vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
Given the complex and interwoven factors contributing to disproportionalities and disparities, addressing them will require broad efforts both across the child welfare system and policy areas external to the system. Many of the options would introduce new costs. Accordingly, the Legislature would need to consider the fiscal implications and associated trade‑offs. 

Introduction
Child Welfare System’s Primary Goal Is to Keep Children Safe. The child welfare system serves to protect children from maltreatment—including by removing children from their home and placing them into temporary foster care when deemed necessary—and to strengthen families so that children can remain safely with their families whenever possible. When responding to allegations of maltreatment, social workers use a variety of tools and training to assess the child’s safety on a case‑by‑case basis, determining whether or not a child can remain safely at home. 
California’s Child Welfare System‑Involved Families Are Disproportionately Black, Native American, and Low Income. Black and Native American children are significantly overrepresented in California’s child welfare system relative to their shares of California’s child population. Moreover, these children and their families tend to have worse child welfare outcomes, such as longer time spent in out‑of‑home care and higher likelihood of termination of parental rights. In addition, most families involved with the child welfare system are experiencing poverty or otherwise facing significant economic hardship. These demographic and outcome trends have persisted for many years. 
This Report Examines Front‑End Disproportionalities and Disparities. Disproportionalities persist at all levels of the child welfare system, alongside disparities in outcomes. A disproportionality occurs when a group’s percentage in a target population (for example, California’s child welfare population) differs from that group’s percentage in the base population (for example, the state of California), while disparities refer to groups experiencing inequities relative to one another (for example, children of different racial/ethnic groups experiencing different outcomes).
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
In particular, the 2021‑22 budget provided $222 million for block grants to counties (on an opt‑in basis) to help them develop comprehensive prevention plans (CPPs) and begin implementing optional Title IV‑E prevention services, as well as any other non‑federally eligible prevention services they choose to implement. In developing CPPs, counties are required to conduct needs and capacity assessments, map current services and providers, define the specific prevention services they will implement and who the target populations will be, and more. Counties opting into the state block grant program were required to submit their CPPs to DSS in July 2023. As of January 2024, DSS had approved CPPs for 49 counties and 2 tribes (with 1 additional county’s plan still pending approval). Counties will continue to scope their programs and build the needed capacities in the coming years. 
Improving the Economic Stability of Child Welfare Families. The Legislature has taken several budget actions and passed policy bills over the past few years that aim to improve the economic supports for child welfare system involved families. Some examples of recent legislative actions include: time‑limited cash assistance for families at risk of child removal, the creation of a new tax credit for former foster youth, policy changes to continue providing cash assistance to California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) families for six months after a child is removed, policy changes and additional funds to support relative caregivers, and policy changes to help older foster youth access Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment benefits. California also updated state policy to conform with federal guidance to allow more child support dollars to flow to families participating in reunification services. 
Supporting Placements With Relatives. As noted, research finds that foster youth placed with family members or kin tend to experience more stability and better longer‑term outcomes than those placed in congregate care or with non‑relative foster families. Accordingly, a number of recent legislative actions and budget augmentations aim to support family members to be able to provide care for relative children who are placed into foster care.
Jury Service - jury_service
However, if you have been convicted of a felony and are currently on parole, postrelease community supervision, felony probation, or mandated supervision for the conviction of a felony, you remain disqualified from jury service. Additionally, if any individual is incarcerated in any prison or jail, they are disqualified from jury service. Also, those who are currently required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal Code based on the felony conviction are not eligible for jury service. Finally, any person who has been convicted of malfeasance in office and whose civil rights have not been restored may not serve on a jury.
However, if you have received a pardon from the Governor and had your civil rights restored pursuant to California Penal Code sections 4852.01-4854, you may serve on a jury even if you have been convicted of malfeasance in office. There are two ways to receive a pardon: one is by applying for and being granted a Certificate of Rehabilitation and Pardon, and the second is through a Direct Application for Pardon. Please consult an attorney for legal advice, your local California Superior Court clerk’s office, or your probation office for further guidance.
Please note that the above changes do not affect the eligibility and disqualification criteria for criminal or civil grand juries, as specified in Section 893 of the Penal Code.
How long does a trial take?
Trial length depends on how complex the issues are and how long jurors spend in deliberations. Most trials are completed within a week. The judge knows approximately how long the trial will take and he or she will give you an idea when your group is called for jury selection. Judges are aware that long trials can be difficult. Let the judge know if it would be a serious hardship for you to serve on a long trial. Please be patient during this process, because a lot of people have similar concerns about time.
What happens to my job obligations?
Your employer must allow you time off to serve on a jury. That is the law. The California Labor Code prevents any employer from firing or harassing an employee who is summoned for jury service. School employees and students are protected as well in different parts of the law.
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
Throughout all levels of the child welfare system, families experiencing poverty are more likely to come to the attention of and be impacted by the child welfare system. For example, across California, foster placements by county increase as the rate of poverty increases, as shown in Figure 8. As another example, recent research found that lower‑income California children—that is, those with public health insurance (Medi‑Cal)—experienced child welfare involvement at more than twice the rate of those with private insurance. These findings reflect the CDC framework, given that poverty and correlated factors are known risks that increase the likelihood of child maltreatment. Therefore, the fact that lower‑income families are more likely to become involved with the child welfare system is not surprising and to a large extent reflects differences in exposure to risks.

