

successes, challenges and needs for supervision and on-going training. 

• Train treatment staff on adolescent development. 

• Train all staff on being approachable, client-centered, and how to create a safe 

environment which fosters trust, 

• Explore the use of parent partners or recovery coaches. These individuals could allow 

parents to feel that they have been “matched” with someone who understands them and 

can advocate on their behalf. 


• Restructure initial orientation processes and materials to ensure the parents and youth 

understand timelines, requirements and commitments. 

• Ensure parents and youth have a clear understanding of the roles, responsibilities and 

expectations of the social worker and the PO. 

• Provide aftercare and other opportunities to stay connected to treatment staff and 

clients. 

Continuity and Accessibility in Assigned Staff 

• Give parents and youth clear and direct information on how to access their social worker 

and what do to if they cannot reach their social worker in a timely manner. 

• Increase continuity of staff with whom parents, youth and children interact. 

• Support parents through social worker and PO transitions. There should be a warm 

hand-off, introductions, and any clarification on changing roles and responsibilities. 

• Support parents through coordinated case planning when there is more than one case 

plan and social worker involved with the family. 

Access to Treatment and Appropriate Services 

• Establish a clear and effective referral process that can be easily explained to and 

understood by parents and youth, as well as other system partners 

• Assume substance abuse is an issue when identifying service needs. 

• Initial motivation should not be a factor in determining treatment need. 

• Train those conducting screening, assessment and referrals on Motivational Interviewing 

or motivational enhancement strategies. 

• Ensure program structure, requirements and expectations are connected to evidencebased 

therapeutic strategies and anticipated outcomes and that these are clearly 

understood by parents and youth. 

• Offer clients the opportunity to practice life skills in the context of their treatment program 

as part of treatment discharge planning. 

• Connect parents and youth to available resources in their local community as part of 


Cross-system Communication 

• Use the cross-system practice protocol to establish clear lines of communication and 

specific information that needs to be shared between social workers, attorneys, POs, 

treatment counselors, etc. 

Clear Expectations, Goals and Timelines 

• Use the cross-system practice protocol to create clear communication and messages 

between system partners, which can then be clearly communicated back to parents and 

youth. 


• Review how parents and youth are updated on progress made toward child welfare and 

probation case plan completion, how changes are identified and implemented, and how 

changes are communicated to parents and youth. 

Maintaining Family Contact 

• Review nature of support offered to parents for arranging visitation. 

• Review rationale for requiring probationers to not associate with family members as a 

condition of probation. 

• Visitation should never be used as a reward or punishment. 

• Explore opportunities for increasing family therapy sessions across all systems. 

Change is Possible 

• Train child welfare on substance use disorders, treatment and recovery 

• Involve treatment staff, relapse prevention planning, and child safety planning into the 

discussion of what to do if parent relapses 

Cultural Sensitivity 


• Review nature of support offered to family members to help them become relative 

placements for Native American children. 




Focus Groups 

Facilitator’s Guide/Questions 

Appendix A – 1

Process: 

Five focus groups will be interviewed during the first two weeks of December. Participants will 

consist of individuals from the following five categories, with a maximum number of 12 

participants per group: 

1. Parents who have a closed case that crosses all 3 systems 

2. Native American parents who have a closed or open case that crosses all 3 systems. 

3. Latino parents who have a closed case that crosses all 3 systems. 

4. Young adults who aged out of the foster care system who had parents with AOD issues. 

5. Young adults who had an AOD identified problem during their participation in the juvenile 

probation system and have all juvenile probation proceedings dismissed. 

Focus groups are scheduled as follows: 

2 - 4 

p.m. 

3 - 5 

p.m. 

6 - 8 

p.m. 

Tuesday, December 1 Wednesday, December 2 Thursday, December 3 

Native American Parents 

Indian Health Clinic 

snacks provided 

Aged Out Youth 

VOICES 

RESCHEDULED 12/15 

General Parents 

Orenda Center 

dinner provided 

Probation 

CHOPS 

snacks provided 

Latino Parents 

Orenda Center 

CANCELLED 

Focus Group Facilitators: 

• Children and Family Futures staff: Linda Carpenter and Cathleen Otero 

• Sonoma County staff: Marla Stewart as a potential facilitator 

Introduction and Recruitment Messages: 

The Sonoma County Family Recovery Project is a collaborative planning process that will help 

us better se rve children, adolescents and families with su bstance use di sorders who ar e 

involved with child welfare and pr obation. The Family Recovery Project involves the County of 

Sonoma Department of Health Services, Human Services Department, and Probation 

Department. The goals of the project are: 

• Improved coordination among child welfare, AOD and probation departments and staff to 

provide treatment and supportive services to children, adolescents and families affected 

by substance abuse 

• Effective use of available f unding i n dev eloping p rioritized pr ograms for children, 

adolescents and families affected by substance abuse within the child welfare, AOD and 

probation systems 

• Create strategies to address barriers to improved coordination and comprehensiveness 

of family-centered treatment for children, adolescents and families affected by substance 

abuse 

Appendix A – 2

A f ocus of t his planning effort is improving daily practice in screening, assessment, referral, 

engagement and r etention i n appropriate services. We a re r eviewing scr eening, asse ssment 

and engagement practices across Child Protective, Probation, and AODS systems. This 

includes current p ractices, se rvices, r esources available and pr otocols related to 

communication, information sh aring, scr eening, asse ssment, ca se pl anning and service 

delivery. 

The i nput o f youth and par ents that hav e been i nvolved with ch ild welfare, p robation an d 

treatment se rvices are cr itical t o under standing what works best and what needs to be 

improved. We a re as king y outh and pa rents to par ticipate i n focus groups to share their 

experiences, su ccesses, ch allenges and recommendations. Y ou w ill be as ked abou t y our 

experiences with ch ild w elfare w orkers, pr obation o fficers, t reatment pr oviders, w hat k ind of 

services you received, what worked best, and what did not work so well. You will also be asked 

about what helped you or your family get into and stay engaged in services you or your family 

needed. 

The Questions: 

The following questions w ere g enerated by t he S onoma C ounty Fam ily R ecovery P roject 

Practice W orkgroup. The q uestions have been gr ouped i n categories, w ith pr ompts/probes 

included to help generate responses from participants. 

1. What components of the program were helpful for them (participants)? 

2. What components did not work (were not helpful)? 

3. At w hat t ime o r at w hat poi nt di d they se riously deci de t o eng age or not engage in 

services? 

4. What was their experience with Child Welfare, Probation, Treatment, and other parents 

or youth? 

5. Going forward, what are their goals? 

6. Are there additional services they would have liked? 

Participants will be given incentives in appreciation of participation. 

Participant responses will be recorded by the facilitators. Responses and recommendations will 

be presented via a written report to the Sonoma County Family Recovery Project partners within 

45 days of the focus groups. 

Appendix A – 3

FOCUS GROUP 1 

FACILITATOR’S GUIDE 

(PARENTS) 

Purpose: To solicit client feedback on the strengths and challenges of Sonoma County child 

welfare, substance abuse treatment and probation programs to improve service delivery. This 

focus group includes parents who have a closed case that crosses all 3 systems. 

Introduction to Meeting 

• Introductions of participants and facilitators (first names & nametags) 

• Explain purpose of the focus group: “To learn more about your experiences and get your 

feedback so that staff can continue to improve Sonoma County services.” 

• Define the Family Recovery Project: “A collaborative planning process that will help us 

better serve children, adolescents and families with substance use disorders who are 

involved with child welfare and probation.” 

Sketch of Room and Sitting Arrangement (to be completed by moderator) 

Appendix A – 4

1. 

Intro/Ice Breaker 

Intro: “There are many different parts of the services you received in Sonoma County 

(e.g., CPS investigation, assessment, treatment services, probation meetings, court 

hearings and activities). We want to hear about your experience, and get your opinions 

about some of the different parts of these services.” 

If you could give one piece of advice, what would you say to a parent who has: 

• just been referred to Family, Youth and Children’s? 

• just been referred to a treatment agency? 

• just been referred to the Probation Department? 

2. Interactions, connections and relationships: Positive interactions, connections 

and relationships are an important part of your success. Please describe your 

experiences with each of the following people/systems. 

Probe: With each one, think about whether or not the people you are working with are 

considerate? Respectful? You feel you are listened to? What might have worked better 

for you? 

Child Welfare Worker: 

Probe 1: What part of your experience with child welfare was the most helpful? The 

most difficult? 

Probe 2: What do you wish your child welfare worker knew about the treatment and 

recovery process? 

Probe 3: What do you wish your child welfare worker knew about your probation 

requirements? 

Probation: 

Probe 1: What part of your experience with probation was the most helpful? The most 

difficult? 

Probe 2: What do you wish your probation officer knew about the treatment and recovery 

process? 

Probe 3: What do you wish your probation officer knew about your child welfare case? 

Family Maintenance (FM) Services: 

Probe 1: If you are receiving services/supports through FM, which are the most helpful? 

Probe 2: Can you think of any services or supports that are missing, that would be 

helpful for staying successful in recovery? For having your family be happy and healthy? 

Assessment and Referral 

Probe 1: Do you know if you were assessed for substance abuse? What was it like to 

go through this process? 

Probe 2: Do you have any recommendations on how to make the assessment process 

better? 

Probe 3: At what point were you referred or connected to treatment services? 

Appendix A – 5

3. 

4. 

5. 

Treatment Program: 

Probe 1: What part of the treatment program is the most helpful? The most difficult? 

Probe 2: Do you feel you are getting the level of treatment (e.g. residential, outpatient) 

that is most appropriate for where you are at this stage of your recovery? 

Probe 3: If you have received other treatment services in the past can you explain what 

is working for you this time? 

Probe 4: What do you wish your counselor knew about your probation requirements? 

Probe 5: What do you wish your counselor knew about your child welfare case? 


Meeting all the child welfare, probation and treatment requirements can 

sometimes be very challenging. Your input regarding what you and other parents 

need to be successful is very important. 

a. At what point/time did you decide you were serious about engaging in your 

child welfare, probation and treatment plans? 

Probe 1: Is there someone or something that made a difference at that point? 

Probe 2: Why do you think other parents have dropped out or didn’t stay engaged? 

Probe 3: If you had to pick one person or service that has been the most helpful in your 

recovery process, what or who would that be and why? 

b. Other parents: 

Probe 1: Have you connected with other parents you have met through child welfare, 

treatment or probation? Have those connections been helpful, or not helpful and in 

what way? 

Suggestions/Recommendations 

a. Do you have specific suggestions for how we could improve any part of 

Sonoma County services or programs? 

b. Do you feel like you have (are are being provided with) the tools you need to 

successfully continue your abstinence and recovery? 

Probe: If not, what would assist you? 

c. Can you think of services that are missing, or that would have been helpful? 

Probe 1: Are you receiving other support services you need (parenting classes, 

employment training, DV support) through any other community services? 

Probe 2: Has your child been assessed and was she/he found to have any special 

needs? If so, is she/he getting help with the identified needs? 

Next Steps 

a. What do you think will be the biggest challenges to maintaining your 

recovery? 

Appendix A – 6

. What are the most important goals you have for you and your family at this 

point? 

c. Do you have anything else to add that you think would be important for 

improving this program? 

Thank you! 

Appendix A – 7

FOCUS GROUP 2 AND 3 


(NATIVE AMERICAN AND LATINO PARENTS) 



focus group includes parents who have a closed or open case that crosses all 3 systems. 








• If you have an open case, your participation in this focus group will have no impact on 

your case (neither positive nor negative). 


Appendix A – 8

1. 



(e.g., CPS investigation, assessment, treatment services, probation meetings, court 

hearings and activities). We want to hear about your experience, and get your opinions 

about some of the different parts of these services.” 

If you could give one piece of advice, what would you say to a parent who has: 




2. Interactions, connections and relationships : Positive interactions, connections 

and relationships are an important part of your success. Please describe your 

experiences with each of the following people/systems. 

Probe: With each one, think about whether or not the people you are working with 

are considerate? Respectful? You feel you are listened to? What might have 

worked better for you? 




Probe 2: What do you wish your child welfare worker knew about the treatment and 

recovery process? 

Probe 3: What do you wish your child welfare worker knew about your probation 

requirements? 

Probation: 


difficult? 


process? 

Probe 3: What do you wish your probation officer knew about your child welfare case? 

Family Maintenance (FM) Services: 

Probe 1: If you are receiving services/supports through FM, which are the most helpful? 

Probe 2: Can you think of any services or supports that are missing, that would be 

helpful for staying successful in recovery? For having your family be happy and healthy? 





better? 


Appendix A – 9

3. 

4. 








Probe 5: What do you wish your counselor knew about your child welfare case? 


Meeting all the child welfare, probation and treatment requirements can 

sometimes be very challenging. Your input regarding what you and other parents 

need to be successful is very important. 


child welfare, probation and treatment plans? 


Probe 2: Why do you think other parents have dropped out or didn’t stay engaged? 

Probe 3: Do you feel like the services you received were provided in a culturally 

appropriate manner? 

Probe 4: What would have made the services more appropriate or comfortable and 

when could that have been integrated? 

Probe 5: If you had to pick one person or service that has been the most helpful in 

your recovery process, what or who would that be and why? 

b. Other parents: 

Probe 1: Have you connected with other parents you have met through child welfare, 

treatment or probation? Have those connections been helpful, or not helpful and in 

what way? 








Probe 1: Are you receiving other support services you need (parenting classes, 

employment training, DV support) through any other community services? 

Appendix A – 10

5. 

Probe 2: Has your child been assessed and was she/he found to have any special 

needs? If so, is she/he getting help with the identified needs? 

Next Steps 


recovery? 

b. Do you have anything else to add that you think would be important for 


Thank you! 

Appendix A – 11

FOCUS GROUP 4 


(YOUNG ADULTS THAT AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE) 



focus group includes young adults who aged out of the foster care system who had parents with 

AOD issues. 









Appendix A – 12

1. 

2. 



(e.g., CPS investigation, assessment, and services). We want to hear about your 

experience, and get your opinions about some of the different parts of these services.” 

If you could give one piece of advice, what would you say to a young person 

whose family has: 



Interactions, connections and relationships 

Positive interactions, connections and relationships are an important part of your 

success. Please describe your experiences with each of the following 

people/systems. 



for you? 


Probe 1: How did your child welfare worker explain to you what was happening in your 

family? 

Probe 2: What kind of services did your family need? What kind of services did your 

family receive through any community agency? 

Probe 3: What kind of services did you need? What kind of services did you receive 

through any community services? 



Probe 5: What do you wish your child welfare worker knew about your family’s 

experience with substance abuse? 

Independent Living Services: 

Probe 1: What kind of services did you need? What kind of services did you receive 

through any community agency? 

Probe 2: What part of your experience with ILP was the most helpful? The most difficult? 

Probe 3: What do you wish your ILP offered about substance abuse prevention, 

intervention or treatment? 





better? 


Appendix A – 13

3. 

4. 

Probe 4: How did you do in school? 

Probe 5: Did anyone ever assess you for problems with learning? If so, did you get the 

help you needed? 


Probe 1: What kind of treatment services did your family receive? 

Probe 2: In what ways were you a part of your family’s treatment services? 


Probe 4: Do you feel your family got the level of treatment (e.g. residential, outpatient) 

that is most appropriate? 

Probe 5: If you have received treatment services can you explain what worked for you? 

Probe 6: What do you wish treatment programs knew about your experiences as a child 

in a family affected by substance abuse? 

Other youth: 

Probe 1: Have you connected with other youth you have met through child welfare, 

treatment or other services your received? Have those connections been helpful, or not 

helpful and in what way? 








b. Can you think of services that are missing, or that would have been helpful? 

Next Steps 


recovery? 

b. What are the most important goals you have for you and your family at this 

point? 



Thank you! 

Appendix A – 14

FOCUS GROUP 5 


(YOUNG ADULTS IN JUVENILE PROBATION) 



focus group includes young adults who had an AOD identified problem during their participation 

in the juvenile probation system and have all juvenile probation proceedings dismissed. 









Appendix A – 15

1. 

2. 



(e.g., assessment, treatment services and probation meetings). We want to hear about 

your experience, and get your opinions about some of the different parts of these 

services.” 

If you could give one piece of advice, what would you say to a young person who 

has: 



Interactions, connections and relationships 

Positive interactions, connections and relationships are an important part of your 

success. Please describe your experiences with each of the following 

people/systems. 



for you? 

Probation: 


difficult? 


process? 





better? 


Probe 4: How did you do in school? 

Probe 5: Did anyone ever assess you for problems with learning? If so, did you get the 

help you needed? 








Probe 5: What kind of treatment services did your family receive? 

Appendix A – 16

3. 

4. 

Probe 6: In what ways were you a part of your family’s treatment services? 

Probe 7: What part of the treatment program your family received was the most helpful? 

The most difficult? 

Probe 8: Do you feel your family got the level of treatment (e.g. residential, outpatient) 

that is most appropriate? 

Probe 9: What do you wish treatment programs knew about your experiences as a child 

in a family affected by substance abuse? 


Meeting all the probation and treatment requirements can sometimes be very 

challenging. Your input regarding what you and other youth need to be 

successful is very important. 


probation and treatment plans? 






Probe 4: If you had to pick one person or service that has been the most helpful in 

your recovery process, what or who would that be and why? 

Probe 3: Why do you think other youth dropped out or didn’t stay engaged? 

Other youth: 

Probe 1: Have you connected with other youth you have met through child welfare, 

treatment or other services your received? Have those connections been helpful, or not 

helpful and in what way? 








Appendix A – 17

5. 

Next Steps 


recovery? 

b. What are the most important goals you have for you and your family at this 

point? 



Thank you! 

Appendix A – 18

Problem Definition and Getting Staff Buy-In 


Recommended Policy and Practice Changes 

Identified Change Opportunities 

1. For staff, for clients and for the systems to get staff buy-in 

- Defining the problem and proposed solutions, and what we’re asking about is for feedback 

in the middle and there are opportunities for feedback. 

- Write up a paragraph for what we’re doing and what kind of feedback we’re looking for 

- Develop a short PPT and a 2-page handout 

2. Dissemination to Staff 

- FY&C all staff meetings and/or unit meetings 

- Probation supervisor meetings – Thurs, Feb 25 is joint meeting 

- AODS treatment staff is easier but need to connect with the providers, maybe at a staff 

meeting and at a provider meeting – Provider meeting is March 10 and March 18 is staff 

meeting 

Population Focus 

- Probation adults on formal probation with substance use disorder or with children 

- Probation youth on regular/intensive supervision with substance use disorder or open FY&C 

case 

- FY&C families in ER and Investigations prioritized for AOD screening and referral to 

assessment 

- FY&C families where children have been removed prioritized for ongoing communication 

- AODS clients with children or on formal/regular/intensive supervision 

Opportunities for Change 

1. Identifying clients involved in other systems (Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, FY&C and AODS) 

• Documenting involvement and having some way to verify either current or past involvement 

i. On an individual client level for case planning purposes 

ii. Practice side is asking the question and data side is where is it logged, and the 

importance of verifying either through practice or data 

• Who, When, Where (physical versus data location), How, Why 

• Detail barriers and solutions 

i. Immediate focus on three partners here and longer term focus on including metal 

health, public health and perinatal field nurses. 

2. Identifying clients for referral to treatment or child welfare 

• Screening for substance abuse (Probation and FY&C) and child abuse/neglect (Probation 

and AODS) and child development needs (AODS) 

i. Types of questions for AODS to ask: what are the disciplinary practices in your 

house, who cares for your children (describe a typical day/week in who picks them 

up, who makes food for them), who else do the children live with (e.g. mom’s 

boyfriend, and does he discipline the kids), what’s your support network like, and if 

the child has any special needs (behaviorally) and if the child has a dentist/doctor, 

etc. The only questions that might be in SWITS is how many friends do you have. 

Would need to find out where to add the questions in the intake or screening 

process. Can’t add them to the ASI since it’s a standard tool. If you don’t have 

prompts built in then the questions won’t get asked. Family social section of the tx 

1

plan is a good place to ask. Infant risk assessment at the hospital could be helpful 

training tool. Medi-Cal issue: unless it’s an issue that results in a change in case 

plan, this is not billable. 

ii. Training issue: FY&C could do mandated reporter training. But from provider to 

provider there needs to be consistent practice. FY&C always welcomes consult calls 

from Tx providers. Immanent danger issues are clear, but providers can call for a 

consult. And then what happens when you get an impression that there are issues 

but the parent doesn’t volunteer information. 

iii. Juvenile Probation referrals to AODS – treatment providers are looking for indication 

from Juvenile probation about whether this youth is expected to attend intensive or 

regular treatment. For the most part Juvenile Probation is looking for the Tx provider 

to recommend the appropriate level of care. Occasionally the judge will order 

intensive, but that’s a revert back to old practice and not reflective of current practice. 

1. There’s an expectation in many juvenile case plans that the parents “will 

participate,” but there’s no mandate that the parents participate. FY&C could 

get involved, and this could motivate the parents to participate. The judge can 

also threaten contempt of court too. 

iv. Adult probation – inconsistent communication with AODS is more on the PO side 

(some POs are better about contacting AODS than others). Adult may have access 

to CWS/CMS eventually. Adult does have access to the Dependency Court system 

and do access it in the investigation process. 

v. Maybe AODS and Probation could use the same set of child abuse/neglect 

screening questions. And in the Juvenile probation setting the questions just get 

shifted (i.e. who cares for you). 

vi. Training – confidentiality in AODS was designed so that we wouldn’t get information, 

and there may be resistance from staff to engage FY&C. 

• Documenting the need for referral and assessment 



3. Establishing AODS as a central point for conducting assessments and referral to treatment for both 

Probation and FY&C 

• Allows for AODS collection and documentation of Release of Information forms and listing 

collateral contacts for information sharing 

• This would enable tracking of parent and youth entry and drop-out points. Similarly, this 

creates an opportunity for AODS Case Management staff and treatment providers to offer 

feedback as to whether the adult/juvenile attended assessment and intake appointments. 

• AODS creates an electronic referral, but would need to determine where these electronic 

referrals would go for parents referred by FY&C (i.e. Probation’s direct referral to treatment 

is different from FY&C because of payment agreements and contracts) 

• Need to resolve the difference between when FY&C provides a client “referral,” indicating 

that FY&C is funding the treatment, and when a client is just directed by FY&C to access 

treatment services 

• Need to think about the functional level of this versus the physical location. This could create 

barriers to the family if they have to actually go to a different location. 



4. Confidentiality and Universal Release of Information Forms – this is a pre-requisite for ongoing 

information sharing 

• The three agencies FY&C/Probation/AODS generate a generic overall shared form, or 

AODS issues simple guidelines on federal confidentiality regulations (42 CFR Part 2) and 

provide sample consents to facilitate sharing of information with child welfare and probation 

2

• Need to first define parameters for information sharing – Need to know what each system 

needs to know and get the blessing from county council 

i. See information sharing section below 

• Detail barriers and solutions to sharing this specific information 

5. Create ongoing communication mechanisms for joint case planning and coordination 

• Option 1: Leverage existing multi-disciplinary team (MDT) examples (e.g. 1210 court and 

other specialty courts use the MDT model). 

i. Probation Screening Committee – include child welfare, but we talk about many 

youth that don’t have child welfare involvement, and if they do, then it goes to CMC. 

But would it be helpful to have CPS involved at the screening level. Not, not really 

because they go to CMC if that’s an issue, and then its connected to the 241.1 

process. Often times these have to be done quickly and if there’s a 241 connect, 

then involve CPS at this meeting since this is where we’re discussing who’s taking 

the lead on this case. The grey area is that there’s youth who we want to have CPS 

involved. There’s a concern where the child may not be safe. We make the referral 

for CPS investigation. 

1. By the time youth get to the screening level the Disposition report is already 

being prepared 

ii. FY&C could consider instituting interagency case staffings that involve families within 

the first 7 – 10 days following the opening of a case. If necessary, ask the Court to 

order these staffings as a part of reasonable or active efforts 

iii. FY&C bi-weekly Case Management Counsel (CMC) meetings for any CWS clients – 

it’s an MDT, so it frees up the information sharing issues, we should have AODS 

involved. AODS is involved but they don’t always come to the meeting because it’s 

often a waste of time since they don’t often discuss AOD. Bonnie has been coming 

on a regular basis 

iv. Employment system discussions (Sonoma WORKs) – ER and VFM families most 

often 

v. Family Justice Center – could be a good place for providing office space and 

resources for upstream intervention. Opening in the spring. DA’s office is the lead, 

but many community based organizations at the table. Chanda Zircleback of United 

Way and Christine Cook are the leads. Also central for all the three agencies. One of 

the main focuses are DV and a one stop shop. 

• Option 2: Individual Probation Officer, Social Worker and Counselor contacts 

• Option 3: Designate an expert or a group of experts within each agency for consultation and 

engagement with clients 

i. Designate a person in FY&C and in Adult and Juvenile probation to receive (or who 

already has) extensive substance abuse training to serve as point person within each 

agency to engage adults and youth affected by substance use disorders 

ii. Communication mechanisms? There could be places where anyone from 

participating agencies can go and read what we’ve decided. And find out what we’ve 

agreed on that needs to be shared. Step by step toolkits for what are the right forms 

and links to the right forms. 

• Option 4: Explore co-location of substance abuse counselors in child welfare and probation 

for consultation. Leverage existing co-location examples (e.g. AODS is co-located with 

FY&C for the Sonoma WORKS program to develop the plan and then refer out to services; 

Sharon Youney is co-located in FY&C for DDC clients; and AODS is co-located with 

Probation). 

• Who, When, Where (physical location), How, Why for each option 

6. Staff in all systems should have a fundamental knowledge of probation, addiction, recovery and 

child welfare standards. (to be developed by Training Workgroup) 

3

• Each system should clearly and simply outline their investigation/assessment, intake and 

referral process in a way that can be easily explained to and understood by parents and 

youth, as well as other system partners 

• Each agency’s priority measures of client success should be understood by the other 

agencies 

• Generate opportunities for cross-training and joint training 

7. Parent Partners, Recovery Coaches and/or Substance Abuse Specialists 

• Longer term project do connect parents to the recovery community 

Specific Recommendations 

Following are specific strategies generated thus far from workgroup meetings, focus group findings and 

both the August 2009 and January 2010 meetings. This is an all-inclusive matrix organized around the 

case timeframes and recommendations for practice, data and information sharing changes. In many 

instances there is overlap between the practice, data and information sharing changes. The tables are 

intended to provide a detailed review of specific suggestions while capturing the parallel changes that 

could be implemented across systems. 

The broad-based recommendations and overarching cross-system issues listed above were created 

through a review of this all-inclusive matrix. The specific strategies detailed below would need to be 

culled down to core first steps based on how much they contribute to the priority outcomes selected by 

the Steering Committee. 

4

Investigation and Initial Screening: Determining Presence of an Issue and Immediacy 

• Is there a substance use, probation, or child abuse and neglect issue in the family? 

• If so, what is the immediacy of the issue? 

Parent Convicted and 

Being Considered for 

Probation 

Probation is conducting 

Investigation and 

preparing sentencing 

report 

Timeframe (in days): 

• Check whether parent 

has an open CPS case 

• Confirm whether parent 

is participating in 

treatment in advance of 

sentencing 

• Ensure social worker 

and treatment provider 

have Investigations 

Probation Officer’s 

contact information 

• If parent is to be placed 

under court probation, 

and no Probation 

Officer will be 

assigned, ensure the 

social worker and 

treatment provider 

have a final copy of the 

sentencing order. 

