Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Logo
Report Number : 2016-126

California Department of Social Services
Its Caregiver Background Check Bureau Lacks Criminal History Information It Needs to Protect Vulnerable Populations in Licensed Care Facilities

Appendix

Status of Prior State Auditor’s Recommendations That Have Not Been Fully Implemented

 

As discussed in Table 7, this audit requested that the State Auditor determine the status of applicable recommendations from previous state auditor reports. The State Auditor has issued five reports that made a total of 32 recommendations to departments that were related to this audit’s scope of Social Services’ processes for conducting background checks and ensuring that registered sex offenders are not present in licensed facilities.13 Although almost a third of these recommendations have been implemented, many have been either only partially implemented or not implemented. Some of these prior recommendations address concerns that are very similar to those we noted in our current audit. Table A presents the recommendations we determined are not fully implemented with an explanation for our assessment. Where applicable, we identify the pages in our report that discuss our assessment and related recommendations.

Table A
Previous Recommendations That Are Not Fully Implemented as of February 2017

Recommendation

Status

Social Services

 

To ensure that criminal history exemptions are not granted to individuals that may pose a threat to the health and safety of children, the department should follow its new procedures that require management to review all criminal exemptions involving felonies. Additionally, the department should require management to periodically review and approve a representative sample of all other exemptions granted.

Partially Implemented
Social Services’ policy requires management to approve exemptions for violent felonies and nonviolent felonies if a certain amount of time has not passed since the most recent period of probation, parole, or incarceration. However, the CBCB does not require management review for nonviolent felony convictions when 10 years or more has passed since the end of the most recent period of probation, parole, or incarceration.
The assistant chief of the CBCB stated that he performs spot checks for quality on a small selection of background check cases, but there are no documented procedures for these reviews, and the chief of the CBCB stated that the assistant chief has not documented the cases he reviews in the tracking system that Social Services’ quality assurance unit used.

To ensure that criminal history exemptions are not granted to individuals that may pose a threat to the health and safety of children, the department should exercise caution when granting exemptions and actively consider all available information, not just RAP sheets. When considering the additional information, the department should perform any needed follow‑up while it determines whether to grant someone an exemption. To the extent that the department believes it needs statutory changes to appropriately carry out its responsibilities, the department should seek such changes.

Partially Implemented
Exemption analysts are required to evaluate information other than a RAP sheet, but they do not always obtain or receive all of the additional documents. See the details of this assessment in the report and the related recommendation.

To process criminal history checks as quickly as possible, the department should establish a goal within which it must notify individuals that they must request a criminal history exemption and work to make certain that all such notices are sent within the prescribed time frame.

Not Implemented
Although the CBCB has an informal expectation for sending out exemption‑needed letters within five days of receiving the RAP sheet, management does not actively track whether its staff meet the expectation. In addition, we found instances where the CBCB failed to meet its goals. We make a recommendation for the CBCB to establish time frames for its exemption process and monitor against those time frames in the report.

To process criminal history checks as quickly as possible, the department should develop safeguards to help ensure that municipal agencies provide requested information promptly so that the department meets its goal of granting or denying exemptions within 45 days.

Partially Implemented
Although the Investigations Branch has guidelines for following up on requests for police reports from local agencies, the CBCB does not have similar guidelines. Such guidelines could result in more timely receipt of documents.

To process criminal history checks as quickly as possible, the department should use its tracking system to identify cases that are not receiving sufficient attention from staff or where those seeking criminal history exemptions are not providing information promptly, and take action to close or expedite those cases.

Partially Implemented
The CBCB uses a report to track cases that an exemption analyst has taken action on within a specified time frame. Managers are expected to review these reports for the analysts they oversee, but the assistant chief of the CBCB indicated that these reviews are not documented. Additionally, the department does not have time frames for which it expects staff to process exemptions. See our assessment regarding the lack of time frames and exemption processing in the report, and the related in the report.

To implement the FBI record‑checking requirement in accordance with the law, the department should reevaluate its current policies and procedures for reviewing all individuals’ FBI records.

