Child Welfare Facts & Accountability
Where is the Accountability?
In this video, I discuss state and federal child welfare audits, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), Title IV-E federal funding, and my concerns about government and congressional accountability.
Government audits have documented serious deficiencies in child welfare systems. I believe the public deserves to know what actions were taken after these findings, how taxpayer money is being used, and whether Congress has provided meaningful oversight.
I encourage everyone to read the audit reports, examine the evidence, follow the money, and ask:
Where is the accountability?
Watch this Video: Where is the Accountability?
Who Is Protecting Our Families? Watch the video on YouTube.
Know Your Constitutional Rights! Watch the video on YouTube.
Nancy Schaefer's Warning about CPS:
The Unlimited Power of Child Protective Services: Watch the video on YouTube.
Nancy Schaefer, Reflections on Georgia Politics: Watch the video on YouTube.
The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services By Nancy Schaefer
Georgia State Senate, 50th District, revised September 25, 2008
View: The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services letter.
My Voice Regarding Nancy: Watch the YouTube video.
Why Every Taxpayer Should Pay Attention
Child welfare is not only an issue for parents and children involved in the system. It is a public accountability issue because taxpayer dollars help fund child welfare programs across the United States.
Federal funding includes programs under Title IV-E and Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, along with other federal, state, and local funding sources. These public funds support various child welfare services, including foster care, prevention and family services, adoption assistance, administration, and other programs authorized by law.
That means this system involves your tax dollars.
When you pay taxes, you should have the right to understand how public money is being spent, whether programs are achieving their intended purposes, and whether government agencies are being held accountable when audits identify problems.
Your vote matters too.
Voters elect the President and members of Congress at the federal level. They also elect state and local leaders who make laws, approve budgets, oversee government programs, and influence how public agencies operate. County governments also play an important role in the administration and oversight of child welfare services in California.
Regardless of political party, taxpayers and voters should ask:
Where is the money going?
How much is being spent on child welfare?
Are children and families receiving the services that taxpayers are funding?
What have state and federal auditors found?
When government auditors identify failures, what is being done to correct them?
The purpose of this page is to help the public examine the evidence. The sections below will present statistics, government audits, federal and state funding information, and official reports concerning California's child welfare system.
These are public systems funded with public money. The public deserves to know how they are performing.
Can Child Welfare Reports Be Trusted?
What Parents, Taxpayers, and the Public Should Ask
When Child Protective Services (CPS) or another child welfare agency receives an allegation of child abuse or neglect, an important question should be asked:
Does the information presented to parents and the court accurately reflect what witnesses actually reported and what the evidence actually shows?
Parents and the public should understand how allegations are investigated, documented, and presented to the court. If a report identifies a person as a witness, was that person actually interviewed? Does the written report accurately represent what the witness said? Were important statements or evidence left out? Were allegations independently verified? Did parents have an appropriate opportunity to challenge inaccurate information?
These questions are especially serious when government reports influence decisions about removing children, reunification, visitation, placement, or termination of parental rights.
If there is evidence in a particular case that a witness was never interviewed even though statements were attributed to that person, or that material information was withheld or inaccurately presented, those facts should be carefully documented and examined through the appropriate court, administrative, or oversight process. Such conduct should not be assumed without evidence, but neither should documented discrepancies be ignored.
This is also a taxpayer accountability issue.
Child welfare agencies and programs receive public funding from federal, state, and local sources, including federal child welfare programs authorized under Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Social Security Act. Taxpayers therefore have a legitimate interest in whether investigations are conducted properly, records are accurate, due process is respected, and public funds are being used for their intended purposes.
The public should ask:
Are child welfare reports accurate and supported by evidence?
Are witnesses actually interviewed before statements are attributed to them?
Do parents and courts receive the information necessary to evaluate allegations fairly?
What safeguards exist to identify inaccurate or falsified information?
What happens when an agency employee submits materially false information?
How are federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars being used throughout this process?
Government power involving children and families carries an enormous responsibility. Accuracy, transparency, evidence, due process, and accountability should be expected whenever public agencies intervene in family life.
2012 California State Auditor Report: Los Angeles County
The information below comes from California State Auditor Report 2011-101.2, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Management Instability Hampered Efforts to Better Protect Children, issued March 29, 2012.
What Did the California State Auditor Find?
The California State Auditor examined the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and identified significant problems involving investigation delays, child safety, relative placements, home visits, management instability, and other child-welfare practices.
Delayed Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations
The State Auditor reported that in July 2010, DCFS had approximately 9,300 investigations that had been open longer than 30 days, the maximum period generally allowed under state regulations.
By January 2012, DCFS had reduced that backlog to approximately 3,200 investigations. However, according to the State Auditor, that number was still more than twice the level reported in July 2009.
Relative Placements and Safety Assessments
The State Auditor found serious problems with assessments conducted before children were placed with relatives.
From 2008 through 2010, DCFS completed required assessments of homes and caregivers before placement in fewer than one-third of relative placements.
According to the audit, these delays resulted in nearly 900 children living in placements that DCFS later determined were unsafe or inappropriate.
Even after those determinations were made, the audit reported that children typically remained in those homes for nearly a month and a half before DCFS either removed them or reassessed and approved the placement.
Background Checks and Home Assessments
The State Auditor examined a sample of 20 relative placements.
In 9 of those 20 placements, the auditor found that DCFS had not completed required assessments and background checks before placing the children with relatives.
DCFS disputed aspects of the State Auditor's interpretation concerning some of these placements and argued that it had complied with applicable legal requirements in certain cases. The State Auditor nevertheless maintained its findings and recommendations.
Monthly Visits With Children
The auditors also examined 30 ongoing cases.
They found that in 7 of the 30 cases, visits occurred outside the children's homes for three or more consecutive months.