Black and Native American Children Significantly Overrepresented 
Black and Native American Children Disproportionately Experience Foster Care Placement. The proportions of Black and Native American youth in foster care are around four times larger than the proportions of Black and Native American youth in California overall. Figure 9 illustrates these disproportionalities. While the figure displays aggregated state‑level data, disproportionalities differ across counties. These disproportionalities have persisted over time. 

Disparities Are Present at All Stages of Child Welfare System Involvement, Becoming More Pronounced at Later Stages. In addition to disproportionate representation, disparities between racial and ethnic groups also are present across the child welfare system. As shown by Figure 10, disparities are present beginning with allegations and are maintained through all stages of child welfare system involvement, becoming most pronounced for children who are removed from their home and are in foster care. Figure 10 shows the relative extent to which children of different racial/ethnic groups are involved with various levels of the child welfare system, compared to white children. Bars to the right of center indicate relatively higher rates of involvement, while bars to the left of center indicate relatively lower rates of involvement. For example, a bar extending to the far right of the figure would indicate ten times higher likelihood of involvement.
Criminal | Superior Court of California | County of Tulare
Upon posting of bail, or if the defendant is released on his/her own recognizance (which means the defendant is bound by a promise to appear in court), an arraignment date is scheduled.
Arraignment on Complaint:
Defendant is either brought to court or, if he/she is not in custody, he/she appears in court.
Defendant is either represented by their own attorney,or, if the defendant cannot afford to hire an attorney, an attorney will be appointed.
Defendant is advised of his/her constitutional rights.
Bail is set; or
Defendant is released on his/her own recognizance.
Preliminary Hearing:
Witnesses testify and evidence is presented.
If the judicial officer finds insufficient evidence, the defendant is released.
If the judicial officer finds sufficient evidence, the defendant is held to answer in the criminal trial department.
Arraignment on Information:
Defendant is either brought to court or, if he/she is not in custody, he/she appears in court.
Defendant is either represented by their own attorney,or, if the defendant cannot afford to hire an attorney, an attorney will be appointed.
Defendant is advised of his/her constitutional rights.
Bail is set or,
Defendant is released on his/her own recognizance.
Pre-trial and trial dates are set.
Pre-Trial Proceedings After a Not Guilty Plea:
Discovery is exchanged between the prosecution and the defense attorneys. This includes police reports, blood test results, photographs, etc.
Motions may be filed to set aside the complaint, to dismiss the case, or to suppress evidence, etc.
Defendant may change his/her plea to guilty or no contest.
A hearing will be held to attempt to resolve the case without going to trial.
Case does not resolve and proceeds to trial. (See: What occurs at trial, below.)
What Occurs at Trial?
Misdemeanor Jury Trial:
Jury is selected.
Witnesses testify and evidence is presented.
Jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
If not guilty, the defendant is released and cannot be tried again for the same crime.
California Rules of Court: Title Five Rules
California Rules of Court: Title Five Rules

Skip to main content

<< Previous Rule

[ Back to Title Index ]