Not Implemented
In our 2000‑102 report, we identified that Social Services interpreted the law to mean that the department is authorized to allow people who disclose criminal convictions to begin caring for children before going through the mandatory FBI check. Social Services’ approach to self‑disclosed convictions is still not aligned with the law. See the details of this assessment in the report and the related recommendations in the report.

To implement the FBI record‑checking requirement in accordance with the law, the department should properly apply the requirements that allow individuals to work with or be in close proximity to children while their FBI check is pending.

Partially Implemented
State law requires that Social Services obtain California and federal criminal history information before issuing a license or certificate of approval to any individual to operate a foster family home or certified family facility. However, the CBCB does not wait for FBI records before clearing individuals to be present in other types of child care facilities unless the individual discloses a conviction from another state on his or her criminal history self‑disclosure. For more on our assessment of how Social Services inadequately handles self‑disclosure forms, see our assessment in the report and the related recommendations.

To allow the district offices to enforce all license revocations and facility exclusion decisions promptly, effectively, and consistently, the department should establish policies and procedures to guide district offices. The procedures should include time frames within which district offices must make two types of visits: one to make certain that individuals with revoked licenses are no longer caring for children and another to ensure that individuals who have been barred from child care facilities have not been present. In addition, the department should clearly specify the circumstances when a visit is not necessary and the type of information the district may use as evidence that the individual is complying with the revocation and exclusion order.

Partially Implemented
Although Social Services has established policies and procedures for district offices to enforce license revocations and facility exclusion decisions within 30 days, the department has not provided clear guidance for when district offices must conduct site visits to verify an individual is complying with the revocation and exclusion order. In addition, we found that regional offices are not always verifying that individuals have been excluded from licensed facilities. See the details of this assessment in the report and the related in the report.

To ensure that it processes all legal cases promptly, the department should reassess its goal of filing a case pleading within six months of receiving the district offices’ request for a legal action and strive to shorten it. Once it sets a more appropriate time goal for processing legal actions, the department should ensure that its processing goals for legal cases are met.

Partially Implemented
The department maintains a goal of filing an action within 120 days of receiving the case, and attorneys are asked to document any reason that this goal is exceeded. Our testing showed several cases exceeding the 120‑day goal, with the cause of the delay generally attributed to delays in assigning cases and waiting for receipt of evidence. See the details of this assessment in the report and the related recommendation.

Justice

To provide children with the continued protection they deserve, Justice should establish a system to track and immediately notify the department of crimes individuals commit subsequent to the department’s criminal history review.

Partially Implemented
Although Justice has an automated system to transmit subsequent RAP sheets, as of early February 2017, it did not send all convictions to Social Services because of its interpretation of the law. However, Justice recently acknowledged the law was unclear and that it likely has the authority to transmit additional convictions it had not previously transmitted. See the details of this assessment in the report. and the related recommendation.

To provide the department with the most complete information possible on which to base its exemption decisions, Justice should continue working to help ensure that all criminal history information is forwarded from municipal agencies to Justice in a timely manner.

Partially Implemented
According to managers at Justice, most information about arrests and dispositions is reported electronically. Justice knows that it is not receiving all disposition and arrest information, and it is aware that many dispositions are received much later than the required 30 days. However, Justice does not monitor the submission of arrest information and therefore has no way to know if it is sent on time. Additional details of this assessment are in the report, and the related recommendations.

Audit 2002‑114, issued in August 2003; Department of Social Services: Continuing Weaknesses in the Department’s Community Care Licensing Programs May Put the Health and Safety of Vulnerable Clients at Risk

Social Services

To ensure that criminal history exemptions are not granted to individuals who may pose a threat to the health and safety of clients in community care facilities, the department should make certain it has clear policies and procedures for granting criminal history exemptions.

Not Implemented
The CBCB has not recently updated its main procedures manual, but it has developed additional procedures. However, these new procedures were communicated using memos. As a result of the procedures manual containing incomplete guidance, staff may have a difficult time determining what procedures to follow. See the details of this assessment and the related recommendations in Table 6.