The audit explained that DCFS policy generally expected ongoing visits to occur in the child's home and stated that visits outside the home should be the exception. Home visits are important because they allow social workers to observe the child's living environment and monitor safety.
Registered Sex Offenders and Child Welfare Placements
The report also discussed a serious issue identified through an earlier statewide child-welfare review.
The California Department of Social Services directed DCFS to follow up on 126 referrals in which the registered address of a sex offender matched the address of a child in a Los Angeles County child-welfare placement.
According to the audit, DCFS's investigations resulted in three situations being remedied in which children were living with registered sex offenders, either by having the sex offender removed or by removing the child from the home.
Management and Leadership Instability
The State Auditor did not focus only on frontline social workers.
The report concluded that management instability hampered DCFS's efforts to address long-standing problems.
The audit documented that DCFS had four different directors in just over one year, along with turnover in other important management positions.
The State Auditor expressed concern that frequent leadership changes made it more difficult for the department to maintain consistent direction and address persistent problems.
Questions for the Public
After reading these findings from California's own State Auditor, the public should consider several important questions:
If approximately 9,300 investigations were open longer than 30 days, what did those delays mean for children who may actually have been experiencing abuse or neglect?
Why were required home and caregiver assessments completed before placement in fewer than one-third of relative placements during the period examined?
How did nearly 900 children end up living in placements that DCFS later determined were unsafe or inappropriate?
Why did the State Auditor find problems with required assessments and background checks in 9 of the 20 relative placements it reviewed?
If home visits are important for observing children's living conditions, why did 7 of the 30 reviewed cases have visits outside the home for three or more consecutive months?
Why did California Social Services have to direct DCFS to investigate 126 referrals involving address matches between registered sex offenders and children in child-welfare placements?
What effect did having four different DCFS directors in just over one year have on accountability, supervision, and child safety?
When government auditors identify serious problems, who is responsible for making sure corrective recommendations are actually implemented?
What responsibility should Los Angeles County leadership have for monitoring whether DCFS corrects problems identified by independent government auditors?
As taxpayers, are we paying enough attention to how public money is being used within the child-welfare system and whether agencies are accomplishing what those funds are intended to support?
Source and Reference
The statistics and findings above are based on an official California State Auditor report, not estimates or independently created statistics.
California State Auditor. (2012). Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Management Instability Hampered Efforts to Better Protect Children. Report 2011-101.2. March 29, 2012.
California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2012
Download as PDF: Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2012
Visitors can use the official California State Auditor website to review the original government audit and related follow-up information themselves.
2014 California State Auditor Follow-Up: Los Angeles County DCFS
What the 2014 Report Actually States
In January 2014, the California State Auditor issued Report 2013-041, Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006. For Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the report followed up on recommendations from the earlier audit 2011-101.2, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Management Instability Hampered Efforts to Better Protect Children, issued in March 2012.
Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations
Recommendation 2 stated that, to ensure child abuse and neglect allegations received timely resolution, DCFS should assess whether it needed to permanently allocate more resources to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect. The 2014 report listed an estimated completion date of January 2014 and classified the recommendation as “Not fully implemented.”
Safe Homes and Assessments Before Placement
Recommendation 4 stated that, to ensure children were placed only in safe homes, DCFS should measure its performance and adjust its practices to adhere to state law, which the State Auditor described as requiring homes to be assessed before a child was placed. The 2014 report classified this recommendation as “Will not implement.”
Relative Placements
Recommendation 5 stated that DCFS should analyze best practices used by other county child-welfare agencies for relative placements and then implement changes so relatives and their homes were approved before placement, as described by the State Auditor. The 2014 report classified this recommendation as “Will not implement.”
Child-Death Review Process
Recommendation 7 stated that, to fully benefit from its death-review process, DCFS should implement the recommendations resulting from those reviews. The report listed December 2013 as the estimated completion date but classified the recommendation as “Not fully implemented.”
What the Public Should Know
The 2014 report therefore identifies four specific Los Angeles County DCFS recommendations from the earlier audit in its table of recommendations that had not been fully implemented. Of those four, two were classified as “Not fully implemented,” and two were classified as “Will not implement.” That is what the 2014 report directly supports.
Questions for the Public
After reading the State Auditor's findings, the public should ask why recommendations concerning timely child abuse and neglect investigations, safe placements, relative-placement practices, and the child-death review process remained on the State Auditor's list more than a year after the original audit.
Why were two recommendations classified as “Will not implement”?
Why were the other two still “Not fully implemented”?
When an independent state auditor makes recommendations intended to improve child safety and agency practices, who should be responsible for ensuring that those recommendations are addressed?
As taxpayers, should the public be able to easily track what happens after government auditors identify problems?
Source and Reference
The information above comes directly from California State Auditor Report 2013-041,
Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006, January 2014.
The Los Angeles County DCFS entries concern recommendations originating from California State Auditor Report 2011-101.2, issued in March 2012.
California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2014
Download as PDF: California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2014
2015 California State Auditor Follow-Up: Los Angeles County DCFS
About the 2015 Report
On January 15, 2015, the California State Auditor issued Report 2014-041, Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006. This was not a new comprehensive audit of Los Angeles County DCFS cases. It was an accountability follow-up that continued tracking recommendations from the March 2012 audit, Report 2011-101.2, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Management Instability Hampered Efforts to Better Protect Children.
Timely Investigation of Child Abuse and Neglect Allegations
The State Auditor continued tracking Recommendation 2, which called on DCFS to assess whether it needed to permanently allocate additional resources to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect so those allegations could receive timely resolution. In the January 2015 report, this recommendation had appeared in the annual accountability report for two years, had an estimated completion date of Fall 2015, and remained classified as “Not Fully Implemented.”
