HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07261988 - 1.62 70: ' BCYAfD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM-' �• JAMES A. RYDINGSWORD, DIRECTOR
Contra
Costa
DATE;
July 6,, 1988 . County
SUBJECT;
Family Preservation Pilot Program - Application to State
Department of Social Services to be a Pilot County under
ARSSB-Hannigan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION;
Authorize the County Welfare Director to finalize and
submit a proposal to the State Department of Social
Services to be designated as one of three pilot counties
in California providing family support services to avoid
or limit out-of-home placements for children as provided
under AB558-Hannigan; and,
Authorize the County Welfare Director to distribute the
RFP which provides for both implementation of Family
Preservation Services in East County only and expansion
to West and Central County upon selection as a AB 558
pilot county.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The budget for our two-year Interagency Family
Preservation Pilot Program is based on hiring the Program
Coordinator and starting the contract for East County in
October, 1988; expanding the contract for West County in
February/March, 1989 ; and, expanding the contract - for
Central County in May/June, 1989 .
Total program costs for the Family Preservation Program,
based on a phased-in countywide implementation, will be:
Expenditures Revenues
County Grant State
FY, 88-89 $387, 117 $125,000 $ 94, 825. $168, 292
FY 89-90 $930,716 $125, 000 $130, 175 $675, 001
The offsetting revenues from the Clark Foundation total
$225, 000 over the two-year pilot. The Clark Foundation
revenues have been pro-rated for 9 months in year one,
and the balance carried into year two. The County
department funds total $250, 000 for the two-year period.
v
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_- APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
x UNANIMOUS (ASSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: + NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Social Service Dept.
cc: Mark Finucane - Health Services Dept. ATTESTED _ '2b _ / / �(�
Stuart McCullough .- Mental Health PHIL BATCH LOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Gerald Buck - Probation Dept. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Ron Stewart - Superintendent of Schools 5�
Family Task Force Members � �:lf/-'
BY ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83
•
-2-
Selection as a pilot county under AB 558 will provide up
to $900, 000 in revenues for each year of the two-year
pilot. AB 558 allows up to 10% of our annual AFDC -
Foster Care State expenditures to be used for family
support services to reduce or prevent out-of-home
placements. We do not expect to request the full 10%.
If Contra Costa is not selected as an AB 558 pilot,
revenues will allow implementation in only East County,
as originally proposed in the Clark Foundation Grant
application. The budget for the two-year pilot in only
East County will be:
Expenditures Revenues
County Grant
FY 88-89 $260, 152 $125, 000 $ 94, 825
FY 89-90 $337,950 $125, 000 $130, 175
Two-year
Program Totals $598, 102* $250, 000 $225, 000
The two-year Clark Foundation Grant totals $225, 000 and
is to be matched by $250, 000 county department funds.
The FY 88-89 expenditures and revenues cover the October
to June implementation; the balance of revenues are
carried over into the FY 89-90 totals.
The total two-year revenues of $475, 000 require an
additional $123, 102 to be sought from other foundations
or covered by county funds.
BACKGROUND•
On June 6, 1988 our two-year multi-agency Family
Preservation Program grant request was approved by the
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; the total grant will be
$225, 000.
That grant proposal was authorized by the Board on May
3rd, and referred to our intent to apply for pilot county
status under AB558-Hannigan.
AB558-Hannigan, (Attachment #1) authorizes the State
Department of Social Services to select 2 counties, along
with Solano County, as two-year pilots in providing
family support services to avoid or limit out-of-home
placement for children. County proposals are due by
August 5th. Our multi-agency Task Force has developed an
expanded Family Preservation Program proposal in response
to suggestions from state staff. The expanded proposal
(Attachment #2) calls for providing Family Preservation
Services by phasing-in West and Central County.
AB 558 provides that the AFDC-FC (Foster Care) funds
allocated to a pilot county may be used for the family
support services. However, if a county exceeds its total
projected AFDC-FC expenditures by up to 5%, the county
shall pay 25% of this extra cost; if the county exceeds
its allocated expenditures by more than 5%, the county
must fund fully those costs over 5%. Unanticipated
factors may be taken into consideration in waiving these
cost shifts to the county. Additionally, a Memorandum of
Understanding must be agreed upon between the local
county selected as a pilot and the State Department of
Social Services. We expect to address these details in
the MOU.
-3-
To meet an October start-up date, as planned, and
required under the State's implementation of AB 558 , we
are. also requesting authorization to distribute the RFP.
The RFP provides for both implementation of Family
Preservation Services in East County only and expansion
to West and Central County upon selection as a AB 558
pilot county.
LA:ed
discl0/AB558.doc
J
Attachment #1
Assembly Bill No. 558
CHAPTER 105
An act to add Section 16500.5 to the Welfare and Institutions Code,
relating to public social services, and declaring the urgency thereof,
to take effect immediately.
[Approved by Governor May 11, 1988. Filed with
Secretary of State May 11, 1988.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 558, Hannigan. Public social services: child welfare services.