Juvenile Sustained 

Petition and 

Referred to 

Probation 

Probation is 

preparing 

Disposition report 


• Check whether 

adolescent has an 

open CPS case (or 

prior reports) 

• Screening 

Committee to 

include treatment 

representative 

• Ensure social 

worker and 

treatment provider 

have Probation 

Officer’s contact 

information 

Parent or Juvenile referred to 

Treatment 

AOD is conducting 

ASAM/ASI/ADAD/intake 


PRACTICE CHANGES 

• Screen clients using standardized 

questions to determine involvement 

with child welfare and probation 

• Ensure appropriate Release of 

Confidential Information Forms have 

been signed to allow communication 

with CPS and probation. 

• Develop a plan for and provide 

interim services for clients on waiting 

lists for treatment 

• Utilize outpatient care as a pre or 

interim service for persons on 

residential waiting list(s) (Note: This 

happens in perinatal, but doesn’t 

work if the client doesn’t have Medi- 

Cal) 

• Participate in Probation Screening 

Committee and child welfare case 

consultations 

DATA CHANGES 

• Utilize SWITS for all substance 

abuse screenings and assessments. 

• Document involvement with child 

welfare and probation in addition to 

referral source 

• SWITS collateral contacts on the 

profile page could be used to put the 

referring parties and the releases on 

file. There’s a box you can check on 

what contacts can be made. 

Family Reported to CPS and Referral in 

process 

FY&C is conducting ER and 

investigation 


• Use a standard tool or set of questions 

(e.g. UNCOPE) to screen for substance 

abuse for every child welfare referral 

• Ensure that substance abuse is part of 

the risk assessment (Note: CAT has one 

Response Determination question and 

two Referral Disposition questions) 

• Collect information on substance use 

issue, how recent was use and treatment 

history (type and number of episodes) 

• Ask parents about current involvement in 

treatment and probation 

• Use standardized agency Referral Form 

and Release of Confidential Information 

Form to refer clients for substance abuse 

assessments and treatment 

• Incorporate recommendation to obtain 

signed consents to release information to 

substance abuse treatment agencies into 

protective order recommendations made 

to courts at detention hearings 

• Develop internal guidelines for 

caseworkers to use in making decisions 

when substance abuse exists within the 

family, and share those guidelines with 

other agencies and systems 

• Document screening results using (a) the 

new feature of CWS/CMS to add if 

substances are identified in the referral 

process or (b) one of the three CAT 

questions related to substance abuse 

(Note: CAT data cannot be extracted for 

regular reporting without going through 

the vendor) 

• Determine where to document substance 

use and probation involvement in 

CWS/CMS (explore use of special 

project codes) 

5

Child welfare needs to 

know 

• If either parent is 

involved in criminal 

justice 

• Conditions or special 

requirements for 

parents 

• Screen for offense that 

would impact children 

(e.g. sex offense) 

• Conditions of residency 

for parent and juvenile 

• Drug testing 

requirements and 

results 

Treatment needs to 

know 

• Did probation make 

referral to treatment 

because there was a 

significant AOD issue 

indicated by the crime 

• Dates for court 

appearances 



results 

Child welfare needs 

to know 

• If youth is dual 

case or mandated 

report (Note: 241.1 

provides process 

to collaborate) 

• Who is 

representing the 

child (Public 

Defender or child’s 

attorney) 



results 

Treatment needs to 

know 

• Did probation 

make referral to 

treatment because 

there was a 

significant AOD 

issue indicated by 

the crime 


appearances 



results 

INFORMATION SHARING 

Child welfare needs to know 

• Did parent attend the AOD case 

management, assessment and 

intake appointments (or if the parent 

did not show within 48 hrs) 

• Results of AOD assessment 

• Mental health diagnosis 

• Recommended level of treatment 

• Demographic and family composition 

• Impact of substance use on 

parenting 

o If the children are in the parent’s 

care 

o Where will the child be living 

o What the parent says about their 

child 

o How the parent interacts with child 

o What does the parent expect to do 

with their child while they are in 

treatment 

• Mandated report or collateral contact 

on suspected child abuse or neglect 

o Is the treatment court ordered 

(Note: can AOD release this 

information?) 

Adult/Juvenile Probation need to 

know 

• Did the parent/youth attend the case 

management, assessment and 

intake appointments (or if the 

parent/youth did not show within 48 

hours) 

• Results of AOD assessment 

• Is there is safety issue either to the 

community, youth or family 


• Is there a risk to any other family 

member 

• How probation can support treatment 

engagement 

• AOD history of use, treatment history 

and recommendation to refer to 

treatment court 

Treatment needs to know 

• Substance use issue, how recent was 

use and treatment history (type and 

number of episodes) 

• Reason for referral (e.g. DAAC revised 

their referral form to include a space for 

social workers to provide this 

information) 

• Number of children and their ages 

• History of CPS involvement and if AOD 

was involved 

• Custody and placement of children 

• Criminal history (Note: FY&C has access 

to this through IJS but it is not always 

reviewed) 

• Initial case planning expectations for 

both parents 

• Child abuse or neglect allegation 

• Drug testing requirements and results 

Juvenile Probation needs to know 

• Legal status of youth 

• Youth’s history of AOD use 

• Location and involvement of parents 

• Location of extended family members 

• Initial case planning expectations 



• Note: Juvenile Probation will have 

access to CWS/CMS (6-10 supervisors) 

and increased access to investigations in 

read only format. 

Adult Probation needs to know 


• If treatment is being recommended for 

parents 

• CPS involvement with parents 

• Criminal history in family to assess if 

substance use is part of a criminal 

lifestyle or a onetime event 

• Drug testing requirements 

6

In-depth Assessment: Determining Nature and Extent 

• What are the nature and extent of the substance use, probation, or child abuse and neglect issue? 

• What is the response to the substance use, probation, or child abuse and neglect issue? 

Parent referred to Probation Juvenile referred to Probation Parent or Juvenile referred to 

Treatment 

Parent has Sentencing Order 

and case planning initiated 


• If parent is assigned to formal 

supervision, PO confirms 

whether parent is currently 

involved with child welfare or 

treatment and ensures social 

worker and/or treatment 

provider have PO’s contact 

info 

• Coordinate congruent service 

planning between agencies. 

In Adult Probation, a parent 

may be in dependency court 

and 1210 court and there’s a 

need for communication to 

avoid duplication of efforts. 

PO can bring together the 

treatment plan and goal of the 

case to then coordinate the 

case. 

• Develop a mechanism with 

treatment and child welfare 

agencies for case 

consultation 

• Use a team approach with 

treatment and social workers 

for changes in situation, 

screening and assessment 

results, and what happens 

when parent doesn’t access 

Tx. 

• POs receive written 

guidelines specifying a list of 

factors that must be included 

in treatment assessments, 

and ask specific questions of 

substance abuse counselors 

when making referrals for 

assessments. 

• POs share copies of the case 

plan with the social workers 

and substance abuse 

treatment counselors 

assigned to treat parents, 

allowing adequate time for the 

social worker or counselor to 

offer comments or ask 

questions 

• Incorporate information and 

case plans received from 

counselors and child welfare 

workers into Probation case 

plans 

• Identify where referral to 

treatment services is 

documented 

Juvenile has Court Ordered 

Conditions of Probation and 

case planning initiated 


• Ensure social worker and/or 

treatment provider have PO’s 

contact info 

• Coordinate congruent service 

planning between agencies. 

Juvenile Probation may bring 

cases to CMC early because 

we’re the only ones who 

know that a client is involved 

with multiple agencies. In 

CMC the social worker and 

probation officer can bring 

together the treatment plan 

and goal of the case to then 

coordinate the case. 


treatment and child welfare 

agencies for case 

consultation 

• POs use a team approach 

with treatment and social 

workers for changes in 

situation, for initial screening 

and assessment results, and 

for what happens when a 

juvenile doesn’t access 

treatment. 

• POs receive written 

guidelines specifying a list of 

factors that must be included 

in treatment assessments, 

and ask specific questions of 


when making referrals for 

assessments. 

• POs share copies of the 

Services Plans with the 

social workers and substance 

abuse treatment counselors 

assigned to treat parents, 

allowing adequate time for 

the social worker or 

counselor to offer comments 

or ask questions 

• POs incorporate information 

and case plans received from 


and child welfare workers 

into Probation case plans 

Treatment intake and planning 



DATA CHANGES 

• Identify where referral to 

treatment services is 

documented 

• Screen children for 

developmental needs (e.g. 

DAAC does ASQ with 

children) 

• Placement and custody status 

of each child should be clearly 

documented in case file, as 

well as developmental 

information and results of 

developmental screen used, 

date of screen and name of 

screener. If referred for 

assessment and services, 

results of assessment and 

current status of services 

should also be documented. 

• Signed consents to release 

information should be on file 

for client’s caseworker, 

caseworker supervisor and PO 

• Share copies of the substance 

abuse treatment plans and 

updates with child welfare 

workers and POs so that the 

workers and POs understand 

the treatment goals and 

progress toward those goals. 

• Allowing adequate time for the 

social worker or POs to offer 

comments or ask questions 

about treatment plan 


case plans received from POs 

and social workers into 

treatment plans 

• Develop mechanism allowing 

treatment counselors to 

access child welfare and 

probation for consultation on 

cases 

• Direct contact and outreach to 

maintain engagement and 

retention (with client and 

referring system) 

Family with substantiated 

abuse or neglect with open 

CPS case 

Child Welfare case planning 

initiated 


• Use standardized agency 

Referral Form and Release of 

Confidential Information Form 

to refer clients for substance 

abuse assessments and 

treatment 

• Incorporate recommendation 

to obtain signed consents to 

release information to 

substance abuse treatment 

agencies into protective order 

recommendations made to 

courts at detention hearings 

• Staff receive written guidelines 

specifying a list of factors that 

must be included in treatment 

assessments, and ask specific 

questions of substance abuse 

counselors when making 

referrals for assessments. 


substance abuse treatment 

agencies for case consultation 

• Develop internal guidelines for 

caseworkers to use in making 

decisions when substance 

abuse exists within the family, 

and share those guidelines 

with other agencies and 

systems 

• Share copies of the case plan 

with the PO and treatment 

counselors assigned to 

parents, allowing adequate 

time for the POs and 

substance abuse counselor to 

offer comments or ask 

questions 


case plans received from 


and POs into child welfare 

case plans 


coordinated case planning 

when there is more than one 

case plan and social worker 

involved with a family. 

• Document referral to treatment 

using AOD-related CWS/CMS 

case plan service objective 

and planned service or using 

special project codes 

7


• Results of STRONG 

screening and assessment 

• If either parent is involved in 

criminal justice 

• Conditions or special 

requirements for parents 

• Screen for offense that would 

impact children (e.g. sex 

offense) 

• Conditions of residency for 

parent and juvenile 


and results 

• Probation case plan and 

sentencing orders 

• Dates for court appearances 

• Contact information for 

Probation Officer (or other 

officer of the court) that 

parent reports to 

• How to address when court 

order parent in one county 

and children are placed in 

another county 


• Result of STRONG screening 

and assessment 

• Did probation make referral to 

treatment because there was 

a significant AOD issue 

indicated by the STRONG 

• Probation case plan and 

sentencing orders 



and results 




Parent reports to 


• Determine if youth is dual 

case or mandated report 

(Note: 241.1 provides 

process to collaborate) 

• Results of PACT screening 

and assessment, including 

MH and AOD diagnosis 

• Court orders 

• Probation case plan 


and results 





juvenile reports to 

• Who is representing the child 

(Public Defender or child’s 

attorney) 

• What is the plan for the 

youth? 

• Are there parents to help 

after delinquency release? 


• Results of PACT screening 

and assessment 

• Did probation make referral 

to treatment because there 

was a significant AOD issue 

indicated by the PACT 




and results 








• Did parent enter a treatment 

program 

• Treatment plan 



treatment agency and 

counselor 

• Demographics and family 

composition 

• Current family/social support 

network 

• Developmental screening 

results for child 

Adult and Juvenile Probation 

needs to know 

• Did parent or youth enter a 

treatment program 




treatment agency and 

counselor 

• Family strengths and 

weaknesses 


• Substance use issue 

• How recent was use 

• Treatment history (type and 

number of episodes) 

• Number of children and their 

ages 

• History of CPS involvement 

and if AOD was involved 

• Custody and placement of 

children 

• Criminal history (Note: FY&C 

has access to this through IJS 

but it is not always reviewed) 

• Case plan initial planning 

expectations for both parents 

• Child abuse or neglect 

allegation 

• Drug testing requirements and 

results 

• Case plan and expectations 

for both parents 

• Visitation schedule and needs 


• Contact information for social 

worker 

Adult and Juvenile Probation 

needs to know 



• Contact information for social 

worker 

• Family strengths and 

weaknesses 

8

Ongoing Services: Case Plan and Monitoring 


• Are there demonstrable changes? 

Adult in Probation Juvenile in Probation Adult or Juvenile in Treatment Family in CPS 

Probation case plan 

monitoring 

Timeframe (in months): 


PO transitions. There 

should be a warm handoff, 

introductions, and 

clarification on changing 

roles and 

responsibilities. 

• Give parents clear 


access their PO, and 

what do to if they 

cannot reach their PO in 

a timely manner. 

• Review how parents are 

updated on progress 

toward probation case 

plan completion, how 

changes are identified 

and implemented, and 

how changes are 

communicated to 

parents. 



planning, and child 

safety planning into the 


if parent relapses. 

Probation case plan 

monitoring 


• Support parents 

through PO transitions. 

There should be a 

warm hand-off, 

introductions, and 

clarification on changing 

roles and 


• Give youth clear 


access their PO, and 

what do to if they 

cannot reach their PO 

in a timely manner. 

• Review how parents 

and youth are updated 

on progress toward 

probation case plan 

completion, how 

changes are identified 

and implemented, and 

how changes are 

communicated to youth. 



planning, and child 

safety planning into the 


if parent relapses. 

Treatment plan monitoring 



• Case notes should contain 

documentation of every court 

hearing, whether as court minute 

order strip or summary documented 

through phone call with caseworker 

or attorney to include current court 

protective orders, visitation orders, 

custody orders and treatment 

orders, as well as date of next 

hearing and nature of next hearing. 

• Substance abuse treatment 

providers should attend and 

participate in staffing 

• Involve social worker and/or 

probation officer, relapse prevention 

planning, and child safety planning 

into the discussion of what to do if 

parent relapses. 

• Offer clients the opportunity to 

practice life skills in the context of 

their treatment program as part of 


• TBD • TBD 

DATA CHANGES 

• TBD 


• TBD 

Child welfare and 

Treatment need to know 

• New arrests or 

violations 

• Any changes to 

probation case plan, 

including: 

o Court orders 

o Conditions of 

residency 

o Conditions or special 


parents 

o Drug testing 

requirements 

• Drug test results 


appearances 

• Updated contact 

information if there is a 

change of Probation 

Officer (or other officer 

of the court) that parent 

reports to 

Child welfare and 

Treatment need to know 

• New arrests or 

violations 

• Any changes to 

probation case plan, 

including: 


o Conditions of 

residency 

o Conditions or special 


parents 

o Drug testing 

requirements 



appearances 

• Updated contact 

information if there is a 

change of Probation 

Officer (or other officer 

of the court) that 


Child welfare and Adult/Juvenile 

Probation need to know 

• Changes to Tx plan or transition to 

new provider 

• Updated contact information if there 

is a change in treatment agency or 

counselor 

• Changes to drug testing 

requirements 

• Drug testing results 

• Mandated report or collateral 

contact on suspected child abuse or 

neglect 

• Feedback on attendance and 

progress in treatment 

• Summary of progress 

• How to enhance motivation to 

change and see change over time 

• Written reports for court 

• Parent/child involvement in family 

treatment services (e.g. can 

mandate juvenile to treatment, but 

can’t mandate parent) 

Child Welfare case plan monitoring 


• Invite and encourage treatment 

counselors and POs to attend and 

participate in case staffing 

discussions 

• Accept updated information 

regarding a client’s treatment plan 

provided by the substance abuse 

counselor, and include information 

on progress in treatment and goal 

attainment in reports to the court 

• Support parents through social 

worker transitions. There should be 

a warm hand-off, introductions, and 

clarification on changing roles and 


• Give parents and youth clear 

information on how to access their 

social worker, and what do to if they 

cannot reach their social worker in a 

timely manner. 

• Review how parents and youth are 

updated on progress made toward 

child welfare case plan completion, 

how changes are identified and 

implemented, and how changes are 

communicated to parents and youth. 

• Involve treatment staff, relapse 

prevention planning, and child 

safety planning into the discussion 

of what to do if parent relapses. 

Treatment and Adult/Juvenile 

Probation need to know 

• Changes to case plan and 

expectations for both parents 

• Changes in custody and placement 

of children 

• Changes to visitation schedule and 

needs 

• New child abuse or neglect 

allegations 

• Changes to drug testing 

requirements 


• Updated contact information if there 

is a change of social worker 

9

Case Closure and Outcomes 

• Is the family ready for transition, and what happens after discharge? 

• Did the interventions work? 

Adult in Probation Juvenile in Probation Adult or Juvenile in Treatment Family in CPS 

Probation case closure Probation case closure Treatment discharge planning Child Welfare case closure 

Timeframe (in months): Timeframe (in months): Timeframe (in months): 



• Discharge planning should 

include documentation that 

plans have been made to 

assure child safety in case of 

relapse 

• Connect parents and youth to 

available resources in their 

local community as part of 


• Provide aftercare and other 

opportunities to stay 

connected to treatment staff 

and clients. 

DATA CHANGES 

• TBD • TBD • TBD 


• TBD 

Child welfare needs to know Child welfare needs to know Child welfare and 

Treatment and Adult/Juvenile 

• 

• What is the plan for the Adult/Juvenile Probation need Probation need to know 

youth? 

to know 

• Child’s and/or Juvenile’s 

• Are there parents to help • Family and support network at permanent placement 

after delinquency release? discharge 

(reunification, adoption, 

• Discharge status 

guardianship or long term 

• Aftercare plan 

placement) 

• Safety plan for child in case of 

parent relapse 

• Community support services 

10


Screen 

PACT pre-screen and identify 




PACT Moderate/High and High 

Risk 

Assessment 


High Risk 



High Risk 

Disposition - Case Plan 

and Services 

JRS PACT case plan 

entry/updates 



JRS and PACT case plan 

entry and updates (aftercare) 


JRS and PACT – aftercare 

and proceedings terminated 

Family Recovery Project SAFERR Protocol Flow Chart 


Case Referral 

Early Case Resolution 

(SOR or Out of Custody) 

and granted formal 

probation – have 

sentencing order but no 

investigations 

Assessment 


Case Plan and 

Services 





case plan entries and 

updates 


PACM�� and STRONG 

Assmt AOD info, 

Tx Terms and 

Conditions and 

PO contact info 

Tx provider and 

counselor contact 

info, type of Tx 

and requirements 

Probation 

requirements 

Tx progress (i.e. 

attendance, drug 

test results) 

Changes in PO 

assigned and 

progress toward 

probation 

completion 


SWITS, ASAM and sign release forms 

Who: 


Where: 

When: 


Where: 

When: 

FY&C: 

Where: 

When: 

AODS 


SWITS Intake 


Assessment 






Tx Monitoring 








Child abuse/ 

neglect allegations, 

history of AOD 

involved cases 

and social worker 

contact info, plus 

tx payment 

authorization 

(residential or 

outpatient) 

Tx provider and 

counselor contact 

info, type of Tx 

and requirements 

Child welfare 

requirements 

Tx progress (i.e. 

attendance, drug 

test results) 

Changes in child 

placement and/or 

reunification 

Changes in social 

worker 

FY&C 


CAT Response 


Family Risk and Safety 

Assessments 




and Services 








Assessment 


CWS/CMS 

Detention Hearing 

Juris/Dispo 

Hearing

Sonoma Universal Referral Form (SURF) 

Evaluation Process and Findings 

November 1, 2010 









communication changes proposed in the SAFERR Protocol. 

The SURF process was originally conceived as a web-based module to be added as a 

component of the Sonoma Web Infrastructure for Treatment Services (SWITS). Before 

developing the programming required to implement the SURF as a web-based module, the pilot 

phase was intended to test the usability of a SURF. A SURF form was created as a word 

document for use by staff in FY&C, Probation, AODS and individual treatment providers. A 

SURF process was detailed and a flow chart created to demonstrate how parents would 

progress through the screening, assessment, referral and treatment entry process. See 

Appendix A for the SURF form and Appendix B for the referral flow chart. 

The SAFERR Daily Practice workgroup identified a prioritized group within Adult Probation and 

FY&C for AODS screening during this pilot phase. This prioritized group involved parents who 

were in high risk groups within Probation and FY&C, thus requiring immediate connection to 

treatment. The prioritization of high risk groups also ensured the number of referrals would 

remain within a manageable scope for AODS within the pilot timeframe. The overall SURF 

process and findings are described below. 

Determine Need for Referral 

A client is determined, by an Adult Probation Officer (PO) or Court Services (CS) Intake Worker, 

to require an “in depth” AODS ASAM screening. 

• Probation Criteria: Adult is noted as high risk to reoffend on the Static Risk Assessment 

and, during the Offender Needs Guide administration, adult reports (a) a drug or alcohol 

problem in the community in the last 6 months; and (b) he/she was living with his/her 

minor child at the time of the offence 

• FY&C Criteria: AOD issues are involved in the petition for removal, either as indicated by 

UNCOPE score or other AOD-related collateral information 

Make Referral and Schedule AODS ASAM Screening 

PO or CS Intake Worker uses SURF to refer a parent to the AODS Screener at the Orenda 

Center for an AODS ASAM Screening. 

• Appointment timeframes: Mondays from 1pm to 7pm, Tuesdays from 12pm to 4pm, 

Wednesdays from 9am to 1pm and Thursdays from 9am-3pm 

• PO or CS Intake Worker schedules appointment for client using Outlook Calendar 

1

• PO or CS Intake worker completes the Client Information section of the SURF form, 

emails it to the AODS Screener and provides parent with and Appointment Card and a 

map to the Orenda Center 

Confirm ASAM Screening Appointment 

AODS Screener is informed, via SURF and Outlook appointment, that a parent has been 

referred for an ASAM Screening. AODS Screener reviews the SURF referral and confirms the 

screening interview. 

Conduct ASAM Screening 

AODS Screener meets with the parent and performs an in-depth AODS ASAM screening to 

determine whether or not the client is appropriate for AODS services and, if applicable, the 

appropriate modality of treatment/services. If the parent is deemed “not appropriate” for AODS 

services then it is indicated in the SURF referral and the parent is sent back to the PO or CS 

Intake Worker who made the AODS screening referral. 

Refer to Treatment as Indicated 

If the parent is deemed “appropriate” for treatment then it is indicated in the SURF and the 

SURF is used to refer the client to treatment. The AODS Screener: 

• Calls the appropriate Treatment Provider to schedule an Intake Appointment at the end 

of the ASAM interview and gives the parent and appointment card 

• Completes the AODS Screening Facility section of the SURF and emails it to the 

Treatment Provider and the designated Probation or FY&C contact person 

Treatment Provider Intake 

Parent arrives at treatment and is admitted into treatment. This information is indicated on the 

SURF. If the parent does not “show” to treatment this is indicated, by the treatment provider, on 

the SURF. 

• The Treatment Provider is responsible for outreach and contact with the parent to 

ensure the parent attends the Intake Appointment 

• Following the Intake Appointment or within 14 days of a “no show”, the Treatment 

Provider completes the Treatment Facility section of the SURF PDF form and emails to 

the AODS Screener and the designated Probation or FY&C contact. 

Probation or FY&C Follow-up 

Upon receipt of the completed SURF from a Treatment Provider, the designated Probation or 

FY&C contact person will email the Treatment Provider with the name, phone number and email 

address of the assigned PO or Social Worker. 

Findings 

Between September 7 and October 15 there were a total of 14 SURF referrals. Nine parents 

(64%) were referred by FY&C, and 5 parents (36%) were referred by Adult Probation. While 

three parents (21%) reported being involved with both FY&C and Probation, the majority of 

parents (11; 79%) reported involvement with only one system. Of the 14 parents referred, 8 

(57%) were male and 6 (43%) were female. Six parents signed a consent form from their 

2

eferring agency (43%), while 8 parents (57%) did not sign a consent form. At the time of the 

AODS Screening, 10 parents (71%) signed the consent form while 4 parents (29%) did not. 

As part of the SURF process, FY&C CS Intake Workers were to indicate the reason for referral, 

noting any details of parental substance use. This detail could be reported as the results of an 

UNCOPE screen or based on other AOD-related collateral information. None of the 9 FY&C 

parents referred received and UNCOPE screening. While the clients were not administered the 

UNCOPE, the CS Intake Worker provided the following qualitative information regarding 

substance use: 

• 6 parents (67%) were reported as “[tested] positive for drugs,” while 2 parents were 

reported as having either other AOD-related history, while 1 parent had no specific 

referral notes related to substance abuse. 

• Notes indicated that there were strong indications of substance abuse in cases where 

the UNCOPE was not administered, such as “strong smell of alcohol” on the client, “selfreports 

of prescription drug abuse,” and “excessive marijuana user” 

As part of the SURF process, Adult POs were to indicate the Offender Needs Guide responses 

recorded for alcohol or drug use in parents referred and whether they were living with their 

minor child at the time of the offense. Of the 5 Probation referrals, all 5 parents (100%) were 

living with their child at the time of the offense, 1 parent (20%) reported an alcohol problem in 

the community in the last 6 months, and 3 parents (60%) reported a drug problem in the 

community in the last 6 months. 

Parents who met criteria for the SURF were scheduled for an AODS ASAM Screening 

appointment by the PO or CS Intake Worker during the initial referral. Of the 14 SURF referrals, 

100% were scheduled an AODS ASAM screening appointment. The average number of days 

between the initial referral date and the AODS ASAM Screening appointment date was an 

average of 3 days. Of the 14 referrals, 10 parents (71%) attended the AODS screening while 4 

parents (29%) did not attend the AODS screening. The average number of days between the 

initial referral date and the actual attended AODS appointment date was an average of 4 days. 

Of the 10 parents who attended the AODS ASAM Screening, two parents (20%) attended at a 

later date than originally scheduled. Of the 4 parents who did not attend the Screening, one 

parent (25%) was referred directly to the Dependency Drug Court, one parent (25%) declined to 

attend, and 2 parents (50%) had no indications regarding why they did not attend. 

Of the 10 parents that attended their AODS screening, all of the parents (100%) were referred 

to treatment (71% of all 14 parents initially referred). Of the 10 parents referred to treatment, 9 

parents scheduled a treatment intake appointment (90% of referred parents, 64% of total 

parents). Six parents were referred to CHDC for treatment, 3 parents were referred to DAAC, 

and 1 parent was referred to WRS. Of the 10 parents who were referred to treatment, 8 parents 

attended the intake appointment (80% of parents referred for treatment, 57% of total parents). 

The time between the AODS Screening and the time the treatment intake appointment was 

attended was an average of 10 days (range of 0 to 44 days). However, six parents only waited 

an average of 3 days (range of 0 to 6 days). Two parents did not attend the original intake 

appointment date, but attended at a much later date (2-4 weeks later). 

Six parents were accepted into treatment as an outcome of referral (60% of parents referred to 

treatment). Six parents (60%) were noted as currently on a treatment waitlist, where 4 were 

accepted into a treatment program while on a waitlist for the appropriate level of care. Two 

parents entered treatment through the Dependency Drug Court program. The average number 

of calls made to client was approximately 3 calls. Only two SURFs included information about a 

parent’s MediCal eligibility: 1 parent was eligible for Medical, while 1 parent was not eligible. 