Assessing Homes Before Children Were Placed
The State Auditor also continued tracking Recommendation 4, which stated that DCFS should measure its performance and adjust its practices to ensure that children were placed only in safe homes. The recommendation stated that homes should be assessed before placement of the child. In the January 2015 report, the State Auditor classified this recommendation as “Will Not Implement.”
Relative Placement Practices
Recommendation 5 concerned DCFS's process for placing children with relatives. The State Auditor recommended that DCFS analyze best practices used by other county child-welfare agencies and implement changes so that relatives and their homes would be approved before placement. In the January 2015 report, this recommendation was also classified as “Will Not Implement.”
Child-Death Review Process
The 2015 report shows progress on Recommendation 7, which called for DCFS to implement recommendations resulting from its death-review process. Unlike the previous three recommendations, the January 2015 report classified this recommendation as “Fully Implemented” and listed March 2014 as the actual completion date.
What the 2015 Report Shows
For Los Angeles County DCFS, the January 2015 report therefore shows four tracked recommendations from the original 2012 audit. One recommendation concerning resources for timely child abuse and neglect investigations was Not Fully Implemented. Two recommendations concerning safe-home assessments and relative placements were classified as Will Not Implement. One recommendation concerning the child-death review process was Fully Implemented. These are the classifications stated in the 2015 report, and no additional percentage needs to be calculated to explain them accurately.
Important Separate Child-Welfare Findings in the 2015 Report
The January 2015 report also discusses a separate statewide child-welfare audit involving the California Department of Social Services. This should not be presented as one of the four Los Angeles County DCFS recommendations above. The State Auditor reported that an earlier comparison had identified address matches involving more than 1,000 registered sex offenders and individuals working or living in state-licensed facilities and foster homes. The follow-up process ultimately resulted in two registered sex offenders being removed from homes of foster children. In another case, foster children were removed from the care of a guardian who had allowed a registered sex offender to live in her home.
Because that finding comes from a separate audit involving the California Department of Social Services, I recommend keeping it under a separate heading such as “Additional 2015 California Child-Welfare Findings” rather than presenting it as a direct finding from the Los Angeles County DCFS audit.
Questions for the Public
After reviewing the 2015 State Auditor report, the public should ask why the recommendation concerning resources for timely investigation of child abuse and neglect allegations remained Not Fully Implemented years after the original 2012 audit.
Why did recommendations concerning safe-home assessments and relative placements continue to be classified as Will Not Implement?
What changes allowed the child-death-review recommendation to reach Fully Implemented status in March 2014?
When government auditors identify problems intended to protect children, how should Los Angeles County leadership track corrective actions?
As taxpayers, should members of the public be able to easily see which recommendations were implemented, which remained incomplete, and which an agency said it would not implement?
Source and Reference
The information above comes directly from California State Auditor Report 2014-041,
Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006, issued January 15, 2015. The Los Angeles County DCFS portion tracks recommendations originating from California State Auditor Report 2011-101.2, issued March 29, 2012.The State Auditor's official index independently confirms the January 15, 2015 report and its relationship to Los Angeles County DCFS.
California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2015
Download as PDF: California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2015
2016 California State Auditor Follow-Up: Los Angeles County DCFS
About the 2016 Report
In January 2016, the California State Auditor issued Report 2015-041, Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006. For the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the report continued tracking recommendations originating from the March 2012 audit, Report 2011-101.2, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Management Instability Hampered Efforts to Better Protect Children.
Timely Investigation of Child Abuse and Neglect Allegations
The State Auditor continued tracking Recommendation 2, which stated that DCFS should assess whether it needed to permanently allocate more resources to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect so those allegations could receive timely resolution. In the January 2016 report, this recommendation had appeared in the annual accountability report for three years. The report listed an estimated completion date of Fall 2015, but the recommendation remained classified as “Not Fully Implemented.”
Assessing Homes Before Children Were Placed
The State Auditor continued tracking Recommendation 4, which concerned ensuring that DCFS placed children only in safe homes. The recommendation stated that DCFS should measure its performance and adjust its practices to adhere to what the State Auditor described as state law requiring homes to be assessed before placement of a child. By January 2016, this recommendation had appeared in the annual accountability report for three years and remained classified as “Will Not Implement.”
Relative Placement Practices
The State Auditor also continued tracking Recommendation 5, concerning DCFS's process for placing children with relatives. The State Auditor recommended that DCFS analyze best practices used by other county child-welfare agencies and implement changes so that relatives and their homes would be approved before placement, as described in the recommendation. In the January 2016 report, this recommendation had also appeared in the annual accountability report for three years and remained classified as “Will Not Implement.”
What the 2016 Report Shows
The 2016 report shows that three Los Angeles County DCFS recommendations originating from the March 2012 audit continued to appear in the State Auditor's accountability report. One recommendation concerning resources for timely investigation of child abuse and neglect allegations remained Not Fully Implemented, while two recommendations concerning assessments of homes and relative-placement practices remained Will Not Implement. Each of these three recommendations had appeared in the annual accountability report for three years.
The 2016 report does not say that DCFS rejected every recommendation from the original 2012 audit. It specifically identifies these three recommendations and their respective statuses. The child-death-review recommendation discussed in the previous year's report was no longer among these outstanding recommendations because it had previously reached fully implemented status.
2016 DCFS Accountability Statistics
The most important numbers directly supported by the 2016 report are straightforward: three DCFS recommendations from the March 2012 audit were still being reported, and all three had appeared in the annual accountability report for three years. Of those three recommendations, one was classified as “Not Fully Implemented,” and two were classified as “Will Not Implement.” The recommendation concerning timely child abuse and neglect investigations had an estimated completion date of Fall 2015 but remained not fully implemented in the January 2016 report.