Under existing law, counties are allocated state funds to provide
child welfare services. Also, under existing law, the state pays 95%
of the sum necessary for the adequate care of each child in foster
care.
This bill would permit no more than 3 participating counties,
selected by the State Department of Social Services, one of which
would be Solano County, on a pilot program basis, to claim, on an
annual basis,a prescribed portion of the state's share of that county's
AFDC-FC expenditures in advance if the county shows that it will
conduct.a program of family reunification and family maintenance
services; as specified: This bill would require a participating county
in the instance where it exceeds its projected AFDC-FC General
Fund expenditures by 5%, or less, of projected AFDC-FC General
Fund'.expenditures,.to share in the funding of that overage and to
bear 100% of any overage if it exceeds projected AFDC-FC General
C Fund expenditures by more than 5% and would permit a county to
share in the savings if it spends less than projected, as specified.
The bill would provide that the selected programs will be deemed .
successful if certain criteria are met. It would require the
department to report to the Legislature concerning the pilot
projects.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.-
SECTION
ollows.SECTION 1. Section 16500.5 is added to the Welfare and
Institutions Code, to read:
16500.5. (a) (1) The Legislature hereby finds and declares its
intent to encourage the continuity of the family unit by:
(A) Providing services to avoid or limit out-of-home placement
for children who are dependent children not taken from the physical
custody of their parents and guardian pursuant to Section 364,or who
are dependent children removed from physical custody of their
parents or guardian pursuant to Section 361.
89 60
l
Ch. 105 —2—
(B)
2—
(B) Providing transitional supportive services for those children
within the meaning of Sections 361 and 364 when they are returned
to the family unit. .
(C) Providing counseling and support designed to eradicate the
situation that necessitated intervention.
(2) The Legislature finds that maintaining abused and neglected
children in foster care grows'increasingly costly each year, and that
adequate funding for family services which.might enable these.
children to remain in their homes is not as readily available as
funding for foster care placement.
(3) The Legislature further finds that other state bodies have
addressed this problem through various systems of flexible
reimbursement in child welfare .programs that provide for more
intensive and appropriate services to prevent foster care placement 41
or significantly reduce the length of stay in foster care.
(4) Accordingly,it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
section to test a system of flexible reimbursement in order to
evaluate its potential as an efficient, economical, and effective
alternative to out-of-home placement.of children.
(b) (1) No more than three participating counties selected by the
State Department of Social Services, one of which shall be Solano
County, on a two-year pilot program basis, may claim,on an annual
basis, a portion of the state's share of that county's AFDC-FC
expenditures pursuant to subdivision (d) . of Section 11450 in
advance, provided the county shows that it will conduct a program
of family reunification and family maintenance services for families
receiving these.services pursuant to Sections 300, 361, and 364. For
each fiscal year of the two-year pilot program,a'.participating county
may claim in advance an amount equal to 10 Percent of the projected
state's share of AFDC-FC funds to be expended by that county
pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 11450.The specific amount of
funds to be advanced each year shall be determined by projecting
the state share of AFDC-FC General-Fund expenditures for abused
or neglected children supervised and placed by the county welfare
department for each'of the pilot program years based upon state
expenditures for AFDC-FC for the previous five years.
Except as provided in paragraph (2),in the event that in any pilot
program year the sum of a participating county's total AFDC-FC
General Fund expenditures for their children,added to the amount
advanced to the county, exceeds its total projected AFDC-FC
General Fund expenditures for their children for that fiscal year,by
5 percent or less,the county shall share in the funding of that overage
on a 25 percent county,75 percent state/federal cost ratio basis.If the
county's total AFDC-FC General Fund expenditures, added to the
amount advanced to the county exceeds,by more than 5 percent,the
total projected AFDC-FC General Fund expenditures for that fiscal
year, the county shall fund that portion of the overage in excess of
percent on a 100 percent basis.If the sum of a participating county's
89 90
r. —3— Ch. 105
total AFDC-FC General Fund expenditures for their children,added
to the amount advanced to the county,is less than the total projected
AFDC-FC General Fund expenditures for their children for that
fiscal year, the.county shall receive 25 percent of the amount of the
savings.
(2) A participating county's share of expenditures in excess of the
projected total may be reduced upon approval of the State
Department of Social Services and the Department of Finance based
on consideration of any unanticipated factors which result in higher
than projected AFDC-FC expenditures.
(3) The State Department of Social Services shall select no more
than three representative counties, one of which shall be Solano
County, to participate in the pilot program.
(3) Services which may be provided under this program may
include counseling,parenting,respite,and homemaking.Additional .
services may include those enumerated in Section 16506.1 and
16507.1. The services to be provided pursuant to this section may be
.determined by each participating county.
(c) These pilot projects shall provide specific programs of direct
services based on individual family needs as reflected in the service
plans to families of children who are dependent children not taken
from physical custody of their parents or guardians pursuant to _
Section 364, or who are dependent children removed from the
physical custody of their parents or guardian pursuant to Section 361.
