The CDRT Training Act: How SB 962 Sought to Require Child Death Review Team Training

In the early 2000s, the California Child Death Review Team member who was preparing to review a child death was, in most cases, a member who was, in the words of the child welfare advocates, the predictable outcome of a CDRT training framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the state to provide the standardized training. The member was, in most cases, a member who could not access the training materials that had been developed by the experienced CDRT teams. The member was, in most cases, a member who did not have the tools to review the death consistently. The member was, in plain language, facing the gap between the experienced and the new teams. The gap was, in the early 2000s, a documented barrier. The barrier was, in the words of the child welfare advocates, the predictable outcome of a CDRT training framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the state to provide the standardized training. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his last term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the CDRT training framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 962, the CDRT Training Act, and it was, by any measure, the most ambitious California CDRT training framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the child welfare community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

The Law

Senate Bill 962, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 2001 to 2002 Regular Session, sought to require the California Child Death Review Team training framework. The bill would have been codified in the Penal Code, in the chapter governing Child Death Review Teams. The operative provisions would have required the state to provide the standardized training to the CDRT members, and would have required the state to publish the CDRT training data annually. The bill was VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 2002. The veto message cited the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the child welfare community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the CDRT voluntary training program that continued in the 2000s, and through the SB 525 (Polanco, 1999) Statewide Child Abuse Fatality Tracking Act that was signed into law in October 1999.

The California Child Death Review Team member preparing to review a child death was, in 2002, in most cases, a member facing the gap between the experienced and the new teams. The member was, in the words of the child welfare advocates, the predictable outcome of a CDRT training framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the state to provide the standardized training. SB 962 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the most ambitious California CDRT training framework of the early 2000s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Davis in September 2002.

The Problem

By 2001, the inconsistency between the experienced and the new CDRT teams in California was, by any measure, a problem. The California Department of Health Services, in its 2000 report, had documented that the experienced CDRT teams had, since 1988, reviewed more than 10,000 child deaths and had identified more than 3,000 preventable causes, and that the new CDRT teams were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a CDRT training framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the state to provide the standardized training. The 10,000 and 3,000 figures were, in the words of the report, valuable experience. The new teams were, in the words of the same report, the predictable outcome of a CDRT training framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the state to provide the standardized training. The report recommended that the state require the CDRT training framework. The framework had not, by 2001, been required.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 962, a CDRT Training Act. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the state to provide the standardized training. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the CDRT members to complete the training. The act was, by statute, the responsibility of the state to publish the training data. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the CDRT members required a statutory training framework. The statutory training framework was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the CDRT members to be able to review the deaths consistently. The second idea was that the framework required the standardized training. The standardized training was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the CDRT members to be able to access the training materials. The third idea was that the training required the publication. The publication was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the CDRT training framework to be transparent.

The Fight

The fight over SB 962 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 2001 to 2002, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the Department of Finance. The Department argued that the bill would impose new costs on the state. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new costs were, in fact, the kind of costs that the state should have been incurring all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for the program funding to be phased in over a three-year period. The second layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would impose new costs in the context of the broader state budget. The veto was the outcome of the disagreement. The Senate passed the bill in May 2002. The Assembly passed the bill in August 2002. Governor Davis VETOED the bill in September 2002. The veto message cited the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the child welfare community. The setback was, in 2002, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 2001 to 2002, in his last term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the Department of Finance. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the bill as part of the larger child death review advocacy that he had led since 1988. The advocacy was, in his view, the foundation of the CDRT voluntary training program that continued in the 2000s, and of the SB 525 (Polanco, 1999) Statewide Child Abuse Fatality Tracking Act that was signed into law. The CDRT framework was, in the 2000s, the foundation of the state child death review framework.

What Changed

SB 962 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The CDRT members did not, in 2002, receive the standardized training that the bill would have provided. The state did not, in 2002, implement the CDRT training framework. The child welfare community did, however, continue to advocate for the training. The advocacy has, since 2002, been the foundation of the state-level CDRT framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the CDRT voluntary training program that continued in the 2000s, and through the SB 525 (Polanco, 1999) Statewide Child Abuse Fatality Tracking Act. The framework has, since 2000, provided the training to more than 1,000 CDRT members in California.

The Legacy

SB 962 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The CDRT Training Act was not enacted. The CDRT members did not, in 2002, receive the standardized training that the bill would have provided. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the cost of the program. The cost was, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of a fiscal framework that did not have the statutory tools to absorb the new program. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the CDRT voluntary training program that continued in the 2000s. The legacy of SB 962 is the long-term advocacy for the training, which has continued since 2002. The CDRT Training Act is the cleanest record of the early 2000s California CDRT training framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the training that culminated in the CDRT voluntary training program.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 962, 2001 to 2002 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 962, May 2002.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 962, August 2002.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 962, September 2002.
5. California Department of Health Services, CDRT Annual Reports, 2000 to 2023.
6. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
7. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.