Questions for the Public
After reviewing the 2016 California State Auditor report, the public should ask: Why was a recommendation intended to help ensure timely resolution of child abuse and neglect allegations still Not Fully Implemented after appearing in the annual accountability report for three years? Why did two recommendations concerning assessments of homes and relative placements continue to carry the State Auditor's “Will Not Implement” classification? Why were recommendations originating from the March 2012 audit still appearing in the State Auditor's accountability report in January 2016? Why did Los Angeles County DCFS not implement these two recommendations from the State Auditor? If DCFS disagreed with the State Auditor's position, what was the basis for that disagreement, and what alternative measures were taken to address the concerns identified by the Auditor?
The public should also ask: What actions did the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors take in response to these unresolved State Auditor recommendations? How did the Board oversee DCFS's response to recommendations involving timely child abuse and neglect investigations, assessments of homes, and relative placements? If the Board took action, why were these recommendations still appearing in the State Auditor's accountability report years after the original 2012 audit? Who was responsible for ensuring that the underlying concerns identified by the State Auditor were addressed? As taxpayers, should Los Angeles County residents be able to see what actions county leadership took in response to each unresolved State Auditor recommendation?
The 2016 State Auditor report itself does not state whether the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took or failed to take specific action concerning these recommendations. Therefore, the questions concerning the Board of Supervisors are public accountability questions and should not be presented as findings made by the State Auditor.
Source and Reference
The information above comes directly from California State Auditor Report 2015-041, Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year: The Omnibus Audit Accountability Act of 2006, January 2016. The Los Angeles County DCFS portion tracks recommendations originating from California State Auditor Report 2011-101.2, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: Management Instability Hampered Efforts to Better Protect Children, issued in March 2012.
Official California State Auditor source:
California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2016
Download as PDF: California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2016
2019 California State Auditor Audit: Los Angeles County DCFS
About the 2019 Report
In May 2019, the California State Auditor issued Report 2018-126, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: It Has Not Adequately Ensured the Health and Safety of All Children in Its Care. Unlike the 2014, 2015, and 2016 accountability follow-up reports, the 2019 report was a new audit examining Los Angeles County DCFS practices involving the health and safety of children in its care. The State Auditor concluded that DCFS did not consistently complete child abuse and neglect investigations and related safety and risk assessments on time or accurately, which unnecessarily risked children's health and safety.
Delays in Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations
The State Auditor reviewed 30 referrals and found that DCFS adhered to required time frames for beginning investigations in only 19 of the 30 referrals. In one case, a social worker initially attempted to contact a family but did not make another attempt for 151 days. When DCFS eventually located the family, multiple children were removed after the department identified an unsafe situation. The Auditor concluded that the delay unnecessarily risked the children's health and safety.
The Auditor also reviewed 30 investigations and found that only 9 were completed within required time frames. Six investigations remained open for more than 90 days, and one investigation lasted more than 400 days. These findings showed problems not only with beginning investigations but also with completing them in a timely manner.
Safety and Risk Assessments
For fiscal year 2017–18, DCFS completed 72% of safety assessments on time and 76% of risk assessments on time. The report also found that 10% of safety assessments were not completed at all, while 8% of risk assessments were not completed.
In the Auditor's sample of 30 safety assessments, DCFS failed to complete 25 within the required 48 hours. The Auditor found substantial delays in some cases, including one safety assessment that took 112 days to complete.
Inaccurate Safety and Risk Assessments
The State Auditor found problems involving the accuracy of assessments as well as their timeliness. Five of the 30 safety assessments reviewed were inaccurate in identifying safety threats. In three cases, social workers completed safety assessments without visiting the children's homes but nevertheless indicated that the homes were safe and without hazards. The Auditor also found inaccuracies in 12 of the 30 risk assessments reviewed, including failures to properly consider information already available in case files.
Supervisory Oversight
The State Auditor also identified weaknesses in supervisory review. Supervisors sometimes approved safety and risk assessments only after investigations had already closed, and some assessments were never approved. In one case, a supervisor took 125 days to review and approve an initial safety assessment. The Auditor found that DCFS did not have specific time frames requiring supervisors to complete these reviews promptly.
Relative Placements and Required Background Checks
The State Auditor found significant problems involving children placed with relatives. Of 22 relative placements reviewed, DCFS conducted required initial in-home inspections before placement in only 16 cases. The department documented completion of mandatory pre-placement criminal background checks for only 5 of the 22 placements.
The detailed audit finding states that DCFS did not document whether it completed all required initial background checks before 17 of the 22 relative placements reviewed. In one case, DCFS did not document a required check until auditors questioned the department about it in December 2018, nearly 800 days after the child had been placed. The adults living in the home later passed the background check, but DCFS was unable to determine why the check had not been documented on time. This finding appears on printed page 22 of the report, PDF page 28 of 49.
Home Environment Assessments
State law also required DCFS to conduct a full home-environment assessment within five business days of each relative placement. The State Auditor found that DCFS failed to meet this requirement in 16 of the 22 relative placements reviewed. In four of those cases, DCFS did not complete the assessments until more than a month after the children had already been placed with relatives.
The report further explained that DCFS contracted with community-based organizations to conduct these assessments. Although the department's standard contract language stated that DCFS would conduct annual reviews of those organizations' performance, including timely completion of home-environment assessments, the Auditor reported that DCFS had not performed those reviews.
Fingerprint Criminal Background Checks
The State Auditor also examined fingerprint clearance checks, commonly called live scans. For most of the audit period, state law generally required DCFS to secure fingerprint clearance checks for adults living in relative-placement homes within the applicable time period after the initial background check. The Auditor found that DCFS did not conduct live scans within the required time frame for 10 of the 22 relative placements reviewed.