Next Rule >>
     |       Printer-friendly version of this page

2024 California Rules of Court
Rule 5.552. Confidentiality of records (§§ 827, 827.12, 828)(a)	Definitions
For the purposes of this rule, "juvenile case file" includes:
(1)  All documents filed in a juvenile court case;
(2)  Reports to the court by probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers;
(3)  Documents made available to probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers in preparation of reports to the court;
(4)  Documents relating to a child concerning whom a petition has been filed in juvenile court that are maintained in the office files of probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers;
(5)  Transcripts, records, or reports relating to matters prepared or released by the court, probation department, or child welfare services program; and
(6)  Documents, video or audio tapes, photographs, and exhibits admitted into evidence at juvenile court hearings.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2001.)(b)	Petition
Juvenile case files may be obtained or inspected only in accordance with sections 827, 827.12, and 828. They may not be obtained or inspected by civil or criminal subpoena. With the exception of those persons permitted to inspect juvenile case files without court authorization under sections 827 and 828, and the specific requirements for accessing juvenile case files provided in section 827.12(a)(1), every person or agency seeking to inspect or obtain juvenile case files must petition the court for authorization using Petition for Access to Juvenile Case File (form JV-570). A chief probation officer seeking juvenile court authorization to access and provide data from case files in the possession of the probation department under section 827.12(a)(2) must comply with the requirements in (e) of this rule.
California’s Child Welfare System: Addressing Disproportionalities and Disparities
In the child welfare system, disproportionality occurs when, for example, one group’s representation in foster care is larger than (overrepresented) or smaller than (underrepresented) that group’s share of the general child population. Disparity, on the other hand, refers to groups experiencing inequities relative to one another. Disparity occurs when the ratio of one group experiencing an event is not equal to the ratio of another group experiencing the same event. In the child welfare system, for example, disparity is often used to describe inequitable outcomes experienced by different groups, such as the average amount of time that children of different racial/ethnic groups spend in foster care or the likelihood of reunifying successfully with their parent(s)/caregiver(s).