3

As of October 27, the results of all 14 referrals to AODS are: 

• 8 parents (57%) were referred to treatment and were subsequently accepted into 

treatment 

o Among the 8 accepted into treatment, 1 was not placed on a wait list, while 5 

were placed on a wait list. 

o One parent completed detox but upon discharge turned himself into jail. 

o Two parents entered treatment through the DDC program. One parent did not 

attend the AODS ASAM Screening while the other parent did attend. 

o Regardless of whether parents were placed on a wait list or were admitted to 

treatment through the DDC program, parents waited an average of 17 days 

between their intake appointments and admission into treatment (range of 7 to 44 

days). Parents admitted to treatment through DDC waited an average of 14 days 

between intake and admission (range of 8 to 19 days). 

• 1 parent was referred to treatment but “other” was noted on the referral outcome. The 

parent may serve jail time, in which case the PO will recommend referral through TASC. 

• 2 parents (14%) were referred to treatment but did not attend the intake appointment 

• 3 parents did not attend the AODS ASAM Screening appointment and were being 

contacted by the AODS Screener to attempt to engage them. 

Successes, Lessons and Challenges 

During the six week pilot phase, the overall number of referrals remained lower than expected. 

Initial calculations, based on estimates from available data, indicated that the pilot phase should 

have expected approximately 20 FY&C referrals and 20 Probation referrals. These estimates 

were based on: 

• FY&C files 175-200 petitions each year. Assuming 80% of petitions (140-160) involve 

parental substance abuse, it was anticipated that FY&C would make 12-14 referrals 

each month. 

• Adult Probation data indicated an annual estimate of 300 adults living with their minor 

child at the time of the offence. Assuming 80% of these adults (240) also reported 

having a drug or alcohol problem in the community in the last 6 months, it was 

anticipated that Adult Probation were make 20 referrals each month. 

FY&C filed 18 petitions in the Juvenile Court between September 7 and October 15. Based on 

an annual estimate of 175-200 petitions each year, it was anticipated that FY&C would have 

filed 22-25 petitions in a six week timeframe. Of the 18 petitions filed, FY&C completed 9 

SURFs (50%). Of the 9 FY&C parents who did not receive a SURF, one parent was a Voluntary 

Family Maintenance case where the parent was already receiving treatment services. Based on 

this six-week pilot phase, of the 18 total petitions files, 56% involve parental substance use (10 

petitions), 50% received a SURF (9 petitions), and 11% were referred to or involved in other 

treatment services (2 petitions). 

Adult Probation completed 5 SURFs during the pilot phase. It is difficult to estimate the overall 

number of adults that might have been appropriate for the SURF process. Based on qualitative 

information from POs and SURF contacts, the limited number of referrals from Probation may 

have been the result of: 

4

• If an adult is currently serving jail time, is currently in custody, or may be remanded into 

custody to serve jail time, the PO will not make a referral to treatment until there is some 

certainty in a date for when the adult will be released and available to participate in 

treatment services. 

• Adults who have been in jail for 4-5 months and are nearing their release date are likely 

to have already established a connection to treatment through TASC or they do not have 

any children 

• Some adults may have already been referred to CHDC or DAAC by the PO 

• The PO may not have been clear about the SURF criteria. 

During the pilot phase, there were a total of 14 SURF referrals. The SURF pilot phase 

experienced a relatively higher number of referrals for fathers than for mothers: 8 fathers (57%) 

compared to 6 mothers (43%). All of the 5 referrals from Adult Probation were fathers. One 

father reported he heard by word of mouth that SURF was a good “program” for fathers to get 

treatment services. However, in the identification and provision of treatment services, there is a 

lack of father-friendly sober living environments. 

Qualitative feedback on the pilot phase indicated that the SURF process enhanced upfront 

communication. The AODS Screener in particular served a critical and effective role in providing 

a liaison between FY&C, Probation, and treatment providers. In this liaison role, the AODS 

Screener served as a central point of contact for staff, conducted outreach to parents, engaged 

parents in the screening and referral process, and provided feedback to staff on screening 

results and treatment recommendations. The AODS Screener also served as a primary contact 

for parents that provided an important relationship on a clinical level. The AODS Screener’s 

ability to motivate and engage parents proved to be helpful to parents during this moment of 

crisis. 

In terms of enhancing timely access to available treatment services, the SURF process provided 

access to screening and assessment services early on in the FY&C and Probation cases. 

Screening was provided within 3 days of either the Detention Hearing for FY&C referrals or the 

initial meeting with the PO for Probation referrals. The time between the AODS Screening and 

the time the treatment intake appointment was attended was an average of 10 days (range of 0 

to 44 days). While, six parents only waited an average of 3 days (range of 0 to 6 days), two 

parents did not attend the original intake appointment date, but attended at a much later date (2- 

4 weeks later). 

The AODS Screener not only provided a key linkage to getting parents to their screening and 

treatment intake appointments, but also identified strategies to expedite the process by 

negotiating directly with the treatment provider. For example, in making referrals to CHDC the 

AODS Screener negotiated that SURF referrals could skip the “sign up” process and schedule 

assessment for clients directly. CHDC typically requires individuals to come to the treatment 

facility for approximately 15 minutes to “sign up” for an assessment appointment. Then the 

individual would return to CHDC at a later date to receive the assessment. For SURF referrals, 

the AODS Screener could contact CHDC personally to schedule the assessment appointment 

directly at the end of the screening while the parent was still present. 

There were several communication challenges that emerged during the course of the pilot 

phase. Implementation of the pilot was delayed by two weeks as technology issues with Outlook 

calendars and scheduling difficulties were resolved. While the communication upfront with the 

AODS Screener was noted as a success, there was difficulty in getting reports from the 

treatment providers to FY&C and Probation. Treatment providers may not have been fully aware 

of their expected roles and responsibilities during this pilot phase, and the additional form may 

5

have complicated the communication process. If the SURF is to be developed as a web-based 

module, treatment providers would enter information into SWITS, which may resolve this issue. 

There were some concerns expressed about the AODS Screener managing phone calls from 

POs and other staff rather than staff connecting with the treatment providers directly. However, 

to the degree that the AODS Screener was able to manage the communication during this pilot 

phase again became a critical role. For example, the AODS Screener communicated directly 

with Probation staff who were not familiar with the SURF process, and was able to ensure that a 

parent could remain in detox and support the parent through detox completion and a return to 

jail. The direct communication the AODS Screener had with parents was particularly important. 

Toward the end of the pilot phase, it was also noted that the parent’s social worker and attorney 

should be included in the communication and feedback. 

Throughout the pilot phase, the SURF implementers gathered on a weekly basis for a 30 minute 

conference call. The SURF implementers were a multi-disciplinary team composed of 

representatives and the main SURF contacts within FY&C, Adult Probation and AODS as well 

as a treatment provider. This time was used to discuss the number and nature of referrals, 

whether parents attended screening and intake appointments, and any progress notes, 

including challenges in implementing SURF. 

6

Appendix A 

Sonoma Universal Referral Form (SURF) 

Client Information: Completed by FY&C CS Intake Worker or Probation Officer. Upon completion send to Kerry 

Sheehan at surf@sonoma-county.org 

1. Has Consent Been Signed? _____ No _____ Yes _____ Not Applicable 

2. Client Name: ______________________________________________________________________ 

a. Client ID (used by FY&C or Probation): __________________________________________ 

b. Phone Number: ______________________________________________________________ 

c. Additional Contact Number: ___________________________________________________ 

d. Client Involved with Both Probation and FY&C (self report): _____ No _____ Yes 

3. Agency Referring Client: _____ FY&C _____ Probation 

a. Contact Person: ______________________________________________________________ 

b. Phone: ______________________ 

c. Email: ________________________________ 

4. Reason for Referral 

a. UNCOPE: _____ out of 6 positive responses _____ Not administered 

b. STRONG criteria: _____ Positive Alcohol _____ Positive Drugs _____ Living with child 

Notes (e.g. STRONG/UNCOPE details, allegations, sentencing orders, client self-reports, or other AOD-related 

collateral information. Please note source of information for each detailed item.): 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. Facility Referring To: AODS, Orenda Center for AOD screening and need for treatment 

6. Date of Referral: ______________________________ 

7. AODS ASAM Screening Appointment Date/Time: _________________________________ 

AODS Screening Facility: 

Completed by Kerry Sheehan. Upon completion send to Shari Hawkins at hawkis@schsd.org (if FY&C referred) 

OR to Cheryl DeBenedetti at cdebened@sonoma-county.org (if Probation referred) 

1. Has Consent Been Signed? _____ No _____ Yes 

Note: If client does not sign consent no SURF completed. 

2. Screening/Assessment Performed By: Kerry Sheehan -- 707-565-7478 -- surf@sonoma-county.org 

3. Did Client Attend ASAM Screening? _____ No _____ Yes, date : _________________________ 

4. Outcome of ASAM Screening: 

_____ Referred to Treatment _____ No Treatment Needed at this Time 

_____ Not Appropriate for Treatment Services _____ Referred to Other Community Services 

_____ Unable to perform screening – rescheduled for date/time: ______________________________ 

7

Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

5. Agency Referred To: ________________________________________________________________ 

6. Facility Referred To: ________________________________________________________________ 

7. Was Intake Appointment Made? ______ No ______ Yes 

a. If Yes, Appointment Date/Time: ________________________________________________ 

b. If No, please explain: _________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

Treatment Facility: 

Completed by Treatment Provider. Upon completion send to Kerry Sheehan at surf@sonoma-county.org, and to 

EITHER Shari Hawkins at hawkis@schsd.org (if FY&C referred) OR to Cheryl DeBenedetti at cdebened@sonomacounty.org 

(if Probation referred) 

1. Did Client Attend Treatment Intake? ______ No ______ Yes, date: ________________________ 

2. Outcome of Referral: _____ Place/Accepted _____ Refused Treatment _____ Rejected by Program 

_____ Referred to Different Program _____ Other: _____________________ 

Notes: ________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

3. Client Accepted Into Program? _____ No _____ Yes 

a. Case Manager Name: ___________________________________________________ 

b. Case Manager Phone and Email: __________________________________________ 

4. Client Placed on a Wait List? _____ No _____ Yes 

5. Client has Current Medical? _____ No _____ Yes _____ Unknown 

Notes (e.g. initial treatment plan, wait list details): 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Any information that has been disclosed to you from patient records is protected by Federal confidentiality rules (42 

CFR, Part 2). Federal confidentiality rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of this information 

unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the person to whom it pertains to as 

otherwise permitted by 42 CFR, Part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is 

NOT sufficient for this purpose. Federal confidentiality rules restrict any use of the information to criminally 

investigate or prosecute any alcohol or drug abuse patient. 

8

FY&C 

AODS 


Referral 

received by CPS 

[2,500 annual] 

Appendix B – Family Recovery Project – SURF Pilot Phase (September 7 to October 15) 

ER/Investigation 

Worker investigates 

referral 

[standard process] 

ER Field or Law Enfor 

determine need for 

removal. ER Field does 

UNCOPE 

If AOD involved in the petition for removal, Court Services Investigation Worker 

(a) completes SURF, (b) refers to AODS for assessment, and (c) schedules an 

appointment for the parent with the AODS Assessment Worker. The parent is 

notified of the assmnt appt at the Detention Hearing with an appt card. 5 

[140 AOD cases/kids involved per year = 12-20 parents per month] 

AODS Assessment 

Worker receives 

and reviews SURF 

Timeframe:_____ 

Location: _______ 

Offender Sentenced 

and granted formal 

probation 

Assmt Worker confirms 

assmt interview appt 

Timeframe:__________ 

Location: ___________ 

STR completed based 

on prior record 

[3,400 annual] 

ER/I Worker 

documents 

AOD issues 1 

Assessment worker meets with the 

client and performs an in depth 

AODS screening to determine 

whether or not the client is 

appropriate for AODS services and, 

if applicable, what the appropriate 

modality of treatment/services is. 


Location: Orenda 

If the criteria are met, while the parent is still in the PO’s office, the PO (a) completes SURF, 

(b) refers to AODS for assessment, and (c) calls the AODS Assessment Worker to schedule an 

assessment appointment with the parent. 7 

[296 parents living with child per year = estimate 20-25 parents with AOD issues per month] 

Probation 

Officer assigned 

If STR High Risk to Reoffend, 

Adult reports to Probation 

Dept to receive ONG 6 

[900 annual] 

CS Intake Worker 

prepares and files 

petition, noting AOD 2,3 

Judge hears 

petition in 

a.m. court 

If the client is deemed “not 

appropriate” for Tx services then 

it is indicated in the SURF 

referral and the client is sent 

back to the referring entity 

(Probation or FY&C). If the client 

is deemed “appropriate” for 

treatment then it is indicated in 

the SURF and the SURF is used to 

refer the client to treatment. 

Client is sent to treatment. 

Court Services 

Investigation 

Worker assigned 4 

PO confirms criteria is met: 

• A drug or alcohol problem in the community in 

the last 6 months [342 and 231 annual], and 

• Adult was living with his/her minor child at the 

time of the offence [296 annual] 

Client arrives at treatment and is 

admitted into treatment. This 

information is indicated on the 

SURF. If the client does not 

“show” to treatment this is 

indicated, by the treatment 

provider, on the SURF. 


Location: Tx Provider 

9

Appendix B – Family Recovery Project – SURF Pilot Phase (September 7 to October 15) 

Note 1 

Note 2 

• If the pilot is successful, then the next phase will be to have ER/Investigation Workers 

begin using the UNCOPE 

• Referral to AODS will be done by the Court Services Intake Social Worker at the time 

that the petition is filed based on results of the UNCOPE and other AOD-related 

collateral information. 

• If child is removed by Law Enforcement, Court Services Intake Worker does UNCOPE. 

• Parent may need to sign confidentiality form for FY&C to make referral. 

• FY&C has 48 hours to file a petition and 72 hours for the Detention Hearing (72 hours 

total). 

Note 3 

Note 4 

Note 5 

Note 6 

Note 7 

• Important for the Parent’s Attorney to know that the referral to AODS was made. Referral 

to DDC happens later at the Disposition Hearing. 

• Court Services Investigation Worker is assigned within a day after the Detention 

Hearing, but it may be 1-2 weeks before the Court Services Investigation Worker sees 

the parent. If the pilot is successful, then the next phase will include Court Services 

Investigation Workers referring parents to AODS using the SURF (in the event that AOD 

issues are recognized later in the case). 

• Brad or Juana will scan the completed SURF form and email the PDF version to 

SURF@sonoma-county.org 

• Adults currently wait 2-3 weeks after Sentencing before a Probation Officer is assigned 

and they return for the ONG. Probation Department is currently working to reduce that 

delay. 

• The Probation Officer will scan the completed SURF form and email the PDF version to 

SURF@sonoma-county.org 

10


Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force 


Screening and Assessment for Family 

Engagement, Retention and Recovery 

(SAFERR) 

Protocol 

November 1, 2010


Background ............................................................................................................................... 3 

Sonoma County Family Recovery Project ................................................................................. 3 

Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention and Recovery (SAFERR) ....... 4 

Sonoma Universal Referral Form .............................................................................................. 5 

SAFERR Protocol .................................................................................................................... 10 

Adult Probation ................................................................................................................ 11 

Investigation and Initial Screening: Determining Presence of an Issue and Immediacy ...... 11 

In-depth Assessment: Determining Nature and Extent ...................................................... 12 

Ongoing Services: Case Plan and Monitoring ..................................................................... 13 

Case Closure and Outcomes .............................................................................................. 13 

Juvenile Probation ........................................................................................................... 14 

Investigation and Initial Screening: Determining Presence of an Issue and Immediacy ..... 14 




Alcohol and Other Drug Services .................................................................................... 18 





Family Youth and Children’s Services ............................................................................. 22 





Sonoma SAFERR Protocol 2

Background 

In 2006, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors requested that County staff develop a 

report on the impact of methamphetamine on the community and County service systems. A 

multidisciplinary workgroup was formed with representatives from: 

• The Sheriff 

• Public Defender 

• District Attorney 

• Probation 

• Human Services 

• Health Services 

In July 2006, the workgroup brought the Sonoma County Methamphetamine Profile to the 

Board. The report documented the impacts of methamphetamine addiction on crime and 

violence, child endangerment, environmental degradation, and negative health outcomes and 

highlighted the lack of sufficient treatment resources and the need for better information on 

local prevalence and impacts of methamphetamine use. 

At the Board’s direction, a countywide Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force was 

convened to develop a comprehensive prevention plan to reduce the impact of 

methamphetamine on County children, families and communities. In September 2008, at the 

end of a one year planning grant, the task force released their Methamphetamine Prevention 

Plan (available at http://www.sonoma-county.org/health/ph/data/pdf/methprevention2008.pdf). 

The plan emphasized that, in order to achieve service effectiveness, methamphetamine 

prevention efforts must be fully integrated within other County and community planning 

processes. The Board directed staff to acquire any additional funding possible to implement 

these recommendations. 

In March 2009, the Sonoma County Department of Health Services received funding from The 

California Endowment to support systems integration and alignment across child welfare, 

substance abuse treatment and probation in developing and financing comprehensive early 

intervention programs for families at risk of multigenerational methamphetamine use in 

Sonoma County. 


The Sonoma County Family Recovery Project, an initiative of the Methamphetamine 

Prevention Task Force, is a strategic planning process that will help Sonoma better serve 


strategic planning process involved the realignment of policies and practices across multiple 

systems: 

• the County of Sonoma Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

(AODS), 

• the Department of Human Services, Family Youth and Children’s Services (FY&C) and 

• the Probation Department. 

The Family Recovery Project created and implemented a collaborative process involving key 

stakeholders to establish joint outcomes, develop collaborative agreements, identify and 

prioritize cross-system strategies, and develop new policies and protocols that lay the 

groundwork for broad practice-level change. The goals of the project are: 


1. Improved coordination and systems integration among FY&C, AODS and Probation to 


2. Effective use of available resources and funding streams in developing prioritized 


3. Increased understanding of strategies to address systemic barriers to improve 


families. 

There are four areas identified as priorities for this project. Work groups were formed in each 

of these priority areas to achieve the goals of the Family Recovery Project. 

1. Daily practice in screening, assessment, service referral, client engagement and 

retention in services 

2. Data and information systems 

3. Cross-system training 

4. Funding, capacity and sustainability 

Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention and Recovery (SAFERR) 

The SAFERR Daily Practice workgroup defined the parameters for cross-system collaboration 

on behalf of families related to screening, assessment, engagement, communication, and 

information sharing, identifying opportunities for systems and daily practice changes to 

improve outcomes for children and families. Utilizing the SAFERR framework (Screening and 

Assessment for Family Engagement Retention and Recovery; available at 

http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/SAFERR.pdf), this workgroup reviewed and developed a 

summary of screening, assessment and client engagement practices across FY&C, Probation, 

and AODS, including current practices, services, and protocols related to information sharing, 

screening, assessment, case planning and service delivery. This workgroup also conducted a 

series of focus groups with parents and youth involved in Probation, AODS and FY&C 

services. 

The final product is a Sonoma County SAFERR Protocol to improve outcomes for child welfare 

and criminal justice involved families that are struggling with substance use disorders. Key 

practice changes identified for this protocol included: 

• Identifying clients involved in multiple systems 

• Identifying clients for referral to treatment or child welfare 

• Establishing AODS as a central point for conducting screening and referral to treatment 

for both Probation and FY&C 

• Defining the parameters for information sharing for release of confidential information 

forms, specifying what information needs to get communicated between systems 

• Creating ongoing communication mechanisms for joint case planning and coordination 


Sonoma Universal Referral Form 









communication changes proposed in the SAFERR Protocol. 

The SURF process was originally conceived as a web-based module to be added as a 

component of the Sonoma Web Infrastructure for Treatment Services (SWITS). Before 

developing the programming required to implement the SURF as a web-based module, the 

pilot phase was intended to test the usability of a SURF. A SURF form was created as a word 

document for use by staff in FY&C, Probation, AODS and individual treatment providers. A 

SURF process was detailed and a flow chart created to demonstrate how parents would 

progress through the screening, assessment, referral and treatment entry process. See 

Appendix A for the SURF form and Appendix B for the referral flow chart. 

The SAFERR Daily Practice workgroup identified a prioritized group within Adult Probation and 

FY&C for AODS screening during this pilot phase. This prioritized group involved parents who 

were in high risk groups within Probation and FY&C, thus requiring immediate connection to 

treatment. The prioritization of high risk groups also ensured the number of referrals would 

remain within a manageable scope for AODS within the pilot timeframe. The overall SURF 

process and findings are described below. 

Determine Need for Referral 

A client is determined, by an Adult Probation Officer (PO) or Court Services (CS) Intake 

Worker, to require an “in depth” AODS ASAM screening. 

• Probation Criteria: Adult is noted as high risk to reoffend on the Static Risk Assessment 

and, during the Offender Needs Guide administration, adult reports (a) a drug or alcohol 

problem in the community in the last 6 months; and (b) he/she was living with his/her 

minor child at the time of the offence 

• FY&C Criteria: AOD issues are involved in the petition for removal, either as indicated 

by UNCOPE score or other AOD-related collateral information 

Make Referral and Schedule AODS ASAM Screening 

PO or CS Intake Worker uses SURF to refer a parent to the AODS Screener at the Orenda 

Center for an AODS ASAM Screening. 

• Appointment timeframes: Mondays from 1pm to 7pm, Tuesdays from 12pm to 4pm, 

Wednesdays from 9am to 1pm and Thursdays from 9am-3pm 

• PO or CS Intake Worker schedules appointment for client using Outlook Calendar 


• PO or CS Intake worker completes the Client Information section of the SURF form, 

emails it to the AODS Screener and provides parent with and Appointment Card and a 

map to the Orenda Center 

Confirm ASAM Screening Appointment 

AODS Screener is informed, via SURF and Outlook appointment, that a parent has been 

referred for an ASAM Screening. AODS Screener reviews the SURF referral and confirms the 

screening interview. 

Conduct ASAM Screening 

AODS Screener meets with the parent and performs an in-depth AODS ASAM screening to 

determine whether or not the client is appropriate for AODS services and, if applicable, the 

appropriate modality of treatment/services. If the parent is deemed “not appropriate” for AODS 

services then it is indicated in the SURF referral and the parent is sent back to the PO or CS 

Intake Worker who made the AODS screening referral. 

Refer to Treatment as Indicated 

If the parent is deemed “appropriate” for treatment then it is indicated in the SURF and the 

SURF is used to refer the client to treatment. The AODS Screener: 

• Calls the appropriate Treatment Provider to schedule an Intake Appointment at the end 

of the ASAM interview and gives the parent and appointment card 

• Completes the AODS Screening Facility section of the SURF and emails it to the 

Treatment Provider and the designated Probation or FY&C contact person 

Treatment Provider Intake 

Parent arrives at treatment and is admitted into treatment. This information is indicated on the 

SURF. If the parent does not “show” to treatment this is indicated, by the treatment provider, 

on the SURF. 

• The Treatment Provider is responsible for outreach and contact with the parent to 

ensure the parent attends the Intake Appointment 

• Following the Intake Appointment or within 14 days of a “no show”, the Treatment 

Provider completes the Treatment Facility section of the SURF PDF form and emails to 

the AODS Screener and the designated Probation or FY&C contact. 

Probation or FY&C Follow-up 

Upon receipt of the completed SURF from a Treatment Provider, the designated Probation or 

FY&C contact person will email the Treatment Provider with the name, phone number and 

email address of the assigned PO or Social Worker. 

Findings 

Between September 7 and October 15 there were a total of 14 SURF referrals. Nine parents 

(64%) were referred by FY&C, and 5 parents (36%) were referred by Adult Probation. While 

three parents (21%) reported being involved with both FY&C and Probation, the majority of 


parents (11; 79%) reported involvement with only one system. Of the 14 parents referred, 8 

(57%) were male and 6 (43%) were female. Six parents signed a consent form from their 

referring agency (43%), while 8 parents (57%) did not sign a consent form. At the time of the 

AODS Screening, 10 parents (71%) signed the consent form while 4 parents (29%) did not. 

As part of the SURF process, FY&C CS Intake Workers were to indicate the reason for 

referral, noting any details of parental substance use. This detail could be reported as the 

results of an UNCOPE screen or based on other AOD-related collateral information. None of 

the 9 FY&C parents referred received and UNCOPE screening. While the clients were not 

administered the UNCOPE, the CS Intake Worker provided the following qualitative 

information regarding substance use: 

• 6 parents (67%) were reported as “[tested] positive for drugs,” while 2 parents were 

reported as having either other AOD-related history, while 1 parent had no specific 

referral notes related to substance abuse. 

• Notes indicated that there were strong indications of substance abuse in cases where 

the UNCOPE was not administered, such as “strong smell of alcohol” on the client, 

“self-reports of prescription drug abuse,” and “excessive marijuana user” 

As part of the SURF process, Adult POs were to indicate the Offender Needs Guide responses 

recorded for alcohol or drug use in parents referred and whether they were living with their 

minor child at the time of the offense. Of the 5 Probation referrals, all 5 parents (100%) were 

living with their child at the time of the offense, 1 parent (20%) reported an alcohol problem in 

the community in the last 6 months, and 3 parents (60%) reported a drug problem in the 

community in the last 6 months. 

Parents who met criteria for the SURF were scheduled for an AODS ASAM Screening 

appointment by the PO or CS Intake Worker during the initial referral. Of the 14 SURF 

referrals, 100% were scheduled an AODS ASAM screening appointment. The average number 

of days between the initial referral date and the AODS ASAM Screening appointment date was 

an average of 3 days. Of the 14 referrals, 10 parents (71%) attended the AODS screening 

while 4 parents (29%) did not attend the AODS screening. The average number of days 

between the initial referral date and the actual attended AODS appointment date was an 

average of 4 days. Of the 10 parents who attended the AODS ASAM Screening, two parents 

(20%) attended at a later date than originally scheduled. Of the 4 parents who did not attend 

the Screening, one parent (25%) was referred directly to the Dependency Drug Court, one 

parent (25%) declined to attend, and 2 parents (50%) had no indications regarding why they 

did not attend. 

Of the 10 parents that attended their AODS screening, all of the parents (100%) were referred 

to treatment (71% of all 14 parents initially referred). Of the 10 parents referred to treatment, 9 

parents scheduled a treatment intake appointment (90% of referred parents, 64% of total 

parents). Six parents were referred to CHDC for treatment, 3 parents were referred to DAAC, 

and 1 parent was referred to WRS. Of the 10 parents who were referred to treatment, 8 

parents attended the intake appointment (80% of parents referred for treatment, 57% of total 

parents). The time between the AODS Screening and the time the treatment intake 

appointment was attended was an average of 10 days (range of 0 to 44 days). However, six 

parents only waited an average of 3 days (range of 0 to 6 days). Two parents did not attend 

the original intake appointment date, but attended at a much later date (2-4 weeks later). 


Six parents were accepted into treatment as an outcome of referral (60% of parents referred to 

treatment). Six parents (60%) were noted as currently on a treatment waitlist, where 4 were 

accepted into a treatment program while on a waitlist for the appropriate level of care. Two 

parents entered treatment through the Dependency Drug Court program. The average number 

of calls made to client was approximately 3 calls. Only two SURFs included information about 

a parent’s MediCal eligibility: 1 parent was eligible for Medical, while 1 parent was not eligible. 

As of October 27, the results of all 14 referrals to AODS are: 

• 8 parents (57%) were referred to treatment and were subsequently accepted into 

treatment 

o Among the 8 accepted into treatment, 1 was not placed on a wait list, while 5 

were placed on a wait list. 

o One parent completed detox but upon discharge turned himself into jail. 

o Two parents entered treatment through the DDC program. One parent did not 

attend the AODS ASAM Screening while the other parent did attend. 

o Regardless of whether parents were placed on a wait list or were admitted to 

treatment through the DDC program, parents waited an average of 17 days 

between their intake appointments and admission into treatment (range of 7 to 44 

days). Parents admitted to treatment through DDC waited an average of 14 days 

between intake and admission (range of 8 to 19 days). 