Monthly Visits With Children
The State Auditor identified additional problems involving required visits to children already in DCFS care. In 8 of 30 cases reviewed, children had more than two consecutive visits outside their homes. In one case, a social worker did not visit a child in the child's home for eight months, meaning the worker was not evaluating the child's placement through an in-home visit during that period.
The Auditor also identified two cases where social workers repeatedly used nearly identical narratives for multiple months when documenting visits. DCFS agreed that the entries were questionable. The report stated that the questionable documentation raised doubt about whether the visits actually occurred, and DCFS confirmed that it would take appropriate action for any falsification of contact documentation.
Reunification Assessments
The audit also examined assessments used when considering whether children could safely reunify with their parents. The report explained that reunification assessments generally must occur every six months and before permanent-placement decisions. The State Auditor found that DCFS did not consistently conduct these assessments on time and reported that DCFS did not have a policy reflecting the six-month requirement.
Child-Death Reviews and Accountability
The State Auditor found that DCFS reviewed circumstances surrounding child deaths but did not have a process ensuring that recommendations resulting from those reviews were consistently implemented. The Auditor examined 10 child-death reviews from fiscal years 2013–14 through 2017–18 involving children who had previous referrals or cases with DCFS.
The Auditor found that half of the 10 cases reviewed did not contain findings of fault or recommendations for supervisors' improvement, even though documentation identified numerous errors by social workers whose work supervisors were responsible for reviewing.
DCFS Budget and Caseload
The audit provides important financial information for taxpayers. DCFS's budget increased by approximately 22%, from about $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2013–14 to approximately $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2017–18. During this period, staffing providing services to children increased while the department's overall caseload declined.
The report also shows that allegations of abuse or neglect decreased from 177,509 in fiscal year 2013–14 to 167,294 in fiscal year 2017–18, while the number of children receiving services decreased from 36,542 to 34,248.
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
The State Auditor identified DCFS as operating under the purview of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the California Department of Social Services. The report also describes the Board's connection to the child-death review process. For qualifying child deaths involving previous DCFS interactions, reports are prepared that County Counsel and the Board of Supervisors review. These reports can identify failures by social workers or supervisors to follow DCFS policies and can contain recommendations for improving department procedures and processes.
Questions for the Public
After reviewing the 2019 California State Auditor report, the public should ask: Why were child abuse and neglect investigations not consistently completed on time? Why were 25 of the 30 safety assessments reviewed not completed within the required 48 hours? How could some safety assessments indicate that homes were safe when social workers had not actually visited those homes? Why did DCFS document mandatory pre-placement criminal background checks for only 5 of the 22 relative placements reviewed? Why did DCFS not document one required check until auditors questioned it nearly 800 days after the child had been placed? Why were home-environment assessments late in 16 of the 22 relative placements reviewed? Why did one child go eight months without an in-home visit? Why did auditors identify questionable, nearly identical documentation of visits? Why were some supervisory reviews completed only after investigations had already closed?
The public should also ask: With DCFS's budget increasing from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion during the period examined while its overall caseload declined, how were taxpayer dollars being used to correct these documented problems? What oversight did the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors exercise over DCFS? When child-death reviews identified errors or recommendations, what actions followed? How could taxpayers determine whether corrective recommendations were actually implemented? Who was responsible for ensuring that DCFS addressed the problems identified by the State Auditor?
DCFS Response to the Audit
DCFS agreed with the State Auditor's findings and recommendations and indicated that it was beginning corrective actions. The State Auditor subsequently noted that some descriptions of DCFS's planned actions did not clearly explain how and when the department would fully implement the recommendations.
Source and Reference
The information above comes directly from California State Auditor Report 2018-126, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: It Has Not Adequately Ensured the Health and Safety of All Children in Its Care, May 2019. The nearly 800-day background-check documentation finding appears on printed page 22, PDF page 28 of 49.
California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2019
Download as PDF: California State Auditor — Los Angeles County DCFS Reports for 2019
Federal Child Welfare Audits & Accountability: California
What the Federal Government Reviewed
The federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) is administered by the Children’s Bureau within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The CFSR examines whether state child welfare systems conform with federal requirements under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act and evaluates outcomes involving child safety, permanency, and family well-being.
The documents reviewed here cover two federal CFSR cycles involving California. They include California’s 2016 Statewide Assessment, the 2016 Federal Final Report, California’s 2017 Round 3 Program Improvement Plan, California’s 2023 Round 4 Statewide Assessment, the 2024 Federal Final Report, and California’s 2025 Round 4 Program Improvement Plan. These documents should not all be called separate federal audits. The 2016 and 2024 Final Reports contain the federal Children’s Bureau’s findings, while the Statewide Assessments contain California’s assessments prepared as part of the federal review process and the Program Improvement Plans describe California’s corrective actions.
2016 California Statewide Assessment
The first document is Child and Family Services Reviews: Statewide Assessment Instrument, California, March 25, 2016. California prepared this assessment as part of Round 3 of the federal CFSR process. It examined California’s performance involving safety, permanency, well-being, and systemic factors before the federal government made its final determination. The Statewide Assessment was therefore not itself the final federal finding but was information submitted by California and considered during the federal review.
2016 Federal Child and Family Services Review Final Report
The California Child and Family Services Review Final Report, 2016 contains the federal Children’s Bureau’s Round 3 findings. The review included 160 cases, consisting of 128 foster-care cases and 32 in-home cases, and Los Angeles County was among the counties included in the case review. The federal government also considered California’s Statewide Assessment and information gathered through interviews and focus groups.