To ensure that criminal history exemptions are not granted to individuals who may pose a threat to the health and safety of clients in community care facilities, the department should ensure staff are trained on the types of information they should obtain and review when considering a criminal history exemption, such as clarifying self‑disclosed crimes and vague character references.

Partially Implemented
The CBCB’s trainings for its exemption analysts are not held frequently enough and lack detail. Additional details of this assessment and related recommendation are in Table 6.

To process criminal history reviews as quickly as possible so that delays do not impede individuals’ right to work or its licensed facilities’ ability to operate efficiently, the department should work to make certain that staff meet established time frames for notifying individuals that they must request a criminal history exemption and for making exemption decisions as requested.

Not Implemented
The CBCB at one time had established time frames for notifying individuals exemptions were required and for making exemption decisions. However, as previously discussed in this table, Social Services has not implemented goals for notifying individuals that they must request an exemption. Further, it does not have formal time goals for making an exemption decision. Additional details of this assessment and related recommendations are discussed in the report.

The department should assess its quality control review process and ensure that these policies and procedures encompass a review of the key elements of the exemption decision process and staffs’ completion of appropriate and necessary correspondence.

Partially Implemented
According to the chief of the CBCB, the CBCB previously had a quality control unit that disbanded in 2015. However, the assistant chief of the CBCB stated that he reviews a selection of background check cases, and the chief of the CBCB stated that in January 2017 an analyst was being trained to complete quality assurance reviews using the procedures the previous unit used.

The department should ensure that policies and procedures are consistent and clear on where the responsibility lies for ensuring that the necessary action occurs upon an [arrest‑only] investigation’s completion.

Not Implemented
Arrest‑only procedures for how to process cases after an investigation’s completion provide varied guidance on where cases are routed after the final legal recommendation.

The department should review and enforce its arrest‑only policies and procedures to ensure that it is issuing criminal history clearances only when appropriate to do so. In addition, the department should properly train staff on these policies and procedures.

Partially Implemented
The arrest‑only unit conducted its first formal training in late September 2016, which is more than a year since the arrest‑only unit was formed. In addition, the CBCB has not yet completed all of the arrest‑only training it intends to conduct. See the details of this assessment and the related recommendations in Table 6

To ensure the department can account for all subsequent RAP sheets it receives and that it processes this information promptly, the department should develop and implement a policy for recording a subsequent RAP sheet’s receipt and train staff on this policy. In addition, upon receiving a subsequent RAP sheet with a conviction, the department should ensure that staff meet established time frames for notifying individuals that they need an exemption.

Partially Implemented
Although the CBCB has policies on receiving and recording subsequent RAP sheets, it does not have formal time frames for notifying individuals that they need exemptions. Additional details of this assessment and related recommendations are provided in the report.

The department should conduct follow‑up visits to ensure that enforcement actions against facilities are carried out. The department should also document its follow‑up for enforcement of revocation and exclusion cases.

Partially Implemented
Although Social Services has policies that require its staff to ensure that enforcement actions are carried out within 30 days of the action, our testing found that regional offices did not always verify the exclusion of individuals related to arrest‑only cases. Additional details of this assessment and related recommendation are provided in the report.

Justice

Justice should continue to implement and further develop automated systems that not only increase criminal history reporting, but also ensure that reporting agencies submit arrest and disposition information more quickly and with fewer errors.

Partially Implemented
Justice receives most data electronically. However, it is not receiving all information in a timely manner. See the details of this assessment in the report and the related recommendations.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of Justice’s and Social Services’ records and interviews with key staff members about the recommendations identified in the table.



Footnotes

13 Table A only includes recommendations from two of these audits because all relevant recommendations from the other three audit reports have been fully implemented. These other reports are 2007‑115 (April 2008), Sex Offender Placement: State Laws Are Not Always Clear, and No One Formally Assesses the Impact Sex Offender Placement Has on Local Communities; 2011‑101.1 (October 2011), Child Welfare Services: California Can and Must Provide Better Protection and Support for Abused and Neglected Children; and 2015‑502 (July 2015), Follow‑Up—California Department of Social Services: Although Making Progress, It Could Do More to Ensure the Protection and Appropriate Placement of Foster Children.

Go back to text

 

Back to top