• 1 parent was referred to treatment but “other” was noted on the referral outcome. The 

parent may serve jail time, in which case the PO will recommend referral through TASC. 

• 2 parents (14%) were referred to treatment but did not attend the intake appointment 

• 3 parents did not attend the AODS ASAM Screening appointment and were being 

contacted by the AODS Screener to attempt to engage them. 

Successes, Lessons and Challenges 

During the six week pilot phase, the overall number of referrals remained lower than expected. 

Initial calculations, based on estimates from available data, indicated that the pilot phase 

should have expected approximately 20 FY&C referrals and 20 Probation referrals. These 

estimates were based on: 

• FY&C files 175-200 petitions each year. Assuming 80% of petitions (140-160) involve 

parental substance abuse, it was anticipated that FY&C would make 12-14 referrals 

each month. 

• Adult Probation data indicated an annual estimate of 300 adults living with their minor 

child at the time of the offence. Assuming 80% of these adults (240) also reported 

having a drug or alcohol problem in the community in the last 6 months, it was 

anticipated that Adult Probation were make 20 referrals each month. 

FY&C filed 18 petitions in the Juvenile Court between September 7 and October 15. Based on 

an annual estimate of 175-200 petitions each year, it was anticipated that FY&C would have 

filed 22-25 petitions in a six week timeframe. Of the 18 petitions filed, FY&C completed 9 


SURFs (50%). Of the 9 FY&C parents who did not receive a SURF, one parent was a 

Voluntary Family Maintenance case where the parent was already receiving treatment 

services. Based on this six-week pilot phase, of the 18 total petitions files, 56% involve 

parental substance use (10 petitions), 50% received a SURF (9 petitions), and 11% were 

referred to or involved in other treatment services (2 petitions). 

Adult Probation completed 5 SURFs during the pilot phase. It is difficult to estimate the overall 

number of adults that might have been appropriate for the SURF process. Based on qualitative 

information from POs and SURF contacts, the limited number of referrals from Probation may 

have been the result of: 

• If an adult is currently serving jail time, is currently in custody, or may be remanded into 

custody to serve jail time, the PO will not make a referral to treatment until there is some 

certainty in a date for when the adult will be released and available to participate in 

treatment services. 

• Adults who have been in jail for 4-5 months and are nearing their release date are likely 

to have already established a connection to treatment through TASC or they do not 

have any children 

• Some adults may have already been referred to CHDC or DAAC by the PO 

• The PO may not have been clear about the SURF criteria. 

During the pilot phase, there were a total of 14 SURF referrals. The SURF pilot phase 

experienced a relatively higher number of referrals for fathers than for mothers: 8 fathers 

(57%) compared to 6 mothers (43%). All of the 5 referrals from Adult Probation were fathers. 

One father reported he heard by word of mouth that SURF was a good “program” for fathers to 

get treatment services. However, in the identification and provision of treatment services, there 

is a lack of father-friendly sober living environments. 

Qualitative feedback on the pilot phase indicated that the SURF process enhanced upfront 

communication. The AODS Screener in particular served a critical and effective role in 

providing a liaison between FY&C, Probation, and treatment providers. In this liaison role, the 

AODS Screener served as a central point of contact for staff, conducted outreach to parents, 

engaged parents in the screening and referral process, and provided feedback to staff on 

screening results and treatment recommendations. The AODS Screener also served as a 

primary contact for parents that provided an important relationship on a clinical level. The 

AODS Screener’s ability to motivate and engage parents proved to be helpful to parents during 

this moment of crisis. 

In terms of enhancing timely access to available treatment services, the SURF process 

provided access to screening and assessment services early on in the FY&C and Probation 

cases. Screening was provided within 3 days of either the Detention Hearing for FY&C 

referrals or the initial meeting with the PO for Probation referrals. The time between the AODS 

Screening and the time the treatment intake appointment was attended was an average of 10 

days (range of 0 to 44 days). While, six parents only waited an average of 3 days (range of 0 

to 6 days), two parents did not attend the original intake appointment date, but attended at a 

much later date (2-4 weeks later). 


The AODS Screener not only provided a key linkage to getting parents to their screening and 

treatment intake appointments, but also identified strategies to expedite the process by 

negotiating directly with the treatment provider. For example, in making referrals to CHDC the 

AODS Screener negotiated that SURF referrals could skip the “sign up” process and schedule 

assessment for clients directly. CHDC typically requires individuals to come to the treatment 

facility for approximately 15 minutes to “sign up” for an assessment appointment. Then the 

individual would return to CHDC at a later date to receive the assessment. For SURF referrals, 

the AODS Screener could contact CHDC personally to schedule the assessment appointment 

directly at the end of the screening while the parent was still present. 

There were several communication challenges that emerged during the course of the pilot 

phase. Implementation of the pilot was delayed by two weeks as technology issues with 

Outlook calendars and scheduling difficulties were resolved. While the communication upfront 

with the AODS Screener was noted as a success, there was difficulty in getting reports from 

the treatment providers to FY&C and Probation. Treatment providers may not have been fully 

aware of their expected roles and responsibilities during this pilot phase, and the additional 

form may have complicated the communication process. If the SURF is to be developed as a 

web-based module, treatment providers would enter information into SWITS, which may 

resolve this issue. 

There were some concerns expressed about the AODS Screener managing phone calls from 

POs and other staff rather than staff connecting with the treatment providers directly. However, 

to the degree that the AODS Screener was able to manage the communication during this pilot 

phase again became a critical role. For example, the AODS Screener communicated directly 

with Probation staff who were not familiar with the SURF process, and was able to ensure that 

a parent could remain in detox and support the parent through detox completion and a return 

to jail. The direct communication the AODS Screener had with parents was particularly 

important. Toward the end of the pilot phase, it was also noted that the parent’s social worker 

and attorney should be included in the communication and feedback. 

Throughout the pilot phase, the SURF implementers gathered on a weekly basis for a 30 

minute conference call. The SURF implementers were a multi-disciplinary team composed of 

representatives and the main SURF contacts within FY&C, Adult Probation and AODS as well 

as a treatment provider. This time was used to discuss the number and nature of referrals, 

whether parents attended screening and intake appointments, and any progress notes, 

including challenges in implementing SURF 

SAFERR Protocol 

The pages which follow provide detail for proposed changes within Probation, FY&C and 

AODS. Each table outlines: Practice Changes, Data Changes, Information Sharing process, 

Who is involved, When in the process the protocol is implemented, How it is done, Location, 

Data, Why this is done from the client’s view, and Anticipated Barriers 




• Adult Probation Officers will determine if there are indicators of a substance abuse issue and/or involvement 

with FY&C regarding child abuse and neglect. 


Practice 

Changes 

Data Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Parent Convicted and Being Considered for Probation 

Probation is conducting Investigation and preparing sentencing report 


• Check whether parent has an open CPS case 

• Confirm whether parent is participating in treatment in advance of sentencing 

• Ensure social worker and treatment provider have Investigations Probation Officer’s contact information 

• PO refers change to AODS for screening at initial appointment if Probation likely 

Probation Officers will share with Social Workers (Note: PO has ability to check CPS history): 

• If either parent is involved in criminal justice 

• Conditions or special requirements for parents 

• Screen for offense that would impact children (e.g. sex offense) 

• Conditions of residency for parent and juvenile 


Probation Officers will share with Treatment Providers: 

• Did probation make referral to treatment because there was a significant AOD issue indicated by the crime 



Adult Probation Officers will identify clients involved in AODS and/or FY&C 

Who • SOR, Investigations, DV unit 

When 

How 

Location 

Data: 

PACM�� 

Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Solutions 

• Initial contact 

• Check with each system before interview 

• SOR interview 

• Completion of STRONG risk assessment tool 

• Interview Question – are you currently involved? 

• AODS – referral compliance and program information 

• Access to FY&C CWS/CMS data system 

• Jail 

• Probation office 

• Add a services tab (approx $ few K) a data store, a field where information could get added 

• Use collateral contacts fields to capture social worker and treatment provider info 

• To better manage the case and better scheduling 

• Consolidate your case so no duplication of services 

• Coordination of requirements of 2-3 systems (i.e. supervision, program, testing, appointments) 

• Client would be motivated to confirm compliance with court ordered conditions 

• HIPPA 

• System database access 

• Legal confidentiality issue 

• Protocols for cross-system communication 

• Not knowing who to contact 

• Add interview guide questions on AODS and CPS 

• MOUs 

• Universal release of information form for all agencies 

• System database access 

• Group assessment (FJC) 

• Co-management of case 



• Adult Probation Officers will determine the nature and extent of the substance use and/or or child abuse and 

neglect issue 

• What is the response to the substance use and/or child abuse and neglect issue? 

Practice 

Changes 

Data Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Who 

When 

How 

Location 

Data 

Why: client 

view 

Parent referred to Probation 

Parent has Sentencing Order and case planning initiated 


• If parent is assigned to formal supervision, PO confirms whether parent is currently involved with FY&C or treatment 

and ensures social worker and/or treatment provider have PO’s contact info 

• Coordinate congruent service planning between agencies. In Adult Probation, a parent may be in dependency court and 

1210 court and there’s a need for communication to avoid duplication of efforts. PO can bring together the treatment 

plan and goal of the case to then coordinate the case. 

• Develop a mechanism with treatment and FY&C agencies for case consultation 

• Use a team approach with treatment and social workers for changes in situation, screening and assessment results, 

and what happens when parent doesn’t access Tx. 

• POs receive written guidelines specifying a list of factors that must be included in treatment assessments, and ask 

specific questions of substance abuse counselors when making referrals for assessments. 

• POs share copies of the case plan with the social workers and substance abuse treatment counselors assigned to treat 

parents, allowing adequate time for the social worker or counselor to offer comments or ask questions 

• Incorporate information and case plans received from counselors and child welfare workers into Probation case plans 

• Identify where referral to treatment services is documented (e.g. chronos) 

• Develop automated referral mechanism to AODS 

Probation Officers will share with Social Workers: 

• Results of STRONG screening and assessment 

• If either parent is involved in criminal justice 

• Conditions or special requirements for parents 

• Screen for offense that would impact children (e.g. sex offense) 

• Conditions of residency for parent and juvenile 


• Probation case plan and sentencing orders 


• Contact information for Probation Officer (or other officer of the court) that parent reports to 

• How to address when court order parent in one county and children are placed in another county 

Probation Officers will share with Treatment Providers: 

• Result of STRONG screening and assessment 

• Did probation make referral to treatment because there was a significant AOD issue indicated by the STRONG 

• Probation case plan and sentencing orders 



• Contact information for Probation Officer (or other officer of the court) that Parent reports to 

Adult Probation Officers will screen clients for referral to FY&C and/or AODS 

• Jail (gap for AODS but no need to be involved with referral to FY&C) 

• SOR, Investigations, DV unit and Supervision visits 

• Bail 

• Initial contact 

• Check with AODS and FY&C to see if already involved 

• Conversation with offender 

o Using STRONG risk assessment tool 

o Need access to CWS/CMS 

• Jail 

• Office 

• Field contact 

• PACMan (or criminal.net) 

• Need access to CWS/CMS – could put information into PACMan and IJS 

• Avoid duplication of services and overlap 

• Determine appropriate services 

• Sharing information makes 1 case plan more feasible 

• Need to see agencies as helpful and not as trying to take the kids away 


Barriers 

Adult Probation Officers will screen clients for referral to FY&C and/or AODS 

• No collaboration with jail staff (pretrial services) 

• Inconsistent communication with AODS 

• Confidentiality 

• Staff need training 

• No current flow of information with FY&C nor do officers routinely ask 

• Offender perception that probation has a hidden agenda 

• IJS is old “green screen” and integrated justice system but not where any new information could or should be added 

Solutions • A practice protocol 


• Adult Probation Officers will determine the appropriate response to the substance use and/or child 

abuse and neglect issue. 

• Are there demonstrable changes over time? 

Practice 

Changes 

Data Changes • TBD 

Information 

Sharing 

Adult in Probation 

Probation case plan monitoring 


• Support parents. There should be a warm hand-off, introductions, and clarification on changing roles and 


• Give parents clear information on how to access their PO, and what to do if they cannot reach their PO in a timely 

manner. 

• Review how parents are updated on progress toward probation case plan completion, how changes are identified and 

implemented, and how changes are communicated to parents. 

• Involve treatment staff, relapse prevention planning, and child safety planning into the discussion of what to do if parent 

relapses. 

Probation Officers will share with Social Worker and Treatment Provider: 

• New arrests or violations 

• Any changes to probation case plan that might impact FY&C or treatment case plans: 


o Conditions of residency 

o Conditions or special requirements for parents 

o Drug testing requirements 



• Updated contact information if there is a change of Probation Officer (or other officer of the court) that parent reports to 




Adult in Probation 

Probation case closure 


Practice • TBD 

Changes 

Data Changes • TBD 

Information 

Sharing 


• When case has expired either successfully or unsuccessfully (i.e. a violation) 




• Juvenile Probation Officers will determine if there are indicators of a substance abuse issue and/or 

involvement with FY&C regarding child abuse and neglect 


Practice 

Changes 

Data Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Who 

When 

How 

Location 

Data 

Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Juvenile Sustained Petition and Referred to Probation 

Probation is preparing Disposition report 


• Check whether adolescent has an open CPS case (or prior reports) 

• Screening Committee to include AODS treatment representative 

• Ensure social worker and treatment provider have Probation Officer’s contact information 

Probation Officers will share with Social Worker: 

• If youth is dual case or mandated report (Note: 241.1 provides process to collaborate) 

• Who is representing the child (Public Defender or child’s attorney) 


Probation Officers will share with Treatment Provider: 

• Reason for referral (i.e. crime or PACT screening/assessment results) 



Juvenile Probation Officers will identify clients involved in AODS and/or FY&C 

• Juvenile Hall intake staff 

• AODS in Juvenile Hall 

• Intake PO 

• Investigator PO 

• Supervision PO 

• Booking 

• While housed in Juvenile Hall 

• Preparation for court reports 

• During course of supervision 

• Screening Committee and/or CMC 

• Juvenile Hall intake questions 

• AODS assessments 

• Disposition reports 

• Juvenile Hall (already doing this) 

• Office 

• Field 

• Committee meetings (screening, CMC, wrap around) 

• JRS 

o Add a services tab data store (approx $ few K), a field where information about AODS and FY&C could get added 

o Develop a case management tool that’s run off of the same format as PACT to capture AODS, substance abuse and 

FY&C information collected during PACT screening/assessment. Would need to ensure that this case management 

tool communicates with the JRS so that the PO doesn’t have to remember to go back to update information in 

JRS 

o Use collateral contacts fields to capture social worker and treatment provider info 

• CWS/CMS 

o For dual cases, POs have read only access to CWS/CMS to verify open cases, but need access to more information 

• Court reports 

• To maximize services to family unit 

• Streamline and consolidate services so other is not duplication or unrealistic expectations of kids/families 

• Client would be motivated to confirm compliance with court ordered conditions 

• Much of this is already happening, but communication needs improvement 

• HIPPA and other agency confidentiality issues – need to discuss with County Council 

• Lack of shared databases 

• Philosophical shift (just in terms of this being new) 

• Services spread out geographically, so need for co-location and transportation is an issue 


Solutions 

Juvenile Probation Officers will identify clients involved in AODS and/or FY&C 

• MOUs and confidentiality 

• Improved protocol for doing business 

• Centralized services with MDTs making decisions 

• Database access between agencies 


• Juvenile Probation Officers will determine the nature and extent of the substance use and/or child abuse and 

neglect issue 

• What is the response to the substance use and/or child abuse and neglect issue? 

Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Who 

When 

Juvenile referred to Probation 

Juvenile has Court Ordered Conditions of Probation and case planning initiated 


• Ensure social worker and/or treatment provider have PO’s contact info 

• Coordinate congruent service planning between agencies. Juvenile Probation may bring cases to CMC early because 

we’re the only ones who know that a client is involved with multiple agencies. In CMC the social worker and probation 

officer can bring together the treatment plan and goal of the case to then coordinate the case. 

• Develop a mechanism with treatment and FY&C agencies for case consultation 

• POs use a team approach with treatment and social workers for changes in situation, for initial screening and 

assessment results, and for what happens when a juvenile doesn’t access treatment. 

• POs receive written guidelines specifying a list of factors that must be included in treatment assessments, and ask 

specific questions of substance abuse counselors when making referrals for assessments. 

• POs share copies of the Case Plans with the social workers and substance abuse treatment counselors assigned to treat 

parents, allowing adequate time for the social worker or counselor to offer comments or ask questions 

• POs incorporate information and case plans received from substance abuse counselors and child welfare workers into 

Probation case plans 

• Identify where referral to treatment services is documented 

Probation Officers will share with Social Worker: 

• Determine if youth is dual case or mandated report (Note: 241.1 provides process to collaborate) 

• Results of PACT screening and assessment, including MH and AOD diagnosis 





• Contact information for Probation Officer (or other officer of the court) that juvenile reports to 

• Who is representing the child (Public Defender or child’s attorney) 

• What is the plan for the youth? 

• Are there parents to help after delinquency release? 

Probation Officers will share with Treatment Provider: 

• Results of PACT screening and assessment 

• Did probation make referral to treatment because there was a significant AOD issue indicated by the PACT 





• Contact information for Probation Officer (or other officer of the court) that juvenile reports to 

Juvenile Probation Officers will screen clients for referral to FY&C and/or AODS 

• Probation intake 

• Probation investigations 

• Supervision 

• Juvenile Hall intake (for FY&C referral only) 

• At intake (Probation and Juvenile Hall) 

• At court – pre-disposition (CD in custody) 

• Investigations 

• Supervision (sign-up and ongoing) 


How 

Location 

Data 

Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Juvenile Probation Officers will screen clients for referral to FY&C and/or AODS 

• Pre-screen 

• Detention/intake interview 

• Pre-disposition (CD – in custody) – (for FY&C referral only) 

• Investigation interview (and full screen) 

• CD/JH intake (for AODS referral only) 

• Supervision (ongoing for AODS referral versus upon notice for FY&C referral) 

• Reassessment (for FY&C referral only) 

• Juvenile Hall 

• Court/CD-custody (for FY&C referral only) 

• Probation 

• Field (e.g. community and school) 

• JRS 

• Court reports, reviews 

• AODS referral 

o Identify needs (current or past) sooner to avoid overlap and conflicting messages 

o Provide needed services sooner 

o Refine necessary intervention sooner 

• FY&C referral 

o Protect clients 

o Provide services rather than punitive 

o Assist families navigate the systems 

o Give resources and support sooner 

• Lack of follow through in relaying information (no specified protocol) 

• Staff have a difficult time acclimating 

• KJS is old “green screen” and integrated justice system but not where any new information could or should be added 

Solutions • Have one integrated system for all appropriate cross over information 


• Juvenile Probation Officers will determine the appropriate response to the substance use and/or 

child abuse and neglect issue. 


Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Juvenile in Probation 

Probation case plan monitoring 


• Support parents through PO transitions. There should be a warm hand-off, introductions, and clarification on changing 

roles and responsibilities. 

• Give youth clear information on how to access their PO, and what to do if they cannot reach their PO in a timely manner. 

• Use case plan to update parents and youth on progress toward probation completion, how changes are identified and 

implemented, and how changes are communicated to youth. 


relapses. 

• TBD 

Probation Officers will share with Social Worker and Treatment Providers: 

• New arrests or violations 

• Any changes to probation case plan, including: 


o Conditions of residency 

o Conditions or special requirements for parents 

o Drug testing requirements 



• Updated contact information if there is a change of Probation Officer (or other officer of the court) that juvenile reports to 





Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Juvenile in Probation 

Probation case closure 


• TBD 

• TBD 


• When case has expired either successfully or unsuccessfully (i.e. a violation) 

• What is the plan for the youth? 

• Are there parents to help after delinquency release? 


Alcohol and Other Drug Services 


• AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will determine if there is a probation and/or child abuse and 

neglect issue in the family. 


Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Parent or Juvenile referred to Treatment 

AODS is conducting ASAM/ASI/ADAD/intake 

Timeframe (in days): 1 to 7 days 

• Screen clients using standardized questions to determine involvement with FY&C and Probation (self-report only) 

• Ensure appropriate Release of Confidential Information Forms have been signed to allow communication with CPS and 

probation. 

• Develop a plan for and provide interim services for clients on waiting lists for treatment 

• Utilize outpatient care as a pre or interim service for persons on residential waiting list(s) (Note: This happens in 

perinatal, but doesn’t work if the client doesn’t have Medi-Cal) 

• Participate in Juvenile Probation Screening Committee and FY&C case consultations 

• Utilize SWITS for all substance abuse screenings and assessments. 

• Document involvement with FY&C and Probation in addition to referral source 

• SWITS collateral contacts on the profile page could be used to put the referring parties and the releases on file. There’s a 

box you can check on what contacts can be made. 

AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will share with Social Worker (upon initial contact): 

• Did parent attend the AODS ASAM, assessment and intake appointments (or if the parent did not show within 48 hrs) 

• Results of AODS in-depth screening and treatment provider assessment 

• Mental health diagnosis (if revealed) 


• Demographic and family composition 

• Impact of substance use on parenting 

o If the children are in the parent’s care 

o Where will the child be living 

o What the parent says about their child 

o How the parent interacts with child (through direct observation) 

o What does the parent expect to do with their child while they are in treatment 

• Mandated report or collateral contact on suspected child abuse or neglect 

o Is the treatment court ordered (Note: can AOD release this information?) 

AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will share with Adult/Juvenile Probation Officers (upon initial contact): 

• Did the parent/youth attend the AODS ASAM, assessment and intake appointments (or if the parent/youth did not show 

within 48 hours) 

• Results of AODS in-depth screening and Treatment Provider assessment 

• Is there is safety issue either to the community, youth or family (if revealed or could ascertain from self-reports) 


• Is there a risk to any other family member 

• How probation can support treatment engagement 

• AOD history of use, treatment history and recommendation to refer to treatment court 

AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will identify clients involved in other systems 

Who • Intake screening – releases signed at intake 

When • At intake 

How 

Location 

Data: SWITS 

• DAAC (new) connected to asking for release to be signed and DDC/DFB requests release to be signed 

• Other treatment providers to be trained 

• At treatment facility 

• Client location in the community 

• TASC office 

• In the admission screen in the family/social section. Create some drop down values. 

• Cost associated with vendor expenses for adding the field and making it editable (approx $700-$1,000 per field) 

• Use collateral contacts fields to capture social worker and/or PO name and contact info 

• Having the family/social section connected with the collateral contacts fields so that if someone answers “yes” to 

involvement in one of the other systems then the intake person is prompted to enter in the collateral contacts info. This 

business rule would ensure you don’t have one part captured and other empty, but this would be an additional cost 

• Already ask clients their criminal justice status, so it would just mean adding the name of the Probation Officer 


Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Solutions 

AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will identify clients involved in other systems 

• Benefits of communication – treatment can help meet FY&C and Probation timelines 

• Consequences of not signing 

• Coordination of case plan 

• Some treatment programs/case managers need releases revised 

• Direct referral being linked to funding (e.g. FY&C only pays for outpatient) 

• Limited funding for appropriate level of treatment 

• Lack of leverage for certain clients 

• As clients move through FY&C and Probation they may transition between social workers and PO, but they may not 

always know the name of their social worker or PO 

• Confidentially and lack of access to data from other systems 

• Ask feedback at provider’s meeting about asking the questions or release (which comes first) 

• Add questions to SWITS – FY&C and Probation (verify involvement) 

• Revise releases as necessary 

• Funding workgroup to address Treatment funding 

• Need protocol for communication once release is signed (reporting and coordination) 

• Find a way to handle if someone doesn’t know who their social worker or PO is, but they report that they are involved with 

FY&C or Probation, then what value do you put in the drop down for collateral contacts and then what are the ongoing 

communication mechanisms for when this info changes? 


• AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will determine the nature and extent of the probation and/or child 

abuse and neglect issue 


Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Parent or Juvenile referred to Treatment 

Treatment intake and planning 

Timeframe (in days): 1 to 30 days 

• Screen children for developmental needs (e.g. DAAC does ASQ with children) 

• Placement and custody status of each child should be clearly documented in case file, as well as developmental 

information and results of developmental screen used, date of screen and name of screener. If referred for assessment 

and services, results of assessment and current status of services should also be documented. 

• Signed consents to release information should be on file for general releases to FY&C and Probation 

• Share copies of the substance abuse treatment plans and updates with child welfare workers and POs so that the 

workers and POs understand the treatment goals and progress toward those goals. 

• Allowing adequate time for the social worker or POs to offer comments or ask questions about treatment plan 

• Incorporate information and case plans received from POs and social workers into treatment plans 

• Develop mechanism allowing treatment counselors to access FY&C and Probation for consultation on cases 

• Direct contact and outreach to maintain engagement and retention (with client and referring system) 

AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will share with Social Worker (more frequent updates in first month): 

• Did parent enter a treatment program 



• Contact information for treatment agency and counselor 

• Current family/social support network 

• Developmental screening results for child (if administered) 

Treatment Providers will share with Adult and Juvenile Probation Officers (more frequent updates in first month): 

• Did parent or youth enter a treatment program 



• Contact information for treatment agency and counselor 

• Current family/social support network 


Who 

When 

How 

Treatment Providers will screen clients for referral to FY&C 

• Intake Worker 

• Case Managers/Group Facilitators (child care workers would report to case managers 

• At intake 

• Treatment plan ongoing 

• SWITS children/custody 

• Use standard screening questions 

Location • At treatment facility 

Data • SWITS – treatment plan 

Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Solutions 

• To determine appropriate level of service 

• We want everyone to be safe and to have the best possible outcomes 

• We’re mandated reporters 

• SWITS doesn’t have a place to screen for safety at intake 

• Need to resolve confidentiality issues 

• Need screening questions (standard questions from Paul) 

o Adult: are children safe 

o Juvenile: is the juvenile safe 

o TA call: case manager can call (with supervisor’s knowledge) to get consultation from FY&C to make a referral if 

indicated or to request feedback for treatment plan 

• CPS alerts treatment program when children are returned 

• MCH Partnership 1:1 appointment to screen for child safety (screening is not necessarily medical billable unless the 

partnership is in place) 

• Treatment plan family domain – residential/perinatal/meth/DC treatment screen 

• Training for group facilitators to identify child abuse/neglect issues 


• AODS Screening and Treatment Providers will determine the appropriate response to the probation 

and/or child abuse and neglect issue 


Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Adult or Juvenile in Treatment 

Treatment plan monitoring 

Timeframe (in months): 1 to 3 months 

• Case notes should contain documentation of every court hearing, whether as court minute order strip or summary 

documented through phone call with caseworker or attorney to include current court protective orders, visitation orders, 

custody orders and treatment orders, as well as date of next hearing and nature of next hearing. 

• Substance abuse treatment providers should attend and participate in FY&C and/or Probation case plan staffing meetings 

• Involve social worker and/or probation officer, relapse prevention planning, and child safety planning into the discussion of 

what to do if parent relapses. 

• Offer clients the opportunity to practice life skills in the context of their treatment program as part of treatment discharge 

planning. 

• TBD 

Treatment Providers will share with Social Workers and Adult/Juvenile Probation Officers (monthly updates): 

• Changes to Tx plan or transition to new provider 

• Updated contact information if there is a change in treatment agency or counselor 

• Changes to drug testing requirements 

• Drug testing results 

• Mandated report or collateral contact on suspected child abuse or neglect 

• Feedback on attendance and progress in treatment 

• How to enhance motivation to change and see change over time 

• Written reports for court 

• Parent/child involvement in family treatment services (e.g. can mandate juvenile to treatment, but can’t mandate parent) 





Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Adult or Juvenile in Treatment 

Treatment discharge planning 

Timeframe (in months): 3 to 9 months 

• Discharge planning should include documentation that plans have been made to assure child safety in case of relapse 

• Connect parents and youth to available resources in their local community as part of treatment discharge planning. 