Seven Child and Family Outcomes
One of the most significant findings was that California was found in substantial conformity with none of the seven child and family outcomes. Of the seven systemic factors, only two were found in substantial conformity: Statewide Information System and Agency Responsiveness to the Community. The federal review identified cross-cutting concerns involving inconsistent safety practices, inconsistent quality and frequency of caseworker visits with children and parents, differences in performance among counties, and insufficient attention to timely permanency.
Safety Findings
For Safety Outcome 2, which concerns safely maintaining children in their homes whenever possible and appropriate, the outcome was substantially achieved in 58% of the 160 cases reviewed. Services intended to protect children in their homes and prevent removal or re-entry were rated a Strength in 62% of applicable cases, while risk and safety assessment and management were rated a Strength in 59% of applicable cases.
Permanency Findings
The federal findings concerning permanency were significant. Permanency Outcome 1 was substantially achieved in only 19% of the 128 applicable foster-care cases. Placement stability was rated a Strength in 63%, establishing appropriate permanency goals in a timely manner was rated a Strength in 50%, and efforts to achieve reunification, guardianship, adoption, or another permanent living arrangement were rated a Strength in only 35%.
Services, Licensing, and Background Checks
California was also found not in substantial conformity with Service Array and Resource Development and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. Within the foster and adoptive parent systemic factor, areas involving criminal background-check requirements, diligent recruitment, and cross-jurisdictional placement resources were rated Areas Needing Improvement.
2017 California Round 3 Program Improvement Plan
Following the federal findings, California submitted its Round 3 Program Improvement Plan on April 12, 2017. This was California’s corrective-action plan rather than another federal audit or final federal review. The document explains that California’s child welfare system is state-supervised and locally administered through 58 counties, with each county governed by a county board of supervisors, and that the system receives federal, state, and county funding.
California established seven broad improvement goals addressing family and child engagement, permanency and placement stability, caregiver support, availability of services, caseworker practices, continuous quality improvement, and related systemic concerns. California eventually successfully completed implementation of its Round 3 Program Improvement Plan, and the associated penalties were rescinded, according to the later 2024 federal Final Report.
2023 California Round 4 Statewide Assessment
California entered another federal CFSR cycle with its Round 4 Statewide Assessment. The uploaded document is dated August 1, 2023, while the later federal Final Report states that CDSS submitted the assessment to the Children’s Bureau on July 28, 2023. The Statewide Assessment represented California’s assessment of its system rather than the federal government’s final determination.
Data and System Concerns
The assessment documented data-quality concerns. California reported that case-plan-goal information could not be found in its system for 6.7% of children in foster care. The number of missing case-plan goals for child welfare and probation combined decreased from 8,326 in 2016 to 3,656 in 2022, with the average missing-data rate declining from 11.3% to 6.7%. California’s assessment also described issues identified through its case-review process involving staffing shortages, complex cases, caseworker training, engagement of key participants, and data-entry problems.
2024 Federal Child and Family Services Review Final Report
The Child and Family Services Reviews: California Final Report, 2024 contains the federal Children’s Bureau’s Round 4 findings. The review examined 163 cases, including 138 foster-care cases and 25 in-home cases, through a State-Led Review conducted from October 2023 through March 2024.
California Again Did Not Achieve Substantial Conformity With Any of the Seven Outcomes
The federal government again found California in substantial conformity with none of the seven child and family outcomes. This time, only one of the seven systemic factors, Agency Responsiveness to the Community, was found in substantial conformity. This finding came after California had successfully completed its previous Round 3 Program Improvement Plan.
Timeliness of Child Maltreatment Investigations
The 2024 federal review found that investigations or assessments were initiated according to California’s time requirements in 60 of 66 applicable cases, or 90.91%, but required face-to-face contact with children occurred within the required time in only 47 of 66 applicable cases, or 71.21%. Overall, the federal item concerning timely initiation of investigations of reports of child maltreatment was rated a Strength in 49 of 66 applicable cases, or 74.24%.
Safety Assessments
For Safety Outcome 2, the outcome was substantially achieved in 67% of applicable cases. Services intended to protect children in their homes and prevent removal or re-entry were rated a Strength in 82% of applicable cases, while risk and safety assessment and management were rated a Strength in 69%.
The detailed findings also identified weaknesses in the quality of safety assessments. Initial assessments accurately addressed identified risk and safety concerns in approximately 76.47% of applicable cases, while ongoing assessments did so in approximately 73.01%. When safety concerns existed, appropriate safety plans that were continually monitored were present in approximately 62.07% of applicable cases.
Permanency Findings
Permanency Outcome 1 was substantially achieved in only 20% of applicable cases. Placement stability was rated a Strength in 75%, permanency goals were rated a Strength in 56%, and efforts toward reunification, guardianship, adoption, or another planned permanent living arrangement were rated a Strength in only 36%.
The federal report also found that California’s performance on all three 12-month permanency indicators was statistically worse than national performance. The report identified delays involving reunification, adoption, legal proceedings, contested hearings, termination-of-parental-rights processes, and permanency hearings.
Family Engagement and Fathers
The federal government identified family engagement as a major cross-cutting concern, with particularly significant findings involving fathers. Among applicable cases, 32 of 93 fathers, or 34.41%, had no caseworker visits, while only 18 of 93 fathers, or 19.35%, had both sufficient frequency and quality of caseworker visits.
Maltreatment in Foster Care
The federal review found that California’s statewide performance on the maltreatment-in-foster-care indicator was statistically worse than national performance. This finding is important because federal oversight evaluates not only what happens before children enter foster care but also their safety after entering the child welfare system.
Service Availability and Reunification
California was found not in substantial conformity with Service Array and Resource Development. Federal reviewers identified shortages and waitlists involving behavioral-health services, psychological evaluations, inpatient or residential substance-use treatment, placement homes, transportation, and visitation services. The report stated that service and placement limitations sometimes resulted in children being placed outside their counties or in short-term shelters and contributed to delays in reunification.