Lower‑Income Families Disproportionately Represented 
Most of California’s Families Involved With the Child Welfare System Live in Poverty. We do not have aggregated data about family income level for those involved with the child welfare system, but available data reflect that the majority of children in foster care live in deep poverty. Specifically, an estimated 53 percent of youth in foster care in 2023‑24 are removed from families who meet 1996 federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children eligibility requirements. This roughly equates to earnings of under $1,000 per month for a family of four. Nationally, researchers estimate around 85 percent of families involved with the child welfare system have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, which is around $5,000 per month for a family of four in 2023.
Rates of Child Welfare System Involvement Correlate With Rates of Poverty in California. Throughout all levels of the child welfare system, families experiencing poverty are more likely to come to the attention of and be impacted by the child welfare system. For example, across California, foster placements by county increase as the rate of poverty increases, as shown in Figure 8. As another example, recent research found that lower‑income California children—that is, those with public health insurance (Medi‑Cal)—experienced child welfare involvement at more than twice the rate of those with private insurance.
The 2024-25 Budget: Child Support
Unintended consequences could include, for example, the recipient family becoming ineligible for CalFresh or other means-tested programs due to the additional income received from the child support payment.
LAO Comments
Given Significant Budget Deficit, General Fund Resources Are Not Sufficient to Implement Full Passthrough to Currently Assisted Families. The fiscal impact of implementing the full passthrough to current CalWORKs families is estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars annually, including reduced General Fund revenues and backfills to the federal and county governments. Given we estimated the Governor’s budget solved a $58 billion budget problem—and revenues continue to deteriorate—the administration likely will not implement the full passthrough to current CalWORKs families as part of the May Revision.
New Language Would Be Needed to Direct Future Determination. Should the Legislature wish to continue to prioritize implementation of a full passthrough to current CalWORKs families in future budget years, new budget language would be needed to provide that direction to the administration. The current statute becomes inoperative July 1, 2024.
Forthcoming Report May Illuminate Additional Areas for Consideration. As noted, in April 2024, DSS and DCSS are required to submit a report to the Legislature on unintended consequences of implementing the full passthrough to current CalWORKs families. Depending on the report’s findings and suggested mitigation strategies, the Legislature may wish to take additional steps in advance of potential future implementation of the passthrough, to help ensure that the goal of financially bolstering low-income families receiving CalWORKs assistance is met.
If Passthrough to Former CalWORKs Families Does Not Occur in May, Some Additional General Fund Revenues Would Accrue. Although the administration currently estimates necessary automation updates will be completed this spring, there previously have been delays to the implementation time line. Ultimately, should additional time be required for automation, these further delays would mean former CalWORKs families would wait longer to begin receiving the full passthrough, but also would result in increased General Fund revenues for that time.
Child Support Collections for Foster Care Cases
Background
Federal Government Requires States to, Where Appropriate, Recoup Title IV-E Costs From Families Through Child Support Program.
Prior Reforms - criminal_justice_prior_reforms
In 2019, the state budget earmarked $75 million to the Judicial Council to launch and evaluate pretrial pilot programs  in select trial courts, with the goals of increasing the safe and efficient release of arrestees before trial, using the least restrictive monitoring practices possible while protecting public safety and ensuring court appearances, validating and expanding the use of risk assessment tools, and assessing any bias. And in 2021, the state budget earmarked an additional $140 million to the Judicial Council for pretrial release programs, with $70 million available to courts that did not participate in the pilot program.  
Reduced the length of sentences.  
Propositions 47 and 64 contained provisions allowing defendants to request resentencing, reclassification, or dismissal and sealing of eligible convictions. More recent examples of sentencing reform include Senate Bill 180, which eliminated a mandatory three-year sentence enhancement for prior controlled substance convictions, and Senate Bill 136, which eliminated a mandatory one-year prison prior sentence enhancement (except for sexually violent offense convictions); Senate Bill 483  retroactively applied these changes to persons currently serving a sentence based on the eliminated enhancements. 
Created new opportunities for debt and record clearance relief.  
Post-conviction relief has been expanded in a number of different contexts. Assembly Bill 813 created vacatur relief for plea bargained convictions based on adverse immigration consequences or on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence, and Assembly Bill 1259 extended vacatur relief based on adverse immigration consequences to convictions that resulted from trial. The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (AB 2542)—allows defendants to file a writ of habeas corpus or a motion to vacate a conviction or sentence that was sought, obtained, or imposed on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin; and recent legislation made this bill retroactive. Senate Bill 731 extended the ability to petition for dismissal of a conviction under Penal Code section 1203.41 to felony defendants who completed a state prison sentence.  
Provided for automatic record clearance relief to be carried out by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the courts.  
Traditionally, defendants seeking record clearance relief have been required to affirmatively petition for such relief. But in recent years, the Legislature has created various statutory mechanisms that automate this relief and eliminate the need for defendants to file a petition.
Prior Reforms - criminal_justice_prior_reforms
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the RFA:
Judicial Council staff held an optional conference call for court applicants on June 5, 2019, to address questions related to the application process, policy, and/or scope of the pilot program. Written responses were updated weekly as additional questions were submitted.
Updated June 21: Frequently Asked Questions re: Application
After reviewing the applicants, funds were awarded to 16 pretrial projects in trial courts throughout the state on August 9, 2019. See the Pretrial Pilot Program section for details on these pilot projects.

Pretrial Detention Reform

Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup
Purpose: Study current pretrial detention practices and provide recommendations for potential reforms.
Date Established: October 2016

Now Available: Pretrial Detention Reform Report
	Read the Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup recommendations published October 2017. Learn more about the report from the press release, Chief Justice Workgroup: Money Bail is "Unsafe and Unfair".

About

Significant attention is focused on pretrial detention throughout the country. Courts, counties, and municipalities have been the subject of multiple lawsuits asserting constitutional violations. Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye expressed concerns about individuals who are detained pretrial solely because they are too poor to afford bail in her 2016 State of the Judiciary address to the California Legislature. Members in both houses of the California Legislature have introduced legislation aimed at pretrial reform.
A Brief Guide to the California Chief Justice’s Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup
 
The workgroup began its work in December 2016 and will conclude in December 2017. The recommendations will be presented to the Chief Justice for her consideration and will later be shared with Judicial Council advisory committees, as appropriate.
The recommendations may include changes to rules of court or California law, best practices for courts and justice system partners, or suggestions for related areas in need of study. The group will receive input from state and national experts, justice system partners, regulators, victim and civil liberty advocates, and states and localities that have recently undergone pretrial reform efforts.
 
Guiding Principles
Judicial decision making is integral to pretrial detention. The workgroup is guided by the following principles:

Pretrial custody should not occur solely because a defendant cannot afford bail