• Provide aftercare and other opportunities to stay connected to treatment staff and clients. 

• TBD 

Treatment Providers will share with Social Workers and Adult/Juvenile Probation Officers (in advance of discharge): 

• Family and support network at discharge 


• Aftercare plan 

• Safety plan for child in case of parent relapse 


Family Youth and Children’s Services 


• Social Workers will determine if there is a substance use and/or probation issue in the family. 


Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Family Reported to CPS and Referral in process 

FY&C is conducting ER Investigation 


• Use a standard tool or set of questions (e.g. UNCOPE) to screen for substance abuse for every child abuse/neglect 

referral 

• Ensure that substance abuse is part of the risk assessment (Note: the Structured Decision Making [SDM] Family Risk 

and Safety Assessment can be used to document whether there is a substance abuse issue in the primary or secondary 

caregiver) 

• Collect information on substance use issue, how recent was use and treatment history (type and number of episodes) 

• Ask parents about current involvement in treatment and probation 

• Use standardized agency Referral Form and Release of Confidential Information Form to refer clients for substance 

abuse screening, assessment and treatment 

• Incorporate recommendation to obtain signed consents to release information to substance abuse treatment agencies 

into protective order recommendations made to courts at detention hearings 

• Develop internal guidelines for caseworkers to use in making decisions when substance abuse exists within the family, 

and share those guidelines with other agencies and systems 

• Explore how to document screening results in a standardized format, such as using (a) the recent changes to the 

CWS/CMS system to record the specific drug being used by the client, which does not have a set expectation yet or (b) 

the SDM Family Risk and Safety Assessment primary and secondary caregiver substance abuse data 

• Determine where to document substance use and probation involvement in CWS/CMS (explore use of special project 

codes if needed) 

FY&C will share with AODS Screening and Treatment Providers: 

• Substance use issues known to FY&C and/or documented in case history, including how recent was use and treatment 

history (type and number of episodes) 

• Reason for referral (e.g. DAAC revised their referral form to include a space for social workers to provide this information) 


• History of CPS involvement and if AOD was involved 


• Criminal history (Note: FY&C has access to this through IJS, but it is not reviewed until SDM risk assessment, and not 

always then) 

• Initial case planning expectations for both parents 



FY&C will share with Juvenile Probation Officers: 

• Legal status of youth 

• Youth’s history of AOD use 

• Location and involvement of parents 

• Location of extended family members 



• Drug testing requirements and results for parents and youth 

• Note: Juvenile Probation will have access to CWS/CMS (6-10 staff) and increased access to investigations in read only 

format. 

FY&C will share with Adult Probation Officers: 



• If treatment is being recommended for parents 

• CPS involvement with parents 

• Criminal history in family to assess if substance use is part of a criminal lifestyle or a onetime event 



FY&C will identify clients involved in AODS Treatment and/or Probation 

Who 

• ER investigator 

• Court intake investigator 

• Weekend duty staff 

• Initial family assessment 

When • First face-to-face contact 

• Or as soon as possible thereafter 

How 

• Verbal (no new forms or paperwork) 

• “standardized” interview process 

Location • Wherever interviews take place (e.g. VMCH, office, field) 

• CWS/CMS – case notes, in narrative, court reports 

Data 

o 

o 

Collateral contacts in CWS/CMS can enter info on treatment provider and PO 

Could add a special projects code – need to create guidelines around what is flagged as a Probation case and a 

separate code for a client who is involved in all three systems 

Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Solutions 

• Coordinate services to avoid duplication 

• Resolve fiscal implications (who will pay for services?) 

• Better outcomes for client 

• Are the allegations accurate? We don’t assume they are (non-judgmental) 

• Time available 

• Workload issues 

• Lack of standardized practice 

• Client’s apprehension and perception of pertinence of information 

• Issue might not emerge in allegations 

• significant training and workload issue since social workers do their own data entry 

• Closed CWS/CMS data system where the State controls the fields that prevent outputs and updating of fields. 

• Accountability (to clients, to court for best practices) 

• “Rule out” rather than “rule in” AOD issues 

• Access to assessments and services of AODS 

• Enhance parents’ motivation to answer questions 

• Clerical person designated to conduct CWS/CMS data entry 

• Increased flexibility of CWS/CMS data system to provide outputs and updating of fields. 


• Social Workers will determine the nature and extent of the substance use and/or probation issue. 


Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Family with substantiated abuse or neglect with open CPS case 

Child Welfare case planning initiated 


• Use standardized agency Referral Form and Release of Confidential Information Form to refer clients for substance 

abuse screening, assessment and treatment 

• Incorporate recommendation to obtain signed consents to release information to substance abuse treatment agencies 

into protective order recommendations made to courts at detention hearings 

• Staff to receive written guidelines specifying a list of factors that must be included in treatment screening and 

assessment, and ask specific questions of substance abuse counselors when making referrals for assessments. 

• Develop a mechanism with substance abuse treatment agencies for case consultation 

• Develop internal guidelines for caseworkers to use in making decisions when substance abuse exists within the family, 

and share those guidelines with other agencies and systems 

• Share copies of the case plan with the Probation Officer and treatment counselors assigned to parents, allowing 

adequate time for the POs and substance abuse counselor to offer comments or ask questions 

• Incorporate information and case plans received from substance abuse counselors and POs into FY&C case plans 

• Support parents through coordinated case planning when there is more than one case plan and social worker involved 

with a family. 

• Document referral to treatment using AOD-related CWS/CMS case plan service objective and planned service or using 

special project codes 


Information 

Sharing 

Family with substantiated abuse or neglect with open CPS case 

Child Welfare case planning initiated 


Social Workers will share with AODS Screening and Treatment Providers: 

• Substance use issue 

• How recent was use 

• Treatment history (type and number of episodes) 


• History of CPS involvement and if AOD was involved 


• Criminal history (Note: FY&C has access to this through IJS but it is not always reviewed) 

• Case plan initial planning expectations for both parents 



• Case plan and expectations for both parents 

• Visitation schedule and needs 


• Contact information for social worker 

Social Workers will share with Adult and Juvenile Probation Officers: 



• Contact information for social worker 

• Family strengths and weaknesses 

Social Workers will screen clients for referral to AODS 

Who • Everyone – “Rule out” rather than “rule in” 

When 

How 

• Referral screening process (give reporter info?) 

• ER Investigations 

• Intake 

• Court entry 

• Indication of “risk” behaviors during life of case (signs or criminal behavior) 

• Re-assessment utilizing tools for ongoing/FR 

• Verbal 

• Assessment tool 

• Case notes 

Location • Wherever interview takes place (e.g. office, home, school, hospital, etc.) 

Data • Tools and contact notes 

Why: client 

view 

Barriers 

Solutions 

• Provide and tailor appropriate services/resources 

• Coordinate services between agencies 

• Non-duplicative for client 

• Factor in treatment history 

• Meet clients “where they are at” 

• Clients may not be honest in initial contacts 

• Accurate history – client’s own perception 

• No organized system of communication between agencies 

• Workload issues 

• Staff knowledge/skills re: AOD 

• Confidentiality issues 

• Early training for staff 

• Liaison between FY&C and AODS 

• Formalized legal exchange of information (releases, etc.) 

• Increasing effective communication between agencies 




• Are there demonstrable changes? 

Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Family in CPS 

Child Welfare case plan monitoring 


• Invite and encourage treatment counselors and POs to attend and participate in case staffing discussions 

• Accept updated information regarding a client’s treatment plan provided by the substance abuse counselor, and include 

information on progress in treatment and goal attainment in reports to the court 

• Support parents through social worker transitions. There should be a warm hand-off, introductions, and clarification on 

changing roles and responsibilities. 

• Give parents and youth clear information on how to access their social worker, and what do to if they cannot reach their 

social worker in a timely manner. 

• Review how parents and youth are updated on progress made toward FY&C case plan completion, how changes are 

identified and implemented, and how changes are communicated to parents and youth. 


relapses. 

• TBD 

Social Workers will share with Treatment Providers and Adult/Juvenile Probation Officers: 

• Changes to case plan and expectations for both parents 

• Changes in custody and placement of children 

• Changes to visitation schedule and needs 

• New child abuse or neglect allegations 

• Changes to drug testing requirements 


• Updated contact information if there is a change of social worker 




Practice 

Changes 

Data 

Changes 

Information 

Sharing 

Family in CPS 

Child Welfare case closure 


• TBD 

• TBD 

Social Workers will share with Treatment Providers and Adult/Juvenile Probation Officers: 

• Child’s and/or Juvenile’s permanent placement (reunification, adoption, guardianship or long term placement) 

• Community support services 


Description of Acronyms 

AOD alcohol and other drugs 

AODS Alcohol and Other Drug Services Division 

ASAM American Society of Addiction Medicine 

CD Community Detention 

CHDC California Human Development Corporation 

CMC Case Management Council 

CPS Child Protective Services 

CS Court Services 

CWS/CMS Child Welfare Services/Case Management System 

DAAC Drug Abuse Alternatives Center 

DDC Dependency Drug Court 

DFB Drug Free Babies 

DV domestic violence 

ER Emergency Response 

FJC Family Justice Center 

FY&C Family Youth and Children’s Services Division 

HIPPA Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 

IJS Integrated Justice System 

JH Juvenile Hall 

JRS Juvenile Records System 

KJS Kids Justice System 

MDTs Multidisciplinary Teams 

MH Mental Health 

MOUs Memorandums of Understanding 

PACMan Probation Department Adult Caseload Management 

PO Adult Probation Officer 

SAFERR Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, Retention and Recovery 

SDM Structured Decision Making 

SOR Supervised Own Recognizance 

STRONG Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide 


SURF Sonoma Universal Referral Form 

SWITS Sonoma Web Infrastructure for Treatment Services 

TASC Treatment Accountability For Safer Communities 

TBD To Be Determined 

Tx treatment 

UNCOPE Six question screening tool used to identify risk for abuse and dependence for 

alcohol and other drugs 

VMCH Valley of the Moon Children’s Home 

WRS Women’s Recovery Services 



Data Workgroup 

Summary and Final Recommendations 












families. 




document summarizes the findings and final recommendations of the FRP Data Workgroup. 

Interagency Data Sharing: An Overview 

During the course of the FRP, the Data Workgroup reviewed and discussed concepts and 

strategies in cross-system data sharing. Utilizing the Interagency Data Sharing: An Overview as 

a guide, the Data Workgroup: 

• Specified the rationale for data sharing 

• Generated joint values and principles statements related to data sharing 

• Inventoried existing data systems [See Sonoma County Summary Data] 

• Developed a Cross-System Data Dictionary 

• Developed a logic model [See Sonoma FRP Logic Model] 

• Planed for staff training implications 

• Reviewed methods of data sharing 

• Reviewed models of data sharing 

• Developed a data sharing plan [See Sonoma County Data Sharing Plan Outline] 

The Interagency Data Sharing: An Overview provides an overview of both: (a) what the Data 

Workgroup discussed; and (b) how the Data Workgroup incorporated Sonoma-specific 

considerations, opportunities and challenges into each section. 

Data matching test methodology and results 

The Data Workgroup conducted an initial assessment of how many clients that accessed 

substance abuse treatment reported that they were referred by FY&C or Probation. During fiscal 

year July 1, 20008 and June 30, 2009 there were 5,868 treatment admissions. Of these 

admissions, 35% (2,054) reported they were on Probation, while 1.3% (76) reported having 

been referred by a Dependency Court or Child Protective Services. It was determined that the 

1

flaw in this data is that the information is collected from client self-reports only. There is no 

existing way to utilize data to verify if the client was actually referred by a particular agency. 

In December 2009, the Data Workgroup tested an innovative data matching methodology, 

utilizing a unique client identifier (ID), to assess the number of clients in multiple systems. The 

goal was to identify how many mutual clients existed within the FY&C, Probation and AODS 

data systems between July 1, 2008 and December 15, 2009. Representatives of FY&C and 

Juvenile Probation created unique IDs for all clients, using initials, gender and date of birth. 

These unique IDs were then delivered to a representative within AODS to assess how many 

unique IDs “matched” in the AODS SWITS database. 

FY&C-AODS • 907 cases 

• 3 matched 

• =0.33% 

Probation-AODS • 3,019 cases 

• 435 matched 

• =14.4% 

Youth Adults 

• 907 cases 

• 146 matched 

• =16.1% 

• ? cases 

• ? Matched 

• =?% 

Probation-AODS-FY&C • 3 cases • 71 cases 

Out of 907 FY&C cases, there were 3 matches found in the AODS database (0.33%) for youth, 

and 146 matches founds in the AODS database (16.1%) for adults. Out of 3,019 Juvenile 

Probation cases, there were 435 matches found in the AODS database (14.4%) for youth. At 

the time that this data matching method was being tested, Adult Probation data was not 

available. Thus there is no data on the number of Adult Probation matches were found within 

AODS. The unique IDs revealed only 3 cases could be found in Probation, AODS and FY&C for 

youth, and 71 cases for adults. 

This data matching method was implemented through the use of existing data available in 

existing data sets. The matches found were generally lower than expected, although there is no 

other available data by which to compare these results. Variations in the way names are logged 

in each data set provided initial challenges in identifying matches, which the workgroup worked 

through to acquire the final numbers presented here. For example, in the first test match, the 

use of middle initials became problematic as some clients do not give their middle initial, and 

staff may not consistently ask for middle names. This issue was resolved by removing the 

middle initial as a variable within the unique ID. There is also a potential for clients to give 

aliases or maiden/married names to staff in different agencies. This issue could not be resolved 

in this test match, and could account for some margin of error leading to the low match 

percentages. 

Data sharing plan outline 

Developing the Sonoma County Data Sharing Plan Outline involved the culmination of several 

activities undertaken by the Data Workgroup. The workgroup first created a logic model that 

depicts how specific data is intended to positively impact practice and policy (See Sonoma FRP 

Logic Model). The logic model also illustrates what data is collected at which points in time 

across the life of a case, beginning with initial screening and assessment, referral and 

engagement data, and finally outcomes data. The Sonoma County Data Sharing Plan Outline 

similarly details anticipated data elements into four major categories: 

• Cross-System Overview (See Sonoma County Summary Data) 

2

• Initial Screening and Assessment 

• Assessment, Referral and Engagement in Services 

• Outcomes 

The Data Workgroup collected and analyzed data from existing data sets across each of the 

four categories above to identify (a) what data elements are available; and (b) how available 

information will be shared across systems. Workgroup members also assessed data collection 

methods and databases utilized by Probation, FY&C and AODS. The Data Workgroup used the 

ISD and AODS data integration collaborative project as a model for cross-system aggregate 

data upload and analysis, and explored the ability to automate ad hoc reports using ISD. 

Cross-System Overview – The focus of data in this category is to establish the size and scope 

of families affected by substance use disorders involved in or at risk of involvement with FY&C 

and Probation. The Sonoma County Summary Data provides a quick reference for the size and 

scope of potential mutual clients across FY&C, AODS, and Juvenile and Adult Probation. 

Screening, Assessment, Referral and Engagement – The focus of data in this category is to 

provide meaningful, actionable practice prompts for Social Workers, Probation Officers and 

AODS staff and treatment providers. However, these kinds of prompts currently do not exist in 

screening instruments. The Data Workgroup outlined several limitations present in each data 

system to capture this category of data. One of the key strategies identified by the workgroup to 

resolve these limitations is to establish the ability to “flag” and track clients across systems, such 

as by using a unique County identifier. 

Outcomes – The focus of data in this category is to identify and share meaningful outcomes 

across systems. It is difficult to evaluate program effectiveness in the aggregate, which led the 

Data Workgroup to consider ways to leverage early identification of clients so as to better track 

their outcomes across systems. Sharing data upfront on mutual clients will lead to 

improvements in tracking, and hopefully improvements in outcomes. 

Coordination with Daily Practice Workgroup 

After conducting in-depth reviews of data systems and data elements within FY&C, Probation 

and AODS, the Data Workgroup coordinated with the Daily Practice Workgroup to examine (a) 

how proposed practice changes may require data changes; and (b) how the challenges and 

opportunities identified by the Data Workgroup correspond to challenges and opportunities 

identified by the Daily Practice Workgroup. The Data Workgroup reviewed the proposed 

practice changes identified by the Daily Practice Workgroup. The Data Workgroup then 

identified and summarized the technical, policy and procedural changes needed to implement 

the proposed practice changes. This detail is captured in the Sonoma SAFERR Protocol. For 

example, the Data Workgroup developed additional guidance and expectations for data already 

being collected and reported by social workers in CWS/CMS. 

The Data Workgroup also created the Sonoma Universal Referral Form (SURF) to accompany 

the Daily Practice pilot phase to test policy and practice innovations and measure their 

effectiveness. The SURF is intended to be developed as a web-based referral page where 

specific individuals in Probation and FY&C can have limited access to SWITS to create an 

electronic referral for AODS assessments and generate reports on treatment progress. This will 

allow for (a) enhanced data collection and analysis on referrals to AODS from Probation and 

FY&C, (b) quicker referrals of identified probation and child welfare clients and (c) facilitate case 

management communication. The timely referrals and better communication will lead to 

3

improved outcomes for families affected by methamphetamine and other substances. The webbased 

referral system will enhance each agency’s ability to track and document improved 

outcomes for families. An electronic referral system also will position the County to be able to 

add other referring agencies as regulations or reforms require in the future. 


The Data Workgroup identified three key recommendations for continued FRP work. 

1. SURF Web-based Implementation – Based on the results of the SURF pilot phase, the 

SURF is currently being developed as a web-based module addition to SWITS. As 

development ensues, representatives of the Data Workgroup will be responsible for 

facilitating the testing of the web-based module and identifying any final requirements 

that will enable the web-base function to be effectively utilized. This may involve 

representative(s) working with end users to ensure the module is "working" properly and 

is performing in a functional/logical manner. 

2. Outcomes Tracking – For those clients who have been referred to AODS by Probation or 

FY&C, the Data Workgroup recommends tracking the outcomes for those clients across 

each system. If clients are referred using SURF, key issues to address are: (a) whether 

and how the SURF process enhances timely access to treatment services; and (b) 

utilizing each system’s long-term outcomes frameworks for reporting purposes. Each 

agency tracks long-term client outcomes for a variety of purposes. However, the goal in 

this case is to assess the improved outcomes for clients referred via SURF in 

comparison to a similar group of clients within each system. While SURF can assist in 

identifying mutual clients within each system, extracting and reporting on aggregate and 

individual outcomes will still require a series of manual data runs within each agency. 

Each agency may be able to establish routine data queries that can facilitate extracting 

data on mutual clients. 

3. Share Cross-System Overview – The Sonoma County Summary Data establishes 

important baselines from which to measure progress across systems at the aggregate 

level. There are no existing reports in each agency where this data is extracted and 

presented. The Data Workgroup recommends that the Sonoma County Summary Data 

continue to be updated and shared across agencies on a Quarterly or Annual basis. 

While not one of the key recommendations, as mentioned previously, the Data Workgroup 

explored the ability to automate ad hoc reports using ISD. This might entail a transfer of raw 

data into a central database that could be managed by ISD. However, this would be a long-term 

planning effort that would require an extensive examination of each agency’s capability to 

transfer usable data into a database. 

4

Interagency Data Sharing: An Overview 

When a goal of interagency collaboration is to improve the flow of information about children, 

adolescents and families, several methods may be used to connect different data systems. This 

summary reviews those methods used to link data systems so that clients in the two systems 

can be referred and tracked through both systems. 

A webinar on this subject was presented May 16, 2008, titled “Successfully Linking 

Administrative Child Welfare, Substance Abuse Treatment, and Court Data.” The PowerPoint, 

handouts and playback from that webinar is available on the Children and Family Futures 

website at http://www.cffutures.org/presentations/webinars 

Before discussing the techniques of data sharing, it is important to recognize that these 

methods will not work unless the prerequisites to effective data sharing have been achieved. 

These include: 

Specify the rationale for data sharing 

• Clarify policy goals that describe how the data will be used when it is shared. Developing 

trust among members of an interagency team must precede new levels of data sharing. 

Questions to resolve include: 

o What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to get clients into the system? 

o What we do with the information if we had it? How would it impact case planning 

and services? 

o Who are we communicating the information to? And is it going both ways that 

would require consents? 

• Clarify of concerns about privacy and confidentiality. Often confidentiality is cited as a 

barrier when there is in fact the need to clarify the real or perceived barriers by 

articulating what data will be delivered to whom and for what purpose. Create a plan and 

identify up front who is responsible. 

• Clarify of scale and scope of data sharing: is the data shared to include a single pilot 

project, a set of programs, or the entire caseloads of the probation, child welfare and 

treatment agencies? Since the data reside on separate platforms, complete data sharing 

will be difficult, but partial or pilot-level data sharing leaves the overall data system 

unchanged and unable to answer questions about shared clients. 

o What’s the population – a portion of who we’re serving or the total 

• Workload impact – in the case progress from start to finish and not repeatedly trying to 

reconnect with other systems so that you have cooperation with other systems. Upfront 

workload impacts, mid-level might not impact, and improve outcomes. 

Generate joint values and principles statements related to data sharing 

• Professionals and caregivers at both the state and community level need to develop 

common knowledge and shared values about probation, child protection and AOD 

issues in order to assist children, youth and families with AOD problems to achieve 

positive outcomes. 

• Federal, State, and pertinent Tribal government confidentiality laws, HIPAA Privacy 

provisions and statutory requirements will guide and direct the client information sharing 

1

process between the probation, AOD and child welfare systems, the courts, and other 

related systems. 

• Information systems are needed that can be linked to share information and monitor 

family and treatment outcomes, and enable decision makers to manage resources and 

monitor performance. 

• Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) will be jointly prepared across systems to guide 

system collaboration and information sharing and communications protocols. 

• The reason why we do this is systems improvement and these children and families all 

participate in all these systems – these are all our kids 

• The data sharing helps when we have limited resources 

• We collect information and prepare reports for the purpose of measuring outcomes and 

reporting successes and challenges to: 

o Identify whether interventions are working or not working 

o Move away from anecdotal evidence to objective evidence 

o Provide outcome measures for all three systems 

o Describe the population being served 

o Make informed decisions for actions and data planning 

o Ensure cost-effectiveness of interventions 

o Document compliance with court orders to statutory regulations 

o Document how policy and practice changes lead to improved outcomes 

Inventory existing data systems 

• Identify existing sources of relevant data so that new data is not collected if existing 

sources can meet the need 

• Identify what data elements are available and select key elements to be examined. 

• Compile and analyze available local data on need, demand, and capacity for treatment 

• Generate baseline data on number of children, adolescents and parents in each system, 

referral sources, and program completion status (i.e. child welfare, treatment and 

probation services completed) 

• Clarify reporting capacity and flexibility of existing data systems 

o CAT and CWS/CMS ad hoc reporting functions – some of the substance abuse 

related factors are not part of a regular reporting function, so a new query/report 

be generated to respond to requests for information 

• Identify key data questions that are prompted by existing data 

Develop a Cross-System Data Dictionary 

• Provide a definition of data across the systems, including how each system defines the 

data they are collecting, utilizing and analyzing. Identify common data elements and 

proxies 

o Definitions of the data elements 

o Definition of services provided 

o Definitions of recidivism, intake date, episode, completion, placement episode, 

reunification, re-entry and recurrence 

2

• Provide a demonstration of the data systems (if possible) 

Develop a logic model 

• Develop a draft logic model that depicts how specific data is intended to impact practice 

and policy positively, as well as how the information will be shared across systems and 

for what purpose 

Plan for staff training implications 

• If a worker is asked to enter data about a client and is unsure what use will be made of 

that data, it is unlikely the worker will provide useful details. 

• Training of staff in how to elicit the information that is to be shared, including motivational 

interviewing, the use of informed consent, and time-savings methods of data entry 

• Data entry changes to enable ease of entry of the specific data elements; clarify actual 

time costs of collecting and entering the data so that excessive estimates do not bias the 

decision to share data 

Methods of Data Sharing 1 

• The use of a unique client identifier (a number derived from basic characteristics of an 

intake such as letters from a name and date of birth) so that each client will be identified 

in a standard format that can easily be recognized by the other agency 

• Adding data collection (“the missing box”) at entry to both systems, so that child welfare 

clients referred to and entering treatment are identified as they are referred out from 

child welfare and as they enroll in the treatment agency. One method of doing this in 

SACWIS is with special project codes that are allowed in the data system. 

• Conducting data matching across two systems’ separate data files, using probability 

matching techniques that identify matches by common elements in each record (such as 

names, addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, etc.) and estimate the probability that 

the files in separate systems are files for the same person 

• Hand counts 

• Use of the Data dictionary so that staff in one agency become familiar with items that 

they can request from a partner agency. 

Models of Data Sharing 

1. Florida has developed a data marching effort that can be reviewed at 

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/admin/childSafety/docs/030909/ProgressReportonIntegrationof 

ChildWelfareData.pdf 

2. Sacramento County uses a unique client identifier in both child welfare and treatment 

agencies at the county level, which is used to evaluate the Dependency Drug Court. 

1 Some of these methods are discussed in more detail in the webinar mentioned on page 1. 

3

3. California’s CalOMS data system codes child protective services and dependency drug 

court referrals as they enroll in treatment, which generates data on several thousand 

clients referred from CW to treatment. 

4. Arizona uses probability matching in evaluating its Families First program. Information is 

available at Evaluation: http://www.cabhp.asu.edu/projects /research/index.aspx 

5. Use of a one-time survey of treatment clients for matching with SACWIS files was 

carried out for an article by Christine Grella of UCLA’s ISAP and Barbara Needell of the 

CSSR. 

A summary of three different methods of data sharing, drawn from the webinar mentioned 

above, is included in the following table. 