Staff and Provider Training
All three federal items under Staff and Provider Training were rated Areas Needing Improvement. The federal report found, among other issues, that not all new social workers completed required core training within their first year, California could not demonstrate that probation placement staff completed required training, and the state was only partially able to demonstrate that ongoing training needs were being met.
Quality Assurance
California’s Quality Assurance System was rated an Area Needing Improvement. Although the system operated statewide, the federal government found that California did not routinely use case-review findings and other evidence to improve the quality of services statewide.
Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing and Background Checks
California was found not in substantial conformity with Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention. Areas needing improvement included consistent application of licensing standards, criminal background-check requirements, diligent recruitment of foster and adoptive homes, and cross-jurisdictional resources for permanent placements.
Termination of Parental Rights and Court Reviews
The federal report identified concerns involving termination of parental rights. It found that California did not routinely file termination-of-parental-rights petitions in accordance with applicable ASFA provisions and that statewide TPR data were unavailable because of limitations in California’s information system. California also lacked statewide data demonstrating whether foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers received required notices of periodic reviews and permanency hearings and information concerning their right to be heard.
2025 California Round 4 Program Improvement Plan
Following the 2024 federal findings, California developed its new Round 4 Program Improvement Plan. The document is dated April 10, 2025, and states that the plan was approved by the Administration for Children and Families on June 3, 2025. The implementation period extends through June 2, 2027, followed by a post-PIP evaluation period through December 1, 2028.
California organized its corrective efforts around six goals: improving family engagement and relationship building; increasing collaboration between child welfare agencies and legal and judicial partners; improving the timeliness and quality of assessments and services; improving data-system and quality-assurance capacity; improving workforce training, recruitment, and retention; and improving foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment, and retention.
California’s PIP analysis identified factors including high caseloads, social-worker turnover, and inadequate or insufficient training. It also identified differences among regions, stating that Los Angeles County showed lower performance than other regions on many permanency items and outcomes while showing higher performance on many safety items and some well-being items.
What the Federal Record Shows Across the Years
Taken together, these documents show a continuing federal oversight process rather than six independent federal audits. California completed a Statewide Assessment, underwent the 2016 federal review, developed and completed a Program Improvement Plan, completed another Statewide Assessment, underwent another federal review in 2024, and is now implementing another Program Improvement Plan.
The most significant comparison is that California was found in substantial conformity with none of the seven child and family outcomes in both the 2016 and 2024 federal Final Reports. In 2016, California achieved substantial conformity with two of seven systemic factors, while in 2024 California achieved substantial conformity with only one of seven systemic factors. At the same time, the federal record shows that California successfully completed its Round 3 Program Improvement Plan and had the associated penalties rescinded.
Questions for the Public
After reviewing these federal documents, the public should ask: Why was California found in substantial conformity with none of the seven child and family outcomes in both 2016 and 2024? Why did the 2024 federal review continue to identify concerns involving investigations, face-to-face contact with children, safety assessments, family engagement, permanency, services, training, quality assurance, foster-care licensing, and background checks? Why was California statistically worse than national performance on maltreatment in foster care and all three 12-month permanency indicators?
The public should also ask: How are federal Title IV-B and Title IV-E taxpayer dollars being used to address these problems? What accountability exists at the California Department of Social Services and county levels? What role do county boards of supervisors play in overseeing locally administered child welfare agencies? When federal reviewers identify an Area Needing Improvement, how does the public determine whether that problem is actually corrected? Why did California require another Program Improvement Plan following the 2024 review even though it successfully completed its previous Round 3 improvement plan?
Source
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) Information Portal
California CFSR Official Reports and Results
Download as PDF
Child and Family Services Reviews California Final Report 2016
California Child and Family Services Review Round 3 Program Improvement Plan (2017)
Federal Report: No State Has Ever Passed the Child and Family Services Reviews
A November 2025 report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that no state has achieved substantial conformity across all federal Child and Family Services Review outcomes and systemic factors during the past 25 years.
The findings reinforce the need for meaningful child-welfare reform, stronger accountability, family preservation, and effective independent oversight.
Read the full federal report below.Download as PDFNo State Has Ever Passed the Child and Family Services Reviews
Final Perspective: It Is Time to Reform the Child Welfare System
The following section represents my opinion and proposed reforms. These statements should not be attributed to the federal CFSR reports themselves.
After reviewing these federal reports, I believe it is time to reform the child welfare system. Protecting children from actual abuse and neglect is critically important, but protecting children should also require accurate investigations, reliable evidence, meaningful parental participation, family preservation when safely possible, due process, transparency, and accountability. The government exercises tremendous authority when it intervenes in a family, and that authority should come with equally serious responsibilities for accuracy and fairness.
Investigations Should Be Thorough and Based on Verified Evidence
Child protection should begin with a thorough and accurate investigation. Before allegations of abuse or neglect are presented as established facts, relevant evidence should be examined, material witnesses should be interviewed, parents and children should be meaningfully engaged, contradictory information should be considered, and social workers should accurately document what their investigations actually establish. Supervisors should also carefully review significant allegations and evidence before reports are submitted to dependency courts.
The federal reports do not determine whether every social worker tells the truth or whether every individual CPS investigation is accurate. They also do not establish that every investigation is dishonest. What they document are weaknesses in important parts of California’s child welfare system. For example, the 2024 federal review rated risk and safety assessment and management a Strength in 69% of applicable cases, not 100%.
That distinction is important. A finding that the system has weaknesses does not prove that a particular allegation is false, but neither should the existence of a CPS report automatically establish that every allegation contained in it is true. Important allegations should be independently investigated and supported by reliable evidence.
Witness Credibility and Verification
Witness statements should also be carefully examined rather than automatically accepted as fact. A person making an allegation could have a personal conflict with a parent, could be angry with the parent, could misunderstand what happened, could repeat information received from another person, or could potentially have another motive connected to a dispute involving the children. These possibilities do not mean that witnesses generally lie, but they are reasons why investigators should independently verify significant allegations instead of assuming that every report is accurate.
Investigators should determine whether a witness actually observed the alleged abuse or neglect, distinguish firsthand knowledge from hearsay, assumptions, or secondhand information, compare the statement with other available evidence, investigate significant contradictions, and accurately document what the witness actually said. The federal reports reviewed here do not establish that witnesses commonly lie or make false allegations, so that should not be presented as a federal finding. The issue I am raising is whether the system has strong enough safeguards to detect unreliable, mistaken, incomplete, or intentionally false information before it affects a family.
The public should therefore ask: Was the witness actually interviewed? Did the witness personally see or hear the alleged abuse or neglect? Is the allegation based on firsthand knowledge or information from somebody else? Could a personal conflict or dispute affect the witness’s credibility? Was contradictory evidence investigated? Did the social worker independently verify the allegation before presenting it to the court?
Material Witnesses Should Testify When Important Statements Are Disputed
I believe another major reform is needed regarding witness testimony in dependency court. When a social worker’s report relies on a material witness’s statement as important evidence supporting disputed allegations of abuse or neglect, that material witness should be required to testify when legally appropriate before a judge relies heavily on the disputed statement to make findings against a parent.
The court should have an opportunity to hear what the witness actually saw, heard, or knew rather than relying solely on another person’s written description of what the witness allegedly said. Testimony allows disputed information to be examined, credibility to be evaluated, inconsistencies to be identified, and firsthand knowledge to be distinguished from assumptions or secondhand information.
When allegations can contribute to removing children from their parents, restricting visitation, extending foster care, affecting reunification, or ultimately terminating parental rights, important disputed evidence should receive meaningful examination before life-changing findings are made.
Social Workers Should Be Accountable for Their Reports in Court
I also believe that when the investigation or material statements in a social worker’s report are disputed, the social worker responsible for the investigation and report should be required to testify and be available for questioning before the judge relies heavily on those disputed statements.
The social worker should be prepared to explain how the investigation was conducted, which witnesses were actually interviewed, what evidence was reviewed, whether statements were based on firsthand knowledge, how contradictory evidence was handled, what steps were taken to verify allegations, and how the conclusions and recommendations presented to the court were reached.
A government report can carry enormous weight in a dependency proceeding. For that reason, a written report should not make disputed information automatically unquestionable simply because the information appears in an official document. Accountability should include the ability to examine how important information entered the report and whether it is supported by evidence.
The Court Should Examine Disputed Evidence Before Making Findings
Judges make decisions that can profoundly affect children and parents. When important facts are disputed, I believe courts should have the strongest possible factual record before making those decisions. Material witnesses and responsible social workers should be available for testimony and questioning when necessary to determine whether important disputed allegations are reliable.
The public should ask: If a report says a witness observed abuse or neglect, did that person actually observe it? If the witness denies seeing it, how is that contradiction resolved? If a parent challenges an important statement, does the parent have a meaningful opportunity to question the witness and the social worker? How can a judge properly evaluate credibility if an important disputed allegation reaches the court only through a written report?
This is a proposed reform, not a finding or requirement contained in the federal CFSR reports reviewed here. The federal reports do not state that every witness or social worker must testify before a judge may consider a child welfare report. Keeping that distinction clear allows the public to separate the federal government’s documented findings from proposals for changing dependency investigations and court procedures.
Taxpayer Accountability
Federal, state, and county governments use substantial public resources to operate the child welfare system, including funding connected to Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. Taxpayers therefore have a legitimate interest in asking whether those resources are producing accurate investigations, meaningful family engagement, appropriate services, child safety, family preservation when safely possible, and timely permanency.
When federal reviews repeatedly identify areas requiring improvement, taxpayers should also be able to determine what corrective action was taken, whether the problems were actually resolved, and who is responsible when deficiencies continue. Accountability should apply throughout the system, including child welfare agencies, supervisors, state oversight, county leadership, and other government institutions responsible for administering and overseeing child welfare programs.
The Public Should Ask Hard Questions
The public should ask whether every allegation is independently investigated and verified before it becomes the basis for major government action. Were relevant witnesses interviewed? Did those witnesses personally observe what they are alleged to have witnessed? Was contradictory information examined? Were parents meaningfully interviewed and allowed to respond? Did supervisors review the evidence? When important facts were disputed, were the witness and social worker questioned before the court relied heavily on those facts?
The public should also ask why California was found in substantial conformity with none of the seven child and family outcomes in both the 2016 and 2024 federal reviews, why significant Areas Needing Improvement remained, and how federal Title IV-B and Title IV-E funding is being used to improve the system.
It Is Time for Reform
I believe protecting children and protecting the integrity of investigations must work together because child safety requires accurate facts. The system should neither automatically assume that every allegation is true nor automatically assume that every allegation is false. It should investigate, verify, document, and appropriately test the evidence.
It is time to reform the child welfare system so that child safety, accurate investigations, reliable evidence, meaningful family engagement, family preservation, due process, transparency, and accountability work together. Material witnesses whose disputed statements are important to allegations should, when legally appropriate, be heard directly by the court, and social workers responsible for disputed investigations and material statements should be accountable for explaining their work through testimony and questioning.
Children deserve protection from actual abuse and neglect. Parents deserve fair proceedings based on evidence that has been properly investigated and examined. Judges deserve reliable information before making decisions that can permanently change a family’s life, and taxpayers deserve accountability from the public institutions they fund.
Comments