Comparison of Data Sharing Methods 

Program Linking Method Advantages Disadvantages 

Arizona Families Probability All AFF clients have CPS Transposition of alphanumeric 

First 

Matching 

cases and person ID characters 

SSN is common element Not all AFF Participants have 

to all databases 

“valid” SSN or a Medicaid ID 

Cannot determine “data matching 

errors” or no services provided 

Sacramento Common Identifier Ability to match large Time commitment for start-up 

DDC 

numbers of families Excludes those in private 

Uses existing resources treatment 

Automated/sustainable Unable to determine which parent 

reunified 

Iowa RPG Matching 

Utilizes existing resources No unique identifiers across the 

algorithm 

Sustainable automated systems 

process 

Relying on other agencies to 

Three unified statewide provide data 

systems 

Large time commitment for startup 

Develop a data sharing plan 

• System Overview – Use aggregate data to establish the size and scope of each system. 

o Number of parents, adolescents and children in each system 

o Demographics 

• Initial Screening and Assessment – Use aggregate and client level data to establish the 

prevalence of mutual clients with similar needs across systems and begin the service 

referral process. 

o Establish ability to track clients 

o Screening and assessment results 

o Primary substances 

o Focus on meaningful actionable practice prompts 

� Not many places on the existing tools that serve as practice prompts 

4

• Assessment, Referral and Engagement in Services – Use aggregate and client level 

data to identify when a child, adolescent or parent accessed services and the type of 

services received by specific providers. 

o Treatment services – inpatient, outpatient 

o Child welfare – in-home, out-of-home, family maintenance, family reunification, 

drug testing 

o Probation – internal services, contracted services, drug testing 

o Focus on meaningful actionable practice prompts 

� Not many places on the existing tools that serve as practice prompts 

• Outcomes – aggregate and client level 

o Assess agencies’ capacity to share data to enhance client outcomes and track 

outcomes across multiple systems to include CMS/CWS, CalOMS and other 

relevant databases and will facilitate the development of data-sharing 

agreements and protocols among project partners 

o Compare the CMS/CWS list against the ADS database(CalOMS) to generate 

data regarding the percentage of parents who enter treatment, the type and 

length of treatment and other parameters which in turn would be analyzed with 

respect to their impact on length of stay in placement, reunification and 

recidivism. 

o Cross-system outcomes (SIP versus CalOMS versus Arrest data) 

5

Adults 

and 

Parents 

Children 

and 

Youth 

2008 FY&CS Data 

and DDC Data 


service objective related to 

alcohol or drugs 


planned service related to 

alcohol or drugs (e.g. 

treatment, drug testing, or 

self-help groups) 

• Structured Decision 

Making estimates of 

primary and secondary 

caregiver substance use 

• 14 parents in Dependency 

Drug Court (receiving 

coordinated FY&CS and 

AODS treatment services) 

• 566 substantiated child 

abuse/ neglect cases 

opened 

• 174 children entered outof-home 

care 

• 701 children experienced 

out-of-home care 

• 28 substance exposed 

newborns referred 

o 8 substantiated child 

abuse or neglect 

o 5 removals 

Sonoma County Summary Data 

CY 2009 AODS Data 

and Department of Health Services 

• 5,723 Treatment Admissions 

o 71.1% Male (4,068) 

o 28.9% Female (1,655) 

• 59 Report being Pregnant at admission (1.03%) 

o 20 report “unsure” of being pregnant at 

admission 

• 1,986 adults report having at least one minor 

child when they entered a substance abuse 

treatment program (34.7%) 

o 56.8% Fathers (1,128) 

o 43.2% Mothers (858) 

o 55.9% report having at least one child living with 

someone else because of child protection court 

order (1,111) 

o 11.3% have at least one child living with 

someone else and parental rights terminated 

(225) 

• 42 women met with Perinatal Placement Specialist 

• 20 women participated in Drug Free Babies program 

o 10 women reported to be on parole or probation 

• 320 women with open Public Health Field Nursing 

cases (point in time Aug 2009) 

o 40% impacted by active substance use that impairs 

ability to care for family, primarily methamphetamine 

and marijuana (129) 

• 3,657 children associated with a parent in treatment 

o 31.6% are under 5 years old (1,155) 

• 2,002 children living with someone else because of 

child protection court order 

o 17.7% children living with someone else and 

parental rights terminated (354) 

• Higher average number of children associated with 

case management admissions (primarily criminal 

justice involved) 

o 0.64 children associated with each treatment 

admission versus 0.98 children associated with 

each case management admission 

2009 Probation Data 

Adult current caseloads / Juvenile Jan-Jul 09 

• 3123 adults on formal probation at any point in time 

• 3432 adult Static Risk Assessments completed 

o 79.3% Male (2,722) 

o 20.7% Female (710) 

o 1,359 Offender Needs Guide Family Domain 

participant responses 

o 1,360 Offender Needs Guide Alcohol and Drug 

Domain participant responses 

• 567 adults reported having at least one minor child 

(41.7%) 

o 296 adults reported living with their minor child at the 

time of the offense 

o 235 adults reported residing with one or more minor 

children at the time of assessment 

o 314 adults reported not residing with any minor 

children at the time of assessment, but plan to 

establish or continue a relationship 

o 38 adults reported past agency involvement for minor 

child safety 

o 46 adults reported current agency involvement for 

minor child safety 

o 23 adults reported parental rights terminated 

• 231 adults reported an alcohol problem within the last 6 

months in the community 

• 342 adults reported a drug problem within the last 6 


• 1450 Juveniles received PACT pre-screen 

o 72.8%reported past drug use (1055) 

o 27.2%reported no past drug use (395) 

o 52.7% reported current drug use (764) 

o 47.3%reported no current drug use (686) 

• 518 Juveniles diverted 

• 369 Juveniles received PACT full assessment 

o 90.8% reported past drug use (335) 

o 9.2% reported no past drug use (34) 

o 74.5% reported current drug or alcohol use (275) 

� 11.3% reported no current drug use (31) 

� 88.7% reported current drug use (244) 

� 87.3% reported current marijuana use (240)

Sonoma County Summary Data 

CY 2009 AODS updated data considerations: 

1. The Perinatal line and DFB line was estimated by Cathleen Wolford. We used the total number of admissions to DFB in 2009 to get the number of clients 

that met with the Perinatal Placement Specialist and then we looked at the total number of referrals that were placed/accepted into treatment in order to list 

which clients were participating in the Drug Free Babies program - When time allows, Cathleen Wolford would like to review client records in order to more 

accurately report the data. 

2. This is client reported info. 

3. The children information is based upon admissions, so there could be multiple records for a client where they report having children. 

4. Treatment data includes Detox, NTP and in custody (Starting Point) information.

Inputs Outputs Outcomes 

Initial Screening and Assessment Assessment, Referral and Engagement in Services 

Family Enters 

Probation 

Family Enters AOD 

Treatment 

Family Enters CW 

System 

Family 

Involved in 

Multiple 

Systems 

ADULT SERVICES 

Assessment of Service 

Needs 

Probation Services 

Coordinated Case 

Management 

Wrap Around 

Around 

In‐Home Services 

Substance Abuse 

Treatment 

Family‐Centered 

Treatment 

Parents Connected to 

Support Services 

Judicial Oversight 

COMMUNITY SERVICES 

Parent Supportive 

Services: 

• Primary Medical Care 

• Dental Care 

• Mental Health Services 

• Child Care 

• Transportation 

• Housing 

• Parenting Training/Child 

Development Education 

• Domestic Violence 

SHORT TERM 

Child/Adolescent 

• Children Remain at 

Home 

• Occurrence of 

Maltreatment 

• Length of Stay in 

Foster Care 

• Prevention of 

Substance‐Exposed 

Newborns 

• Child Well‐Being 

• New Arrests 

• Probation Violation 

• Retention in Substance 

Abuse Treatment 


Court 

Dependency 

Drug 

Court 

CHILD/ADOLESCENT 

SERVICES 

Assessment of of Service 

Service 

Needs 

Probation Services 

Coordinated Case 

Management 

Wrap Around 

In‐Home Services 


Abuse 

Treatment 

• Employment Training 

• Continuing 

Care/Recovery Support 

• Alternative Therapies 



/ 

Supportive Services: 

• Developmental Services 

• Mental Health Services 

• Primary Pediatric Care 

• Substance Abuse 

Prevention and 

Treatment 

• Educational Services 

Parent 



• Substance Use 

• Employment 

• Criminal Behavior 

• Mental Health Status 

• Parenting 



SYSTEMS CHANGES 

Family‐Centered 

Organizational and Other 

Treatment 

Strategies 

Children Connected to 

Training 


Training/Education for Foster 

Support Services 

Care Parents 

Partnership Meetings 

Regular Program/ 

Administrative Meetings 

SYSTEMS COLLABORATION 

Formal Cross‐Systems Policies and Procedures 

Information Sharing and Data Analysis 

Increased Service Capacity 

Case Closure and Ongoing Supports 

LONG TERM 



Foster Care 

• Re‐entries to Foster 

Care 

• Timeliness of 

Reunification 


Permanency 


Parent 






1

Inputs Outputs Outcomes 

Initial Screening and Assessment Assessment, Referral, Engagement in Services 

Probation 

• Demographics 

• Substances 

• Number of children 

• FY&C case 

• AOD Treatment 

AOD Treatment 


• Number of children Family 

• Primary Substance Involved in 

• FY&C open case 

Multiple 

• Probation 

Systems 

FY&C 


• Disposition 

• Substances 

• Probation 

• AOD Treatment 


Court 

Dependency 

Drug 

Court 

• Common 

Unique 

Identifier 

ADULT SERVICES 

• Assessment of Service Needs 

• Probation Services 

• Coordinated Case Management 

• Wrap Around 

• In‐Home Services 

• Substance Abuse Treatment 

• Family‐Centered Treatment 

• Parents Connected to Support Services 

• Judicial Oversight 

CHILD/ADOLESCENT SERVICES 

• Assessment of Service Needs 

• Probation Services 

• Coordinated Case Management 

• Wrap Around 

• In‐Home Services 

• Substance Abuse Treatment 

• Family‐Centered Treatment 

• Children Connected to Support Services 

Case Closure and Ongoing Supports 

SHORT TERM 


• Children Remain at 

Home 

• Occurrence of 

Maltreatment 


Foster Care 

• Prevention of 

Substance‐Exposed 

Newborns 

• Child Well‐Being 





Parent 







• Parenting 



LONG TERM 



Foster Care 

• Re‐entries to Foster 

Care 


Reunification 


Permanency 


Parent 






2

Sonoma County Data Sharing Plan 

Outline 

Cross-System Overview – Use aggregate data to establish the size and scope of each 

system. 

• Number of parents, adolescents and children in each system – potential mutual clients 

• Demographics and overview of needs 

AODS 

SWITS 

• Case Management 

Admissions 

• ASAMs 


Referral Source 

• Treatment Admissions 

• ASI Lites or ADADs 

• Gender 

• Pregnant at admission 

• Pregnant at any time 

during treatment 

• Source of referral 

• Criminal justice status 

• Medi-Cal beneficiary 

• CalWorks recipient 



aged 5 and younger 


living with someone else 


living with someone else 

and parental rights 

terminated 

FY&C 

CWS/CMS 

• Number of reports 

• Number of reports that 

led to investigation 

• Substantiated 

abuse/neglect cases 

opened 

• New entries into out-ofhome-care 

o Age of children entering 

OOHC 

• Number of children that 

experienced OOHC 

o Age of children 

experiencing OOHC 


under CPS supervision 

o Court Ordered 

o Voluntary 

• SEIs referred 

• SEIs with substantiated 

cases 

• SEI entries to OOHC 

• Type of Maltreatment 

• Number of petitions 

• Number of cases with 

AOD in the petition 

• Number of parents 

enrolled in DDC 

• AOD-related Case plan 

service objective – 

parent service 


planned service – 


System Overview 


J�� 

• Total number of 

juveniles in probation 

• Gender 

• Age 

• Number of 300 

(dependency cases) or 

600 (wards of the court) 

case 

• Number of juveniles 

who get pre-screen 


diverted 


who get a full 

assessment 


who go through 

adjudication 


who get diversion for 

treatment 

• Number of juveniles with 

a history of alcohol or 

drug use 


PACM�� 

• Felony drug/alcohol 

arrests 

• Misdemeanor 

drug/alcohol arrests 

• Gender 

• Age 

• Number of adults who 

received STRONG 

• Number of adults with 

alcohol and/or drug 

problems 

• Type of alcohol and/or 

drug problems during 

lifetime 

• Number of adults who 

participated in 

alcohol/drug treatment 

program during the 

offender’s lifetime 

• Number of adults that 

reported any minor 

children at the time of 

assessment/ 

reassessment 

• Number of minor 

children at time of 

assessment/ 

reassessment 

1

Initial Screening and Assessment – Use aggregate and client level data to establish the 

prevalence of mutual clients with similar needs across systems and begin the service referral 

process 

• Establish ability to track clients across multiple systems 

• Screening and assessment results 

• Primary substances 

• Focus on meaningful actionable practice prompts 

o Not many places on the existing tools that serve as practice prompts 

Initial Screening and Assessment 

AODS FY&C Juvenile Probation Adult Probation 

• Unique adult identifier 

• First and last name 

• Aliases 

• Date of Birth 

• Race 

• Ethnicity 

• Gender 

• Pregnant at admission 

• Pregnant at any time during tx 

• Source of referral 

• Prior treatment episodes 

• Criminal justice status 

• Medi-Cal beneficiary 

• Medical problems 

• Medication prescribed 

• Mental illness 

• Mental health medication 

• CalWorks recipient 

• Disability 

• Social support 

• Current living arrangements 

• Living with someone 

• Employment status 

• Work in past 30 days 

• Enrolled in school or job training 

• Highest school grade completed 

• Number of arrests in past 30 

days at intake/admission 

• Adult prior perpetrator 

• Presenting needs 

• Adult relationship to child 


• Number of children aged 5 and 

younger 

• Number of children living with 

someone else 

• Number of children living with 

someone else and parental rights 

terminated 

CWS/CMS 

• Unique child identifier 

• First and last name 

• Date of birth 

• Gender 

• Race 

• Ethnicity 

• Child Prior Abuse 

Victim 

• Methamphetamine 

• Prior perpetrator 

• Legal authority 

• First type of 

maltreatment 

• Second type of 

maltreatment 

• Third type of 

maltreatment 

• Fourth type of 

maltreatment 

CAT 

• Vulnerable 

populations – 

substance abuse 

• Difficulty accessing 

services 

• Member of 

household exhibit 

signs of substance 

abuse 

KJS 

• Gender 

• Age 

• History of citations or 

petitions 

• Related Adults 

• Dependent 

• Investigations PO 

Assigned 


Assigned 

PACT 

• History of minor’s 

alcohol use 

• History of minor’s 

drug use 

• History of referrals 

for drug/alcohol 

assessment 

• History of attending 

drug/alcohol 

education classes for 

an alcohol or drug 

problem 

• History of 

participating in 

drug/alcohol 


• Minor is currently 

using alcohol or 

drugs 

• Minor’s alcohol use 

• Minor’s drug use 

• Types of drugs 

currently used 

• Current drug/alcohol 


participation 

CJS 

• Felony drug/alcohol 

arrests 

• Misdemeanor drug/alcohol 

arrests 

• Gender 

• Age 


• Investigations PO 

• DA Numbers 

• PD Numbers 

STRONG 

• Alcohol and/or drug 

problems 

• Type of alcohol and/or 

drug problems during 

lifetime 

• Impacts of alcohol/drug 

problem during lifetime 

• Methods of supporting 

alcohol and/or drug use 

during most recent 6 


• Participation in 

alcohol/drug treatment 

program during the 

offender’s lifetime 

• Protective factors 

contributing to having 

remained clean and sober 

for 6 months or longer in 

the community at any time 

• Number of minor children 

at time of assessment/ 

reassessment 

• Primary care for minor 

children 

• Offender living with his/her 

minor children when 

committing current 

offense(s) 

• If not residing with minor 

2

Initial Screening and Assessment 


• Unique DDC identifier 

children at time of 

• Primary, secondary and tertiary 

drug 

• Alcohol frequency of use 

assessment/ 

reassessment, does the 

offender plan to establish 

or continue a relationship 

with his/her minor children 

• Circumstances of minor 

child(ren) at time of 

assessment/ 

reassessment 

Data for initial screening and assessment – need to flag clients that are involved with multiple 

systems 

• AODS – can’t change referral source 

• FY&C – don’t have a place in the database to show if the parent is actively AOD 

involved or involved in probation services, nor is there a place to document progress in 

those services. 

• PACT – if it’s a 300 (dependency cases) or 600 (wards of the court) case, there’s a 

place to note – also have “alerts” to the probation officer if a court action is initiated 

• When the child, youth or family comes in the door, we need to ask questions about 

SUDs so that we can coordinate the services 

• If we made up a special list of service providers – if they use a 737 or trying to access 

Medical, then they won’t get the same referral – if we’re using CW $ for the tx, then the 

social worker has to get an authorization to use funds 

• Using identifiers to track these clients – for analysis 

• FY&C get a data run from TANF – every week FY&C match with TANF to do a 

coordinated case plan 

• If it can’t be built in the AOD system, then what can be built into the Probation and FY&C 

system 

• If Probation and FY&C do the referrals to treatment and we have the consents signed 

o Are the consents signed 

o If they’re signed, then the communication system needs to be in place 

• If the child welfare worker makes a referral, then the referral should come through the 

SWITS Case management system so that there is an electronic note that the releases 

have been signed 

3

Assessment, Referral and Engagement in Services – Use aggregate and client level data to 

identify when a child, adolescent or parent accessed services and the type of services received 

by specific providers. 

• Treatment services – inpatient, outpatient 

• Child welfare – in-home, out-of-home, family maintenance, family reunification, drug 

testing 

• Probation – internal services, contracted services, drug testing 

• Focus on meaningful actionable practice prompts 

o Not many places on the existing tools that serve as practice prompts 

Assessment, Referral and Engagement 


• CalOMS ID 

• Date of treatment 

admission 

• Provider ID 

• Type of service 

CWS/CMS 


service objective – 



planned service – 


• Adult DDC start date 

• Intervention reason 

• Referral received date 

• Child welfare case start 

date 

• Removal date 

• Placement 

• Placement date 

CAT 

• Other considerations 

regarding placement 

• Parent/Guardian 

compliance with 

progress toward case 

plan 

• Member of household 

exhibit signs of 


• Higher level of care 

• Child exhibit signs of 


KJS 

• School 

• Program 

• Custody Status 

• Latest Event 

• All Cases Court 

Register Items 

• Schedule of events 

JRS 

• Ordered for drug testing 

• Receiving substance 

abuse treatment 

services 

CJS 

• Custody status 

• Next court appearance 

PACM�� 

• Ordered for drug testing 

• Receiving substance 

abuse treatment 

services 

4

Outcomes – aggregate and client level 

• Assess agencies’ capacity to share data to enhance client outcomes and track outcomes 

across multiple systems to include CMS/CWS, CalOMS and other relevant databases 

and will facilitate the development of data-sharing agreements and protocols among 

project partners 

• Compare the CMS/CWS list against the ADS database (CalOMS) to generate data 

regarding the percentage of parents who enter treatment, the type and length of 

treatment and other parameters which in turn would be analyzed with respect to their 

impact on length of stay in placement, reunification and recidivism. 

• Cross-system outcomes (SIP versus CalOMS versus Arrest data) 

• Focus on meaningful outcomes. Difficult to evaluate program effectiveness in the 

aggregate (can ask social workers on individual cases) 

Child and Adolescent Outcomes 


• Date of treatment discharge • Referral closure date • Completed 

• 

• Length of Stay 

• Child welfare case end Requirements 


date 

• Completed treatment 

• Number of arrests in past 30 • Reunification date • New Arrests 

days at treatment discharge • Date of discharge from • Probation Violations 

• Number of days in jail in last 30 foster care 

days 

• Number of days in prison last 30 

days 

• Primary substance at discharge 

• Employment status at discharge 

• Education at discharge 

• Discharge reason 

AODS 

Parent Outcomes 

FY&C Juvenile Probation Adult Probation 

• Date of treatment discharge • • • Completed 

• Length of Stay 

Requirements 


• Number of arrests in past 30 

days at treatment discharge 

• Completed 

treatment 


• Number of days in jail in last 30 

days 

• Number of days in prison last 30 

days 

• Primary substance at discharge 

• Employment status at discharge 

• Education at discharge 

• Probation 

Violations 

5

Purpose 

Data and Information 

Systems Workgroup 

January 20, 2010 

� Inventory existing data sets 

� Id Identify tif what h t data d t elements l t are available il bl 

� Compile and analyze available local data 

Members 

� Health Services (AOD) 

� David Sheaves* 

� John Wise 

� Human Services (Family, Youth & Children) 

� Katie Greaves* 

� Vaughan Whalen 

� Probation (Juvenile) 

� Brian Willits 

�� Leo Tacata 

� Steering Committee 

� Cora Guy 

*co-chairs 

Final Product (working toward…) 

� Summary of changes needed 

� TTechnical h i l 

� Policy 

� Procedural 

� Draft logic model 

� Data development plan 

� Data collection protocols 

� Data sharing agreements 

1/15/2011 

1

Project Update 

� Logic Model draft (handout) 

�� Data Dictionary 

� Sonoma Web Infrastructure for Information 

Services (SWITS) 

� Treatment episode data 

� Child Welfare System/ Case Management 

System (CWS/CMS) 

� Static Risk Assessment/ Offender Needs 

Guide (STR/ONG) 

� Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) 


� Clients Across Systems 

� MMatched t h d YFS and d Probation P b ti Data D t against i t 

AOD (SWITS) 

� “Client Match” Proxy 

� Initials + DOB 

� Client confidentiality 

�� Period of 07/01/2008 – 12/15/2009 


FYC 

AOD 


� Youth 

�� FYC-AOD 

� 907 cases 

� 3 matched 

� =0.33% 

� Probation-AOD 

� 3,019 cases 

� 435 matched 

� =14.4% 

� Probation-AOD-FYC 

� 3 cases 

PROBATION 

clients in 

common 

� Adults 

�� FYC- AOD 

� 907 cases 

� 146 matched 

� =16.1% 

� Probation-AOD 

� ? cases 

� ? Matched 

� =?% 

� Probation-FYC-AOD 

� 71 cases 

1/15/2011 

2


� ISD 

� EExploring l i the th ability bilit to t automate t t ad d hhoc 

reports (AOD/ Prob) 

Data Sharing Plan Highlights 

� Initial Screening and Assessment 

� Li Limits it tto each h data d t system t 

� Establish ability to flag/ track clients across 

systems (unique County identifier) 

� Screening and assessment results 

� Primary substances 

� FFocus on meaningful i f l actionable ti bl practice ti 

prompts 

� (doesn’t exist in current screening instruments) 


� Cross System Overview 

� AAggregate t data d t 

� Establish the size and scope of each system 

� Demographics 


� Outcomes 

� Sh Share ddata= t bbetter tt tracking t ki 

� Sharing data= enhancing outcomes? 

� Meaningful outcomes 

� Can’t evaluate program effectiveness in the 

aggregate 

1/15/2011 

3

Next Steps 

� Cross-systems analysis 

� CCan we get t “ “real” l” numbers? b ? 

� Develop recommendations 

� Unique county identifier 

� Meaningful outcomes 

� Automated reports 

�� Explore limitations 

� Cross-workgroup 

� Can the County work toward a common case 

management system? 

1/15/2011 

4


Cross-system Training Workgroup 

Summary and Final Recommendations 

The Sonoma County Family Recovery Project (FRP), an initiative of the Methamphetamine Prevention 

Task Force, is a systems integration strategic planning process that will help the County better serve 

families with substance use disorders who are involved with child welfare and probation. The FRP 

involves the County of Sonoma Department of Health Services, Human Services Department, and 

Probation Department. The goals of the project are: 

• Improved coordination and systems integration among FY&C, AODS and Probation to provide 

treatment and supportive services to drug-involved families. 

• Effective use of available resources and funding streams in developing prioritized programs for 

drug-involved families within the FY&C, AODS and Probation systems. 

• Increased understanding of strategies to address systemic barriers to improve coordination and 

comprehensiveness of family-centered treatment for drug-involved families. 

There are four areas identified as priorities for this project: (1) Daily practice; (2) Data and information 

systems; (3) Cross-training; and (4) Funding, capacity and sustainability. Workgroups are engaged in 

each of these priority areas to achieve the goals of the FRP. This document summarizes the findings and 

final recommendations of the FRP Cross-System Training Workgroup. 

The goal of the Training Workgroup is to develop a shared plan between Sonoma County partners for 

cross-system training that will benefit all stakeholders by enabling them to capitalize on the collective 

training resources of multiple systems. To meet this goal, the Training Workgroup: 

• Assessed the availability of basic training for AODS, FY&C and Probation on substance use 

disorders, child abuse/neglect and probation, as well as advanced training on working with 

families (see pages 6-8) 

• Assessed the need for training within each agency on key issues in substance abuse treatment, 

child welfare and probation services, including cross-system coordination (see page 9) 

• Identified training options that leverage existing training resources to enhance staff understanding 

of substance use disorders, increase staff ability to engage families in services, and provide 

venues for ongoing cross-system communication (see pages 10-14) 

The assessment and identification of training opportunities led the Training Workgroup to prioritize two 

key training opportunities (see pages 10-12): (1) Expand AODS 101, and (2) Family Recovery Project 

Summit. Following is a detailed description of each opportunity, including benefits, challenges and 

solutions. 

Expand AODS 101 

Goal: to provide an overview of substance abuse, addiction, and the process of treatment and recovery. 

This training will meet the identified need for training on substance abuse, treatment and recovery. The 

Training workgroup determined that there is a need for basic training on substance abuse, addiction, and 

the process of treatment and recovery, including how individual develop substance use disorders, 

available treatment options, how individuals progress through treatment, the impact of substance abuse 

on children and other family members, and what support is provided when treatment ends. 

1

Timeline: May 2011. The May 2011 timeline allows for additional time to plan and implement this 

training. This timeline is particularly important as it immediately follows Probation Officer Core Training 

that is scheduled to occur during March/April 2011. After March 9, brand new Probation Officers will not 

be available until their return from core for additional training. 

Description: The Training Workgroup recommends expanding the Sonoma County Annual AODS 101 to 

regularly include Probation and FY&C. This training would be required for all new Probation and FY&C 

staff, and optional for all existing staff. The training is oriented to an audience who is working with the 

county, is familiar with the population and wants to know more about how substance abuse impacts 

clients. The content could potentially be customized to address the particular needs of the population that 

FY&C and/or Probation may encounter. 

The current training is offered as 3 hours every Friday for 4 consecutive weeks: 

• Week 1 – brain disease and research into how this affects treatment approaches 

• Week 2 – Treatment assessment and diagnosis, drug identification, customized to 

methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol 

• Week 3 – Systemic impacts on family, work, community, and social costs (family focus) 

• Week 4 – Cultural and diversity issues, customized to Sonoma (e.g. adolescents, Latinos and 

gender OR in our case could be perinatal, gangs and any other key target group within FY&C 

and/or Probation) 

Barriers: The primary barriers to expanding AODS 101 to include FY&C and Probation are staff time, 

workload and scheduling. 

Staff Time and Workload: New FY&C Social Workers must attend Core Training in the first 2 years (12 

days in year 1), and they are somewhat overwhelmed with training at the beginning. Probation Officers 

are also required to attend a variety of mandated training sessions, in addition to the new Core Training. 

Any new trainings become a workload and time issue for Probation Officers, including the time and 

expense of sending staff to training when they are already going to be getting so much Core Training. 

Scheduling: FY&C social workers and most Probation Officers operate on 40/10 work week. For those 

who do a 40/10 work week they often take either Monday or Friday off, which means FY&C does not 

schedule trainings on Monday or Friday. Probation tries to avoid these days, however can ask staff to flex 

schedules if necessary. Also, the AODS training room also seats a maximum of 35 people. Thus, it is 

important to determine in advance how many Social Workers and Probation Officers will attend AODS 

101. 

Solutions: To resolve the potential staff time, workload and scheduling barriers, the Training Workgroup 

identified a variety of strategies. 

Staff Time and Workload: While there may be workload issues, FY&C Social Workers are still required to 

attend 20 hours of training per year. This training would fulfill 12 of the 20 hours of required FY&C 

training. In addition, the fact that AODS 101 provides MFT/LCSW CEUs is an added benefit for FY&C 

Social Workers. Probation creates a training guide/plan each fiscal year and could mandate this training 

for new Probation Officers as part of the training plan. To do this, Probation would need to get the AODS 

101 training certified by the Standards and Training for Corrections (STC) to allow officers to receive 

required training credit for attending. To minimize staff time and workload issues, this training would only 

be required for new Social Workers and Probation Officers (i.e. “new” within the last year), and optional 

for anyone else. 

Scheduling: To resolve the scheduling issues, the training is intended be delivered as twice a week for 

two weeks (as opposed to once a week for 4 consecutive weeks). The training can be conducted on 

Tuesday and Thursday for those two weeks. Assuming that the training is required for new Social 

2

Workers and Probation Officers, and optional for others, the estimated attendance is approximately 10-12 

new Probation Officers and 15 new Social Workers each year. Thus the AODS training room capacity of 

35 should be sufficient to conduct the training. 

Planning: To implement the expansion of AODS 101, the Training Workgroup will need to coordinate the 

registration, tracking and evaluation of this training for those who attend. Each agency has its own posttraining 

evaluation requirements. For example, AODS must collect evaluations to offer CEUs, and both 

Probation and FY&C have their own evaluation forms. The STC also posts evaluation scores of trainings 

that have been certified (and this training would be certified). These evaluation forms and processes 

would need to be coordinated to ensure each agency’s needs are met. In addition, sign-in roster forms 

and processes would need to be coordinated. For example, STC (Probation) has its own roster that 

Probation Officers must use to sign in. AODS may be able to use the STC form to simplify the process. 

The final sign-in sheets and evaluation results will be submitted to the FRP Steering Committee to justify 

continued training, assess success of the AODS 101 expansion and make any adjustments to the next 

year’s content. 

Family Recovery Project Summit 

Goals: (1) learn how the each other’s agencies work, including parameters, restrictions and how cases 

move through their respective systems, and (2) disseminate information on new policies and practices 

that result from the final FRP Steering Committee recommendations. 

This training will meet the identified need for training on FY&C, Probation and AODS processes and 

protocols, as well as how individuals within each agency are expected to communicate and share 

information. The Training Workgroup determined that there is a need for training on child abuse and 

neglect, probation processes, the Sonoma County AODS assessment and referral process, and the 

Dependency Drug Court population and requirements. The FRP Summit would meet those specific 

content needs, as well allow for a venue for cross-system communication, debriefing on the success of 

new practices and policies implemented as a result of the FRP SAFERR Practice Protocol. 

Timeline: July 2011. The July 2011 timeline allows 5-6 months to plan and develop the content for the 

FRP Summit. The planning timeframe includes incorporating lessons learned from implementing the 

AODS 101 expansion, incorporating final practice changes recommended by the FRP Steering 

Committee, and all necessary logistics and coordination of invitees. 

Description: The Training Workgroup recommends developing a 3-4 hour joint training opportunity for 

FY&C, Probation and AODS. The FRP Summit is intended as an all staff meeting for FY&C, AODS and 

Probation, including AODS and FY&C contracted providers within Sonoma County (e.g. WRS and 

DAAC). Training workgroup members would coordinate the development of curricula for the FRP Summit 

collaboratively with their respective departments. The FRP Summit could be conducted every 18 months 

to account for new staff and turn over. The content of the FRP Summit is intended to include: 

• Child abuse and neglect – Basic training on child abuse and neglect issues, including when and 

how to report child abuse/neglect. This training will also include a summary of the FY&C process 

and services provided, including the roles and responsibilities of social workers at different points 

in the case, how cases progress, and how a case is closed. It is anticipated that Peter Barrett 

would be responsible for coordinating the development and presentation of this content. 

• Probation – Basic training on the Probation Department, how adults and youth are recommended 

for Probation, different levels of supervision, the role and responsibilities of Probation Officers at 

different points in the case, how individuals progress, services provided by the Probation 

Department and how probationers meet requirements. It is anticipated that Sarah Debaeke would 

be responsible for coordinating the development and presentation of this content. 

• Sonoma County AODS assessment and referral process – The role of AODS, treatment 

providers, Probation Officers and Social Workers in engaging parents and youth in treatment 

3

services. This is intended to be a concrete instructional training on how to refer clients for 

substance abuse assessment and identification of appropriate treatment services, including when 

to make a referral and who to call based on client age, criminal justice status, placement, etc. It is 

anticipated that Claudia Zbinden would be responsible for coordinating the development and 

presentation of this content. 

• Dependency Drug Court – An overview of the DDC, eligibility requirements, services provided 

and expectations of parents. It is anticipated that Sharon Youney would requested to present this 

content and discuss the DDC program and procedures. 

• SAFERR Practice Protocol – An overview of any new practices and policies that will or have been 

implemented as a result of the FRP, such as the Sonoma Universal Referral Form (SURF) and 

centralizing substance abuse treatment screening and assessment referrals through AODS. The 

Training Workgroup will need direction from the FRP Steering Committee on what components of 

the SAFERR Practice Protocol will be implemented and how to present this content during the 

FRP Summit. 

• Cross-system Communication – An overview of how staff members in each agency are expected 

to interface with one another, including what information should be shared when. The Training 

Workgroup will need direction from the FRP Steering Committee on what communication 

components of the SAFERR Practice Protocol will be implemented and how to present this 

content during the FRP Summit. 

Barriers and Solutions: The FPR Summit poses the same staff time, workload and scheduling issues as 

the AODS 101 Expansion. To resolve these issues, the Training Workgroup will coordinate with the FRP 

Steering Committee to identify appropriate key staff to attend the Summit so as to avoid overrepresentation 

and excessive staff time. One option to designate key staff to attend could involve 

coordinating the Summit date to co-locate FY&C and Probation Supervisors meetings. 

Planning: Much of the planning for the FPR Summit is dependent upon the final recommendations of the 

FRP Steering Committee. The general content on FY&C, Probation, AODS and the DDC would be 

relatively easy to compile and present. If this training is largely based on new policies and practices to be 

implemented, then it will take 30-60 days to develop curricula for this new content. The Training 

Workgroup could also send out a survey in advance to connect directly with staff and identify additional 

new content. For example, the survey may ask people to describe their biggest barriers (e.g. in getting 

people access to treatment services). This would allow FY&C, Probation and AODS to respond during the 

summit. 

To support the event planning, FY&C could reach out to the Bay Area Training Academy (BAA). FY&C 

consults with BAA on a capacity building contract to develop infrastructure. BAA helps Sonoma with an all 

staff day that includes a guest speaker, etc. to, for example, launch a new program. BAA could help find a 

speaker and coordinate the event if needed. 

4

Timeline 

Activity 

FRP Steering Committee approves Training Workgroup 

recommendations 

FRP provides report to Sonoma County BOS 

Training Workgroup finalizes AODS 101 expansion 

planning (e.g. evals and STC cert) 

Training Workgroup implements AODS 101 expansion 

plans 

Training Workgroup begins planning FRP Summit (i.e. 

select key audience and content) 

Training Workgroup reviews final FPR Practice Protocol 

to develop Summit content 

Training Workgroup evaluates effectiveness of AODS 

101 expansion 

Training Workgroup submits evaluation report to 

Steering Committee to justify continuation 

Training Workgroup incorporates AODS 101 expansion 

lessons into FRP Summit planning 

Training Workgroup finalizes FRP Summit agenda, 

speakers and presentation content 

Training Workgroup coordinates to invite appropriates 

attendees 

Training Workgroup implements FPR Summit 

Training Workgroup evaluates success of FRP Summit 

Training Workgroup submits evaluation report to 

Steering Committee to justify continuation 

2011 Timeline 

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 

5

Family Recovery Project Cross-system Training Matrix 

Probation: Probation Officers are required to complete 40 hours of training each year/ 

Juvenile Correctional Counselors are required to complete 24 hours of training each year 

AODS: Staff and counselors are required to complete 40 hours of training every two years 

FY&C: Social workers are required to complete 40 hours of training every two years 

The following table details existing training opportunities within Probation, AODS and FY&C that meet the three training priorities. This 

table will be updated as new training opportunities are identified and/or created. 

Training 

Workgroup 

Training Objective 

or Priority 

Basic training for 

AODS, FY&C and 

Probation on 

AOD, child 

abuse/neglect 

and probation 

(these represent 

potential overlap of 

more theory based 

information for 

employees within 

the specific 

agency related to 

their job function) 

Existing Training 

Tools, 

Resource(s), 

Content 

Drug Education/ 

Addiction 

Health Services and 

Suicide Prevention 

Motivational 

Interviewing 

Probation Core 

Training (may 

include mandated 

reporter training) 

Lead Training 

Organization or 

System 

Dept. Staff 

Standards and 

Training for 

Corrections (STC) 

certified 

Dept. Organized 

Instructor: AODS 

and public health 

Instructor: 

Assessments.com/ 

outside providers 

Dept. Staff 

Standardized 

statewide training 

Target 

Audience 

Probation 

Officers 

Juvenile Hall 

staff 

Dates 

Offered 

Training 

Venue 

Continuing 

Education 

Credits 

(indicate MFT, 

LCSW, JD, 

RN) 

As Needed TBD STC Certified 

(PO’s req. to 

get 40 STC 

hours/annual) 

(JCC’s req to 

get 24 STC 

hours/annual) 

Yearly TBD STC Certified- 

4 hours 

All sworn staff Yearly TBD 7-14 STC 

certified hours 

Required for 

new staff 

Must be 

completed 

w/in 1 st 

year 

of hire 

TBD 

(mostly 

out of 

county) 

Special Considerations 

(size, funding 

restrictions, closed to 

public, etc) 

• Dept. has training budget 

funded by STC and 

county funds 

• Closed to public/ 

restricted to PO’s, etc. 

• Only offered and 

required this year as a 

special need and may be 

offered next FY to Adult 

Probation 

• 

• Each new staff gets 2 

days; 1 day update 

thereafter annually 

• Dept. has training budget 

funded by STC and 

county funds 

• Closed to public/ 

restricted to Probation. 

174 STC hours • Need to review core 

content on AOD and 

child abuse/neglect 

mandated reporting 

information 

6

Training 

Workgroup 


or Priority 

Advanced 

training on 

working with 

families (parents, 


Tools, 

Resource(s), 

Content 


Lead Training 


System 

Target 

Audience 

Annual “AOD 101” AODS staff Dept/County 

Staff 

Regulation driven: 

• confidentiality 

• ethics 

• mandated 

reporter training 

Treatment related: 

• best practices 

• cultural 

competency 

• co-occurring 

Child Welfare Core 

Trainings: 

risk assessment 

(new employee) 

Child Welfare Core 

training on caregiver 


FYC& In-house 

Staff Development 

Trainings 

Child Welfare 

Advanced/Optional 

Trainings 

AODS Contract 

provider 

counseling line 

staff 

Bay Area Academy 

HSD staff 

Bay Area Academy 

Training Coordinator 

and Dept. Staff 

FY&C Contract w/ 

UC 

Davis 

Department 

Social 

Workers 

Department 

Social 

Workers 

Social 

Workers 

Department 

Social 

Workers 

Dates 

Offered 

Feb/March 

2010 

Offered 

annually 

monthly 

and as 

needed 

all year – 

21 days of 

classes 

offered 

twice per 

year 

Training 

Venue 

AODS 

facility 

AODS 

facilities 

various 

County sites 

(often 

outside of 

Sonoma) 

all year various 

County sites 

(often 

outside of 

Sonoma) 

as needed 

and at the 

discretion of 

FY&C mgmt 

various 

Sonoma 

County HSD 

dept. sites 

all year various 



dept. sites 

Continuing 

Education 

Credits 


LCSW, JD, 

RN) 

MFT/LCSW 

RN 

12 CEUs total 

available 

MFT/LCSW 

3 CEUs 

BAA provides 

CEUs for 

BRN 

MFT 

LCSW 

6-7 hour 

class of the 

21 days 

Does not 

offer CEUs 

BAA provides 

CEUs (BRN, 

MFT, LCSW) 




public, etc) 

• originally only offered to 

Health Dept. employees 

• funded by the division 

• Invited FY&C staff this 

year, which was wellreceived 

• restricted to contract 

provider staff 

• facility holds only 35 

• no additional funding for 

outside trainers 

• Dept budgeted 

• limited to social workers 

and community partners 

(partners includes AODS 

and Probation) 

• Need to review core 

content on AOD 

• Some circumstances in 

which AODS and 

Probation could attend 

(as long as child welfare 

workers are present) 





• Dept budgeted 





7

Training 

Workgroup 


or Priority 

youth or 

children) 

Training on new 

screening, 

referral and 

communication 

protocol 

This is more the 

“who does what” 

training – how do 

we talk to each 

other, when do we 

call and who do 

we call 


Tools, 

Resource(s), 

Content 

FY&C In-house 

Staff Development 

Trainings 

Ad hoc: 

when trainings 

become available in 

our area AODS will 

sponsor, endorse or 

support if possible 

Informal training 

(info passed on by 

senior officers) as 

part of new 

employee 

orientation 

CWS/CMS readonly 

access 


Lead Training 


System 

FY&C Training 

Coordinator and 

Dept. Staff 

Target 

Audience 

Social 

Workers 

Dates 

Offered 

as needed 

and at the 

discretion of 

FY&C mgmt 

Training 

Venue 

various 



dept. sites 

Continuing 

Education 

Credits 


LCSW, JD, 

RN) 

Staff required to 

get 40 hours of 

training every 2 

years 




public, etc) 





AODS varies varies varies varies • Limited funding is 

available 

Dept. Staff Probation 

Officers 

Dept. Staff Probation 

Officers 

varies N/A None • 

N/A N/A None • This access is not yet 

available to Probation 

Officers but is coming 

soon. 

• 

8

Family Recovery Project Cross-system Training Recommendations 

The following table details identified training needs for Probation, AODS and FY&C, including potential strategies to create or coordinate 

such training. 

Training Need/Description Audience 

1. Substance abuse, treatment and recovery – Basic training on substance abuse, addiction, and the 

process of treatment and recovery, including how individual develop substance use disorders, available 

treatment options, how individuals progress through treatment, the impact of substance abuse on 

children and other family members, and what support is provided when treatment ends. 

2. Child abuse and neglect – Basic training on child abuse and neglect issues, including when and how to 

report child abuse/neglect. This training will also include a summary of the FY&C process and services 

provided, including the roles and responsibilities of social workers at different points in the case, how 

cases progress, and how a case is closed. 

3. Probation – Basic training on the Probation Department, how adults and youth are recommended for 

Probation, different levels of supervision, the role and responsibilities of Probation Officers at different 

points in the case, how individuals progress, services provided by the Probation Department and how 

probationers meet requirements. 

4. Sonoma County AODS assessment and referral process – The role of AODS, treatment providers, 

Probation Officers and Social Workers in engaging parents and youth in treatment services. This is 

intended to be a concrete instructional training on how to refer clients for substance abuse assessment 

and identification of appropriate treatment services, including when to make a referral and who to call 

based on client age, criminal justice status, placement, etc. (Note: Some of this content will depend on 

pending screening, assessment, referral and practice changes being discussed as part of the Family 

Recovery Project). 

5. Dependency Drug Court – An overview of the DDC, eligibility requirements, services provided and 

expectations of parents. 

FY&C and Probation (see Strategy # 1) 

Added benefit of FY&C and Probation being 

trained at the same time to allow for crosssystem 

learning 

Probation, AODS and Treatment providers 

(See Strategy # 2) 

FY&C, AODS and Treatment providers (See 

Strategy # 2) 

FY&C and Probation (See Strategy # 2) 

Probation, AODS and Treatment providers 

(See Strategy # 2) 

9


Strategies Responsible Party Timeline Resources Needed 

1. Substance abuse, treatment and recovery – Leverage 

AODS 101 –Sonoma County Annual AODS 101 could be 

expanded to regularly include Probation and/or FY&C. This 

training could also be customized to focus on particular topic 

areas. Goal: to provide an overview of substance abuse, 

addiction, and the process of treatment and recovery (See 

Training Need/Description # 1) 

a. Required for all new Probation and FY&C staff, and 

optional for all existing staff. (May be applicable to 

Juvenile Correctional Staff) 

b. Audience is for people working with the county who 

are familiar with the clients and want to know more 

about how substance abuse impacts their clients. 

Focus on how substance abuse impacts job 

requirements. Content could be focused on particular 

needs and population of 

c. Offered as 3 hours every Friday for 4 weeks 

i. Week 1 – brain disease and research into how 

this affects treatment approaches 

ii. Week 2 – Treatment assessment and 

diagnosis, drug identification, customized to 

methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol 

iii. Week 3 – Systemic impacts on family, work, 

community, and the social costs (focus on 

family) 

iv. Week 4 – Cultural and diversity issues, 

customized to Sonoma (e.g. adolescents, 

Latinos and gender OR in our case could be 

peri-natal, gangs and any other key target 

group within FY&C and/or Probation) 

AODS – content 

Probation and FY&C – 

assign staff to attend 

HIGH 

PRIORITY 

Feb/Mar 

2011 

By Apr/May 

there may be 

a PO core 

training 

coordinated 

with a 

college so 

POs won’t be 

available 

after April 1 

(will have 

more info in 

Oct) 

Barriers: 

- FY&C social workers and most POs operate 

on 40/10 work week. For those who do a 

40/10 work week they often take either 

Mon/Fri off and generally don’t schedule 

trainings on Mon or Fri 

- New social workers must attend Core 

Training in the first 2 years (12 days in year 

1). They are somewhat overwhelmed with 

training at the beginning 

- Workload issues, but required to attend 20 

hours of training per year 

- Mandated trainings for Probation Dept – plus 

the new core training, any new trainings 

become a workload and time issue – time 

and expense of sending staff to training 

when they’re already going to be getting so 

much core training 

- AODS training room seats a max of 35 – 

although this is probably not a problem since 

don’t estimate more than 15 new POs and 

15 new SWkers 

Solutions: 

- For New social workers within the first 6 

months do work Fridays. 

- Deliver training as once a month or every 

other month versus 1 per week 

- Deliver training on Tues, Wed, or Thurs 

- Would fulfill 12 of the 20 hours of required 

training 

- MFT/LCSW CEUs added benefit for FY&C 

social workers 

10



2. Family Recovery Project Summit – Create an opportunity 

and venue for a 3 hour joint training with FY&C, Probation and 

AODS. Goals: (a) learn how the other agencies work, 

including parameters, restrictions and how cases move 

through their respective systems, and (2) disseminate 

information on new policies and practices that result from the 

final FRP Steering Committee recommendations. (See 

Training Need/Description # 2-5) 

a. Summit all staff meeting for FY&C, AODS and 

Probation, including AODS and FY&C contracted 

providers within Sonoma County (e.g. WRS and 

DAAC). 

b. BAA could help find a speaker and coordinate the 

FY&C – develop 

content on existing 

practices 

Probation – develop 


practices 

AODS – develop 


practices 

Family Recovery 

Project – develop 

content on pilot project 

HIGH 

PRIORITY 

July 2011 

- Probation is finalizing their training guide for 

this year – could mandate this as core 

training for Pos 

- Would need to define what “new” means 

when we say mandated for “new” POs and 

social workers – “new” within the last year? 

- Coordinate evaluation between agencies 

since each one has their own post-training 

evaluate requirements (e.g. AODS has to 

collect evaluation to offer CEUs, and both 

Probation and FY&C have their own 

evaluation forms) 

- Coordinate sign-in rosters between 

agencies. STC (Probation) has their own 

roster that POs need to sign in on – AODS 

can use this one 

- STC posts evaluation scores of trainings that 

have been certified (which this training would 

be certified) 

- Submit evaluation reports to Steering 

Committee to justify continued training 

Consult with BAA on capacity building contract to 

develop infrastructure. BAA helps Sonoma with 

an all staff day that includes a guest speaker, 

etc. to, for example, launch a new program. 

Barriers: 

- Staff time with staffing shortages 

- Ability to travel to meeting 

Solutions: 

- Identify key staff to avoid over-representation 

and excessive staff time 

11

event (if needed) 



c. FY&C, AODS and Probation would create the content 

of the training agenda – how each of the agencies 

interface with each other, for example: 

i. AODS has Sharon Youney talk about the 

DDC program and procedures 

ii. Most knowledgeable Probation Officers 

(Juvenile and Adult) and Child Welfare 

Workers speak to what does staff currently do 

iii. Family Recovery Project – new practices and 

policies to be rolled out 

d. Send out a survey in advance to ask people what are 

their biggest barriers (e.g. in getting people access to 

treatment services – then AODS can respond during 

the meeting) 

e. Plan to do this every 18 months to account for new 

staff and turn over 

3. Use May 2010 Training planning discussions to highlight 

needs for substance abuse and child abuse/neglect training 

content. This could include for example, offering Drug 

Education/Addiction as a standard training opportunity. It is 

offered and required this year as a special need for Juvenile 

Probation Officers, and may be offered next FY to Adult 

Probation. 

4. Review the NCSACW online tutorials: 

• Understanding Child Welfare and the Dependency Court: A 

Guide for Substance Abuse Treatment Professionals 

• Understanding Substance Use Disorders, Treatment and 

Family Recovery: A Guide for Child Welfare Professionals 

• Understanding Substance Use Disorders, Treatment, and 

Family Recovery: A Guide for Legal Professionals 

available at 

http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/training 

results and 

implications for 

ongoing 

Probation May 2010 

All 

12



5. Review the NCSACW Child Welfare Training Toolkit: Helping 

Child Welfare Workers Support Families with Substance Use, 

Mental, and Co-Occurring Disorders Training Package, 

available at 

http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/training/toolkit 

6. Review Probation and AODS child abuse/neglect mandated 

reporter training to identify what core content is provided, 

consistency and gaps 

7. Request training day from UC Davis. FY&C CPS division has 

12 days per year that could also be used for facilitated 

meetings (e.g. strategic planning day for managers or 

supervisors, which happens every year). All of the selection of 

classes is made by the manager of FY&C. Peter meets with 

the manager and they select the trainings. (UC Davis has 

classes in substance abuse that are requested from time to 

time, but nothing this last year.) 

8. Consult with Bay Area Training Academy (BAA) to coordinate 

invitations to AODS and Probation attendees for existing 

trainings. BAA is funded by the State to do both the 21 days of 

core social worker training and advanced training for 

experienced workers, using BAA curricula and trainers. State 

mandate is to provide training to County Child Welfare 

Workers (CWWs), but as long as the majority of attendees are 

CWWs, they can also provide training to other partners that 

are in attendance (e.g. over 50%). The 21 days of core 

training is offered over the course of 6 months. 

9. Probation Department could certify a child abuse/neglect and 

a substance abuse training that could be STC certified and 

count towards their annual hours. 

10. Ask FY&C and (maybe) County Counsel to provide a training 

on DDC 

11. FTO training – It could be possible to incorporate training 

needs into this program if information regarding child 

FY&C 

Probation and AODS 

FY&C 

FY&C 

Probation 

FY&C 

Probation 

13



abuse/neglect and substance abuse training is not covered in 

core. 

14


Funding Workgroup 

Summary of Activities and Final Products 












families. 




document summarizes the activities of the Funding Workgroup. 

Sonoma County DDC Cost Study Findings 

The activities of this workgroup focused largely on conducting a cost study of the Sonoma 

County Dependency Drug Court. The workgroup conducted an inventory of County-specific 

funding by compiling available data from AODS and FY&C on current treatment and family 

services. Workgroup members collected funding and budget information from FY&C and AODS 

to conduct a cost study of the Sonoma County Dependency Drug Court. The Funding 

Workgroup prepared a preliminary cost findings report that documents a cost savings for 

children and parents involved in the DDC as compared to similar clients who do not receive 

DDC services [See Sonoma County Dependency Drug Court (DDC): Cost Analysis Findings]. 

Funding Strategies: Substance Abuse Specialists in Child Welfare and the Courts 

Suggestions for resource management that provide for an increase in, and stability of, funding 

to support recommended strategies will be fundamental to the successful implementation of 

those strategies over time. As practice moves to focus on families, funding requirements need 

to be flexible to mirror the shared values related to effectively serving the priority population. 

The Funding Workgroup, along with the SAFERR Workgroup and the Steering Committee also 

considered a variety of funding options to make the SURF pilot project sustainable, including 

available and potential funding streams, new funds and redirection of existing funding. The 

SURF pilot project tested a substance abuse specialist model. This type of collaborative 

practice model is described in more detail in Substance Abuse Specialists in Child Welfare 

Agencies and Dependency Courts - Considerations for Program Designers and Evaluators, 

available at http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/SubstanceAbuseSpecialists.pdf. See Funding 

Strategies Substance Abuse Specialists in Child Welfare and the Courts for a brief description 

of substance abuse specialist program funding strategies from eight sites. 

1


Dependency Drug Court (DDC): 

Cost Analysis Findings 

Draft Prepared for 

Sonoma County Dependency Drug Court Team 

November 2010 

1


I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 

II. Program Description ..................................................................................................... 3 

III. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3 

Child Welfare Program and Funding Data .................................................................... 5 

Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Funding Data ............................................ 5 

DDC Pilot and Comparison Group Data ....................................................................... 6 

IV. Results ........................................................................................................................ 10 

2

I. Introduction 

As both a component of the Sonoma County Family Recovery Project and an addendum to the 

Sonoma County Dependency Drug Court (DDC) Evaluation, Children and Family Futures performed a 

cost analysis of the Sonoma County DDC. The cost analysis utilizes child welfare data from the 

Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children’s Services (FY&C), substance abuse 

treatment data from the Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services (AODS), 

and program outcomes of the pilot Sonoma County DDC. This report includes a detailed description 

of the cost analysis methodology and findings. 

II. Program Description 

The Sonoma County DDC is designed to improve treatment and outcomes for families involved in 

child welfare cases and affected by substance abuse disorders. DDC is a court-supervised 

comprehensive treatment program for mothers and guardians whose children have been removed or 

are in danger of being removed from their home as a result of child abuse or neglect stemming from 

the parent’s alcohol or other drug use. A review of the 2005-06 new cases filed in Sonoma County 

Juvenile Dependency Court revealed that 71 (45 female, 26 male) out of 104 parents qualify for DDC 

services. This data and early research findings regarding the effectiveness of DDC programs led to 

the establishment of a pilot Sonoma County DDC in 2006 through the use of County General Funds. 

The Sonoma County DDC pilot is a voluntary 12-month program that includes regular court 

appearances, community-based alcohol and other drug abuse treatment, 12-step participation and 

other support services. 1 

In October 2009, Sonoma County was awarded a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to expand the DDC program. The DDC expansion includes the 

monitoring of developmental assessments of children, referrals when additional ancillary services are 

indicated and offering the Strengthening Families Program (SFP) to increase family strengths and 

resilience and reduce risk factors for problem behaviors in high risk children. 

III. Methodology 

The cost analysis leverages the quasi-experimental design of the Sonoma County DDC Evaluation. 

The DDC Evaluation identified a comparison group of families comprised of parents who entered the 

dependency system in the 18 months prior to the Sonoma DDC Expansion Grant implementation and 

met the admission criteria for DDC. While the DDC Evaluation compares the outcomes of the 

comparison group, pilot program participants, and expansion program participants, the cost analysis 

does not include expansion program participants. For the purposes of the cost analysis, comparison 

group outcome data were only evaluated against pilot DDC participant outcome data. Narrowing the 

scope to only comparison and pilot groups allowed for the estimation of costs associated with long 

term outcomes of both groups (e.g. 18 months post DDC pilot participation). 

The cost analysis is designed to minimize new data collection burdens by using and linking existing 

data sets within Sonoma County to the fullest extent possible. The Sonoma Web Infrastructure for 

Treatment Services (SWITS) is a primary data source. SWITS collects case management, substance 

abuse treatment and services data, and feeds into the California Outcomes Measurement System. 

Another source is the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS), California’s 

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System, which collects child and family data on 

safety, permanency and case management. Funding data from Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009 annual 

expenditures across FY&C, AODS and the DDC program were analyzed in conjunction with data from 

SWITS and CWS/CMS. 

3

The cost analysis involved first the identification of daily rates or average costs per client for typical 

services across child welfare (FY&C), treatment (AODS) and the DDC. The following table details the 

cost study centers examined in each of these three categories, as well as data sources utilized. 

DDC Cost Analysis – Cost Study Centers 

Child Welfare (FY&C) Substance Abuse Treatment (AODS) DDC 

CWS/CMS: Case management and 

placement data 

Funding: Annual expenditures in 

each placement and service type 

Placement 

Costs: 

Daily Rates 

• Shelter 

• Foster Care 

• Non-Related 

Extended 


Member 

(NREFM) 

• Relative 

Foster Care 

• Guardianship 

• Foster 


Agency 

• Group Home 

Services: 

Average Cost per 

Client 

• Drug Testing/ 

Treatment 

• Child Care 

• Psychological 

Evaluation 

• Counseling 

• Parent Education 

• Community 

Resource 

• Visitation 

• Transportation 

• Rental/Housing 

Assistance 

• In-Home 

Parenting 

• Other services 

SWITS: Case management, treatment 

program and services data 

Funding: Annual expenditures in each 

program and service type 

Programs and Services: 

Daily Rates 

• Detox 

• Narcotics Treatment 

Program 

• Transitional Housing 

• Adult Residential 

Services 

• Adult Outpatient 

Services 

• Perinatal Residential 

Services 

• Perinatal Day 

Treatment Services 

• Intensive Outpatient 

Services 

• Adolescent Residential 

Services 

• Adolescent Outpatient 

Services 


• DDC 

• DUI Court 

• Starting Point Program 

Programs and 

Services: 

Average Cost 

per Client 

• Drug Testing 

• DUI 

CWS/CMS and SWITS: data for pilot 

and comparison groups 

Funding: Annual expenditures for 

program, activities and staff 

Program, 

Activities, 

Staff: 

Daily Rates 

• Treatment 

Services 

• Strengthening 

Families 

Program* 

Program, Activities, 

Staff: 

Average Cost per 

Client 

• Drug Testing 

• Personnel (i.e. 

DDC Coordinator) 

• Evaluation 

Consultant* 

• Travel 

• Rewards 

* Costs associated with the DDC Expansion group and not included in this analysis 

Child welfare and treatment daily rates and average costs per client were calculated utilizing the total 

annual expenditures for and total number of clients who accessed the identified placement, program 

and service types. These daily rates and average costs per client were then applied to the DDC pilot 

and comparison groups to establish average costs per family and average costs per child in each 

group, based on the length of time spent in or receiving each placement or program type, or the 

number of times parent or children accessed each service type. The average costs per family and per 

child in the comparison group were then evaluated against the average costs per family and per child 

in the pilot DDC group. 

4

Child Welfare Program and Funding Data 

Child welfare program and funding data were collected based on FY 2008-2009 CWS/CMS case data 

and expenditures for each placement type, subsidy and service paid directly by FY&C. Placement 

data was extracted from CWS/CMS and included all placements during fiscal year 2008-09. This data 

included placements that occurred prior to FY 2008-09 but were still in the system as well as 

placements that extended past FY 2008-09, including some that were still active placements. Total 

days spent in each placement and the average lengths of stay per placement were determined to 

calculate the daily rates. The services and subsidies payments were extracted directly from FY&C FY 

2008-2009 annual expenditures. The average cost per client was calculated based on total clients 

accessing services or receiving subsidy payments according to the annual expenditure data. 

The placement type, services and subsidies cost centers and their respective daily rates and average 

costs per client are detailed in the following table. 

Placement Costs Services and Subsidies 

Type Daily Rate Type Cost per Client 

Shelter $623.98 KinGAP $6,749.34 

Foster care (EFH and FH) $43.38 Adoption Assistance Program $9,231.10 

Non Relative Extended Family Member (NREFM) 

and Relative Foster Care (Rel FC) 

$18.72 Drug Testing (cost per test) $35.00** 

Relative Placements $0.00* Treatment $122.09 

Guardianship (NRLG) $30.56 Psychological Evaluation $727.98 

Foster Family Agency (FFA) $84.00 Counseling $125.00 

Group home (GH) $189.28 Parent Education $124.42 

* Relative Placements do not receive funds Community Resource $86.11 

** Cost per test Visitation $333.36 

Transportation $350.26 

NREFM and Relative Foster Care receive the same amount of money per child for the placement. 

While the funding data separates them out, CWS/CMS does not differentiate between NREFM and 

Relative Foster Care. Therefore, for our cost analysis, NREFM and Relative Foster Care were 

combined into a single cost category. Relative Foster Care is however distinct from a Relative 

Placement in that Relative Placements receive no funding for children in this placement. 

Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Funding Data 

Substance abuse treatment program and funding data were collected based on FY 2008-2009 SWITS 

case data and expenditures for each treatment program and service paid either directly by AODS or 

under contract to AODS. Treatment data was extracted from SWITS and included total admissions 

and unduplicated admissions for all treatment programs and services provided during FY 2008-09. 

The treatment admission data includes all treatment admissions in FY 2008-09 that have a discharge 

date on or prior to 6/30/2009. This includes admissions that were prior to the start of FY 2008-09 

(July 1, 2008) but were active and discharged during FY 2008-09. Total days spent in each program 

or service and the average lengths of stay were determined to calculate the daily rates and average 

costs per client. 

The treatment program and services cost centers and their respective daily rates and average costs 

per client are detailed in the following table. 

5

Treatment Programs and Services Treatment Programs and Services 

Type Daily Rate Type Daily Rate 

Detox $270.85 Adolescent Outpatient Services $15.34 

Narcotics Treatment Program $16.82 Case Management $19.41 

Transitional Housing $57.29 Starting Point Program $19.64 

Adult Residential Services $54.45 Dependency Drug Court $35.88 

Adult Outpatient Services $10.67 Drug Court $37.97 

Perinatal Residential $69.31 DUI Court $3.32 

Perinatal Day Treatment $8.50 Type Cost per Client 

Intensive Outpatient $34.36 Drug Testing $11.49 

Adolescent Residential Services $188.00 DUI $686.60 

Treatment program and services daily rates and average costs per client were achieved through 

several layers of filtering to ensure the identified costs centers were as discrete as possible. Several 

treatment programs and services detailed in the SWITS and AODS funding data are both formal 

programs and funding streams. For example, the Starting Point Program cost center is services for incustody 

clients. This program was originally included in Adult Outpatient, but was removed and 

entered as a separate cost study to reflect more accurate Adult Outpatient costs. In addition, Detox, 

Transitional Housing, Adult Residential and Adult Outpatient daily rates exclude contract 

administrative costs (i.e. overhead). 

DDC Pilot and Comparison Group Data 

Using the child welfare and substance abuse treatment daily rates and average costs per client, total 

costs and average costs per family and per child were calculated for the DDC Pilot and Comparison 

groups. The Comparison group consists of 30 parents and 61 children. The DDC Pilot group consists 

of 61 parents and 85 children. Converting the number of children per parent into a ratio in each group, 

the DDC Pilot group has 1.39 children per parent while the Comparison Group has 2.03 children per 

parent. 

Child Welfare Data 

CWS/CMS data included placement type, case start date, case end date, removal date, placement 

change dates, and reunification date (if applicable) for both the Pilot and Comparison groups. The 

length of stay in each placement type for each child was calculated. 

The following table details the daily rates for each placement type and the total costs incurred by the 

pilot and comparison group. 

DDC Pilot and Comparison Placement Type Costs 

Placement Type Daily Rate DDC Pilot Total Cost Comparison Total Cost 

Shelter $623.98 $1,227,988.11 $1,621,718.03 

Foster (EFH + FH) $43.38 $211,828.49 $77,955.31 

NREFM and Rel FC $18.72 $296,798.97 $190,077.16 

Guardianship $30.56 $794.63 $0.00 

FFA $84.00 $1,408,927.39 $616,762.75 

Group Home $189.28 $1,046,359.30 $1,181,886.30 

TOTAL $4,192,696.87 $3,688,399.55 

6

The total costs were averaged across the number of parents (or families) in each group. In the DDC 

Pilot group, the average cost per parent (N=61) was $68,732.74. In the Comparison group, the 

average cost per parent (N=30) was $122,946.65. This resulted in an estimated $54,213.92 in 

preliminary cost savings per parent (or family). 

However, the cost savings per parent does not take into account the difference in the number of 

children per parent in the DDC Pilot and Comparison groups. Additionally, while all 61 children in the 

Comparison group experienced out of home care, 76 of the 85 children in the DDC Pilot group 

experienced out of home care. The 9 children who were not removed were instead placed in court 

mandated Family Maintenance. The total costs were thus averaged across the number of children in 

each group and based on whether children experience out of home care. In the DDC Pilot group, the 

average cost per child across all children (N=85) was $49,325.85, while the average cost per child 

who experienced out of home care (M=76) was $55,167.06. In the Comparison group, the average 

cost per child (N=61) was $60,465.57. This resulted in an estimated $11,139.72 in preliminary cost 

savings across all children, or $5,298.50 when comparing only those children who experienced out of 

home care. 

The following table provides additional detail across each placement type for the DDC Pilot and 

Comparison groups, including the number of children experiencing each placement type, the percent 

of all placements, the average length of stay and the average cost per child. 

Pilot 

% of Placements Average Length of Average Cost per 

Placement # of Children 

(N=131) 

Stay (Days) 

Child 

Shelter 18 13.7% 109.3 $68,221.56 

Foster (FH + EFH) 27 20.6% 180.9 $7,845.50 

NREFM + Rel FC 32 24.4% 495.4 $9,274.97 

Guardianship 1 0.8% 26.0 $794.63 

FFA 42 32.1% 399.3 $33,545.89 

Group 11 8.4% 

Comparison 

502.5 $95,123.57 

% of Placements Average Length of Average Cost per 

Placement # of Children 

(N=120) 

Stay (Days) 

Child 

Shelter 36 30.0% 72.2 $45,160.40 

Foster (FH + EFH) 16 13.3% 112.3 $4,948.99 

NREFM + Rel FC 31 25.8% 327.5 $6,155.74 

Guardianship 0 0.0% N/A $0.00 

FFA 24 20.0% 305.9 $26,196.13 

Group 13 10.8% 480.3 $91,077.08 

The DDC Pilot group experienced, across the board, longer lengths of stay in each placement type, 

which resulted in a greater average cost per child. However, the Comparison group experienced more 

placements than the pilot group. While the DDC Pilot group had 1.54 placements per child, the 

Comparison had 1.96 placements per child. 

Proportionally, children in the Comparison group were more likely than the DDC Pilot group to be 

placed in Shelters and Group Homes, which are the two placement types with the highest daily rates. 

The DDC Pilot group was proportionally more likely than the Comparison group to be placed in Foster 

Care or FFAs, which are at much lower daily rates than Shelters and Group Homes. Both groups 

were equally likely to be placed in NREFM and Relative Foster Care, which is at the lowest daily rate. 

FY&C data included amounts paid for a variety of services provided to both the DDC Pilot and 

Comparison groups. Payments associated with the DDC Pilot group resulted in the identification of 19 

parents and 22 children that received services. Payments associated with the Comparison group 

resulted in the identification of 27 parents and 51 children that received services. The cost and 

percentage for each service type provided to each group were calculated. 

7

Service Comparison Group Pilot Group Total 

Cost Percent Cost Percent Cost Percent 

Drug Testing $2,033.90 4.45% $1,470.00 1.02% $3,503.90 1.84% 

Child Care $0.00 0.00% $4,807.24 3.32% $4,807.24 2.52% 

Treatment $0.00 0.00% $459.92 0.32% $459.92 0.24% 

Psychological 

Evaluation 

$3,572.50 7.81% $14,238.00 9.84% $17,810.50 9.35% 

Counseling $19,699.51 43.08% $49,927.63 34.50% $69,627.14 36.56% 

Parent Education $350.00 0.77% $2,901.00 2.00% $3,251.00 1.71% 

Community Resource $4,043.25 8.84% $9,145.00 6.32% $13,188.25 6.92% 

Visitation $2,245.00 4.91% $20,889.50 14.43% $23,134.50 12.15% 

Transportation $3,174.44 6.94% $6,269.57 4.33% $9,444.01 4.96% 

Rental/Housing 

Assistance 

$0.00 0.00% $3,950.00 2.73% $3,950.00 2.07% 

In-Home Parenting $6,803.45 14.88% $21,828.51 15.08% $28,631.96 15.03% 

Other Services* $3,809.79 8.33% $8,847.97 6.11% $12,657.76 6.65% 

Totals $45,731.84 100% $144,734.34 100% $190,466.18 100% 

*Other services includes: Emergency foster care, incentives, intake fees, legal issues, medical exams, utilities, paternity test, 

and reimbursements (e.g. books, eye glasses, gifts/supplies for drug court graduation, home approval needs, hotel, furniture, 

DMV fees, etc.). 

Across all services provided, the majority of funds went to Counseling, Visitation and In-Home 

Parenting services. Proportionally, the DDC Pilot group was much more likely than the Comparison 

group to receive Visitation services. The DDC Pilot group was also proportionally more likely than the 

Comparison group to receive Child Care, Treatment, Psychological Evaluation, Parent Education, 

Rental/Housing Assistance and In-Home Parenting services. The Comparison group was 

proportionally more likely than the DDC Pilot group to receive Drug Testing, Counseling, Community 

Resource, Transportation and Other services. 

The total DDC Pilot and Comparison group costs were averaged across the number of parents (or 

families) in each group. In the DDC Pilot group, the average cost per parent (N=19) was $7,617.60. In 

the Comparison group, the average cost per parent (N=27) was $1,693.77. This resulted in an 

estimated $5,923.82 in preliminary cost incurred per parent (or family). 


children per parent in the DDC Pilot and Comparison groups. The total costs were thus averaged 

across the number of children in each group. In the DDC Pilot group, the average cost per child 

across all children (N=22) was $6,578.83. In the Comparison group, the average cost per child (N=51) 

was $6,578.83. This resulted in an estimated $5,682.13 in preliminary cost incurred per child. 

Treatment Data 

SWITS data included treatment type, date of entry and discharge date for both the Pilot and 

Comparison groups. The lengths of stay in each treatment program or service were calculated for 

both groups. There were 10 treatment cost centers identified but not used in the cost analysis as 

these cost centers were not accessed by either the DDC Pilot or Comparison groups, specifically 

Program Support, Narcotics Treatment Program, Transitional Housing, Intensive Outpatient, 

Adolescent Outpatient, Adolescent Residential, Dependency Drug Court, Drug Testing, DUI, and DUI 

Court. The following table details the daily rates for each treatment modality and the total costs 

incurred by the pilot and comparison group. 

8

Pilot and Comparison Group Treatment Modality Costs 

Treatment Modality Daily Rate DDC Pilot Total Cost Comparison Total Cost 

Detox $270.85 $5,416.95 $270.85 

Adult Residential $54.45 $60,489.91 $72,032.54 

Adult Outpatient $10.67 $100,924.43 $39,772.34 

Perinatal Residential $69.31 $184,775.70 $52,812.86 

Perinatal Outpatient $8.50 $41,998.10 $10,971.17 

Case Management $19.41 $0.00 $64,294.34 

Case Management $19.64 $0.00 $4,773.04 

DDC Coordinator N/A $219,320.00 $0.00 

TOTAL $612,925.09 $244,927.13 

The total costs were averaged across the number of parents (or families) in each group. In the DDC 

Pilot group, the average cost per parent (N=61) was $10,047.95. In the Comparison group, the 

average cost per parent (N=30) was $8,164.24. This resulted in an estimated $1,883.71 in preliminary 

cost incurred per parent (or family). 


children per parent in the DDC Pilot and Comparison groups. The total costs were thus averaged 

across the number of children in each group. In the DDC Pilot group, the average cost per child 

across all children (N=85) was $7,210.88. In the Comparison group, the average cost per child (N=61) 

was $4,015.20. This resulted in an estimated $3,195.68 in preliminary cost incurred per child. 

The following table provides additional detail across each treatment modality for the DDC Pilot and 

Comparison groups, including the number of parents experiencing each treatment modality, the 

percent of all admissions, the average length of stay and the average cost per parent. 

Pilot 

% of Admissions Average Length of Average Cost per 

Treatment # of Parents 

(N=106) 

Stay (Days) 

Parent 

Detox 5 4.7% 4.0 $1,083.39 

Adult Residential 13 12.3% 85.5 $4,653.07 

Adult Outpatient 41 38.7% 230.7 $2,461.57 

Perinatal Residential 26 24.5% 102.5 $7,106.76 

Perinatal Day Treatment 21 19.8% 235.3 $1,999.91 

Case Management 0 0.0% N/A $0.00 

Starting Point 0 0.0% 

Comparison 

N/A $0.00 

% of Admissions Average Length of Average Cost per 

Treatment # of Parent 

(N=58) 

Stay (Days) 

Parent 

Detox 1 1.7% 1.0 $270.85 

Adult Residential 6 10.3% 220.5 $12,005.42 

Adult Outpatient 24 41.4% 155.3 $1,657.18 

Perinatal Residential 8 13.8% 95.3 $6,601.61 

Perinatal Day Treatment 5 8.6% 258.2 $2,194.23 

Case Management 10 17.2% 331.2 $6,429.43 

Starting Point 4 6.9% 60.8 $1,193.26 

The DDC Pilot group was proportionally more likely than the Comparison group to participate in 

Perinatal Residential and Perinatal Day Treatment programs. The DDC Pilot group also experienced 

a longer average length of stay in Adult Outpatient and Perinatal Residential than the Comparison 

group. The Comparison group experienced a much longer average length of stay in Residential 

treatment than the DDC Pilot group. 

9

IV. Results 

The final cost analysis involved the evaluation of total average costs per client in the DDC Pilot group 

against the Comparison group. The following tables collapse the preliminary estimates of cost savings 

and cost incurred across the individual substance abuse treatment and child welfare data, organized 

by average costs per parent and average costs per child. 

Average Costs per PARENT Comparison Pilot Difference 

Child Welfare Placements $122,946.65 $68,732.74 $54,213.92 

Child Welfare Services $1,693.77 $7,617.60 ($5,923.82) 

Treatment services and DDC $8,164.24 $10,047.95 ($1,883.71) 

Total $132,804.66 $86,398.28 $46,406.38 

Average Costs per CHILD Comparison Pilot Difference 

Child Welfare Placements $60,465.57 $49,325.85 $11,139.72 

Child Welfare Services $896.70 $6,578.83 ($5,682.13) 

Treatment Services and DDC $4,015.20 $7,210.88 ($3,195.68) 

Total $65,377.47 $63,115.56 $2,261.91 

COST SAVINGS PER PARENT $46,406.38 

COST SAVINGS PER CHILD $2,261.91 

The cost analysis results of the DDC Pilot program can be stated as either an estimated cost savings 

of $46,406.38 per parent (or family) or as an estimated cost savings of $2,261.91 per child. However, 

the cost savings per parent does not take into account the difference in the number of children per 

parent in the DDC Pilot and Comparison groups. The DDC Pilot group has 1.39 children per parent 

while the Comparison Group has 2.03 children per parent. 

In examining the long term outcomes of the DDC Pilot and Comparison groups, six children in the 

Comparison group re-entered out of home care. Five of these children re-entered foster care within 12 

months of their case closure date. Child welfare placement costs are covered through a combination 

of Federal, State and County dollars, where each placement type requires a different County 

percentage contribution. The following table details the estimated costs associated with out of home 

care re-entry, based on the placement type and length of stay, as well as Sonoma County’s 

contribution. 

Placement Type Daily Rate 

Child Welfare Re-Entry Costs 

Comparison 

Total Cost 

County % County Share 

Shelter $623.98 $172,217.84 10.2% $17,566.22 

Foster (EFH + FH) $43.38 $0.00 39.3% $0.00 

NREFM + Rel FC $18.72 $19,153.76 37.7% $7,220.97 

Guardianship $30.56 $0.00 60.0% $0.00 

FFA $84.00 $97,109.47 40.6% $39,426.45 

Group Home $189.28 $28,392.53 42.6% $12,095.22 

Total $316,873.60 $76,308.85 

10

The total costs were averaged across all children, per child experiencing re-entry to out of home care, 

and per parent (or family). The following table details the average cost as well as the average county 

contribution. 

Average Child Welfare Re-Entry Costs per Parent and Child 

Group N Average County 

Across All Children 61 $5,194.65 $1,250.96 

Per Child Experiencing Re-Entry 6 $52,812.27 $12,718.14 

Per Parent (Family) 30 $10,562.45 $2,543.63 

Of the 61 children in the Comparison group, 6 re-entered out of home care (9.8%). If either 9.8% of 

the 85 children in the DDC Pilot group (8 children) or that at least 6 children in the DDC Pilot group 

would have re-entered out of home care were it not for the DDC program, the re-entry costs detailed 

above could also be considered as cost savings to the County. 

1 http://www.sonoma-county.org/board/meetings/meeting_20091027/meeting_20091027_item_27.pdf 

11

Funding Strategies 

Substance Abuse Specialists in Child Welfare and the Courts 

As jurisdictions move to create substance abuse specialist programs, professionals engaged in 

program design find that they are dealing with scarce resources. Contracting with a local 

substance abuse treatment provider may provide some cost efficiencies rather than having the 

specialist employed by the child welfare agency. However, the financing strategies employed to 

provide the specialist program are often locally determined based on unique community 

influences. The strategies have included State funds, Federal child welfare and substance 

abuse treatment funds, and local investments. 

Following is a brief description of substance abuse specialist program funding strategies from 

eight sites. More information on each site’s program can be found in Substance Abuse 

Specialists in Child Welfare Agencies and Dependency Courts - Considerations for Program 

Designers and Evaluators, available at 

http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/SubstanceAbuseSpecialists.pdf. 

Connecticut Substance Abuse Specialists 

Because of the consent decree, the State of Connecticut allocates funds to DCF to pay for 67 

unionized clinical specialists with expertise in clinical social work, nursing, substance abuse, 

children’s mental health, and family and clinical psychology. Specialists’ salaries range from 

$45,000–$68,000 plus benefits negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement. Substance 

abuse specialists are hired by DCF and are employed by the State of Connecticut. DCF pays 

the specialists from the State allocation. Specialists have the same job class as clinical social 

workers and are members of the health care union. 

Delaware Substance Abuse Counselors Program 

DFS contracts with these substance abuse agencies to hire the certified substance abuse 

counselors. DFS transfers funds to the agencies in exchange for their employment, training, and 

supervision of counselors. Since DFS funds the Substance Abuse Counselors Program, DFS 

establishes the terms and conditions of contracts with the agencies. When the Title IV-E Waiver 

Demonstration Project ended, DFS reallocated funding from other treatment contracts to 

continue the Substance Abuse Counselors Program. 

DFS spends approximately $150,000 annually on the substance abuse counselors’ salaries, 

health insurance, Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes, association dues, conference fees, 

and urinalysis screenings. The contracts between DFS and the substance abuse treatment 

agencies are the cost-reimbursement type. As such, the agencies submit invoices to DFS each 

month to cover monthly expenses incurred by the substance abuse counselors. The substance 

abuse counselors have access to a State vehicle; DFS absorbs the cost of State vehicle use. 

Illinois Recovery Coach Program 

DCFS spends approximately $2.2 million annually on the Recovery Coach Program, including 

costs for the JCAP services, the computer-based data collection integrated system, and the 

recovery coaches. Recovery coaches receive the same benefits as TASC employees. Recovery 

coaches are required to use their own vehicle, but they receive the Federal rate allotment for 

mileage reimbursement. 

1

Massachusetts Substance Abuse Regional Coordinators Program 

The Substance Abuse Unit created six regional positions in 2004. Since the coordinators are 

technically regional positions, DSS allocates State funds to the regions to cover the 

coordinators’ salaries, workspace, travel, and parking. The coordinators are State union 

positions, not funded by grants or legislative allocations. The DSS Substance Abuse Unit, 

however, does not have a program budget for other aspects of the program, such as purchasing 

equipment or funding conference participation. 

New Hampshire Project First Step 

The demonstration project was funded by Title IV-E funds. Since 2004, DCYF has funded 

Project First Step with grants from the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, 

which is supported by Title IV-B funds, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 

(CAPTA). A line item in DCYF’s budget allocates Project First Step $120,000–$150,000 per 

year. The funding covers salaries, furniture, telephones, mileage compensation, and 

administration. 

New Hampshire has very little State funding for early intervention and for cross-training to 

promote service integration. In expanding Project First Step, district office staff did not want to 

commit energy to the learning curves necessary to develop such a program without knowing it 

will exist for at least 3–5 years. To expand Project First Step to areas outside Hillsborough 

County, for example, DCYF had to assure the district office new to the program that funding 

would be available for at least that long. 

Sacramento County Early Intervention Specialists (EIS) and Specialized Treatment and 

Recovery Services (STARS) 

Original resources used to develop and begin implementation of the system improvements 

involved one-time grant funds. When presented with evidence of cost-effectiveness and 

efficiencies by the administration, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors has consistently 

acted in support of these efforts. The EIS worker position is funded through CPS. The STARS 

program is funded through local tobacco litigation settlement funds (30 percent), which are used 

to match State and Federal Title IV-B and case management funds (70 percent). 

Washington Substance Abuse Services Initiative 

Washington Senate Bill 5763 provided expanded funding for substance abuse treatment of 

approximately $32 million for adults and $6.7 million for youth. The State legislature allocates 

funding authorized in Senate Bill 5763 to Children’s for 22 full-time employees statewide. 

Washington spends $1.144 million per year on CDPs’ salaries and benefits. This total does not 

cover the full costs to support the program. DASA and Children’s contribute additional dollars 

from other sources to supplement training, travel, and administrative costs. In addition, the 

agencies alternate funding the substance abuse program manager, who acts as a liaison 

between the agencies and is responsible for implementing the initiative. 

Children’s had 10,873 total clients (including children and youth) involved with DASA treatment 

services at some level in fiscal years 2004–2005. As SASI increases its ability to identify and 

refer clients in need of treatment, treatment capacity issues arise. Accessibility to treatment 

services varies from county to county. Treatment capacity is augmented by the treatment 

2

expansion funds allocated under Senate Bill 5763, as well as discretionary grants from the 

Federal Government, such as Access to Recovery (ATR) funds. The State of Washington ATR 

initiative provides vouchers for substance abuse treatment and/or recovery support services to 

low-income individuals who are involved with child protective services, shelters and supported 

housing, free and low-income medical clinics, and community detoxification programs. The 

target areas are Snohomish, Clark, Pierce, Yakima, King, and Spokane counties. The SASI 

oversight committee also identifies and seeks ways to meet funding challenges. 

3

We wish to acknowledge the dedicated individuals who created a map to an integrated 

system that will better serve families in Sonoma County. Thank you for all your hard 

work. 

Steering Committee and Workgroup Chairs 

John Abrahams, Law Office of the Public Defender 

Maureen Donaghue, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Sheralynn Freitas, Probation Department 

Gino Giannavola, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Katie Greaves, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Cora Guy, Probation Department 

Kathy Halloran, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Nick Honey, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Donna Newman-Fields, Department of Health Services, Prevention & Planning Division 

David Sheaves, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Leo Tacata, Probation Department 

Derrick West, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Cathleen Campbell Wolford, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Claudia Zbinden, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Workgroup Members 

Lynn Campanario, Drug Abuse Alternatives Center 

Suzanne Carusillo, Probation Department 

Terra Chermack, Probation Department 

Cyndia Cole, Bay Area Academy 

Sarah Debaeke, Probation Department 

Paul Dunaway, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Mignon Evans, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Kim Gilmore, Information Systems Department 

Bob Harper, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Charles Klipp, Probation Department 

Gerry La Londe-Berg, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Jessica Matthaeus, Drug Abuse Alternatives Center 

Carla Maus, Probation Department 

Arnold Rosenfield, Judge 

Kerry Sheehan, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services 

Chandra Slavonic, Drug Abuse Alternatives Center 

Robin Smith, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services

Vaughan Whalen, Human Services Department, Family, Youth and Children's Services 

Brian Willits, Probation Department 

John Wise, Department of Health Services, Administration 

Sharon Youney, Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Other Drug Services

Sonoma County Methamphetamine Prevention Task Force Family ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?