The county welfare department social worker may return a
dependent minor removed from the home pursuant to Section 361,
with appropriate pilot project services, pursuant to an appropriate
court order.
These services shall only be provided to families whose children
are certified by a juvenile court judge to be children who %vill be
placed in out-of-home care without the provision of project services
or to be children who can be returned to their families with the
provision of project services. Each county shall be permitted to
contract with individuals and organizations to provide services
pursuant to this section.
(d) The services selected by any participating county shall be
reasonable and meritorious and shall demonstrate cost effectiveness
and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the
length of stay in out-of-home placement. A county shall not expend
more funds for supportive services under this section than that
amount which .would be expended for placement in out-of-home
care.
(e) The pilot program in each demonstration county shall be
deemed successful if at least 75 percent of the children receiving
demonstration project services remain in their own home for six
months after termination of project services, and if 60 percent
remain at home one year after project services are terminated. With
respect to children selected to receive project services who have
89 110
r
Ch. 105
already been removed from their home and placed in out-of-home \�
care, the project shall be deemed successful if the average length of
stay in out-of-home care is 50 percent less than the average length
of stay in out-of-home care for families who do not receive
demonstration project services.
(f) Funds used for project services shall supplement,not supplant,
child welfare services funds available for services pursuant to
Sections 16506.1 and 16507.1.
(g) The State Department of Social Services shall submit a report
to the Legislature that includes data from each participating pilot
county demonstrating to what extent,each has,met the criteria
specified in this section. An interim report shall be submitted by the
department no later than six months after the conclusion of the pilot
projects with a final report to be submitted after project completion.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace,health,or safety within
the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into'.
immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to provide the widest range of emergency services to
distressed children and families as soon as possible, and to rapidly
initiate services to prevent the disruption or destruction of the family
unit, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.
O
89 120
Attachment #2
'. Please reply to:
Social Service Department Contra
2401 Stanwell Drive,#200
'James A. Rydingsword P.O.Box 5488
Director Costa Concord,California 94524
County
July 18, 1988'
Mr. Wesley A.. Beers, Chief
Family & Children's Services Policy Bureau
State Department of Social Services
744 P Street, MS 9-103
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Beers: .
We are requesting selection {as a pilot county. under .Chapter 105
Statutes of 1988 (AB 558) to begin, implementation of a unique
proposal in coordinating Social Service, Mental Health,
Probation, and Education programs to prevent placement.
Attached .is a proposed interagency Family Preservation Program
which phases countywide implementation from October, 1988 to
June, 1989. We believe our proposal addresses needs of children
irrespective of the point of entry into placement, and provides a
Model Interagency placement prevention program based on a Family
Systems approach.
We have received a Grant from the Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation, for $225, 000 over two years, .to partially fund and
implement our Interagency Family Prevention as a pilot in only
our East County region. Selection as an AB 558 Pilot will allow
us to implement the program countywide, in quarterly phases. Due
to AB 558 's restriction to Section 300 in the Welfare and
Institutions Code; we are prepared to target the Clark Foundation
moneys - and county funds to cover the services provided children
and families referred to our IFP• by Probation.
We will be happy to provide', additional information you may want.
Please contact me at. (415) 646-5100 or Louise Aiello at (415)
646-5137 with• any questions.
Sincerely,
James A. Rydingsword
.Director of Social Service
JR:ed
LA3/beers. la
THE INTERAGENCY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM
- h
Summary
The Social Service Department of Contra Costa County is seeking
two-year status as a pilot county under Chapter 105 Statutes of
1988 (AB 558) . Status as in AB 558 County will allow Contra
Costa County to initiate,. a countywide phase-in of' an Interagency
Family Preservation (IFP) program to maintain troubled children
within their own .homes. The proposal reflects a conviction by
County agencies '-- Social Service, Mental Health, Probation, and
Education -- and a broad consortium of advocates and providers
that families can be strengthened and out-of-home placements of
children reduced with. inten�sive services in the home.
The IFP program is designed, to show how intensive in-home
services can be a systematic, "institutionalized" barrier to
unnecessary substitute care'! for all publicly-funded service
systems that place. childrenl, outside of their homes. As such, it
represents a new level of operational interagency services in
Contra Costa County. We believe this test ofinteragency family
preservation services will 'also be useful to other states and .
localities, as we have found few, if any, family preservation
programs integrated "across;" categorical systems in this. way.
The proposal calls for family preservation therapists and
supervisors ,to serve families during the first year on the
following schedule:
Phase I - East County :
. . 48 families to be served by 4 family preservation therapists
and a supervisor; Program Coordinator to be hired in
October, contract to start in October, and cases to be
started in December, 1,,988.
Phase II . -, .West County
40 families to be served by 4 family preservation therapists
and a supervisor; contract to be expanded in February, and
cases to start ..in April, 1989.
Phase III - Central County
Contract to be expanded in May, and cases to start in July,
1989.
In the second year - July, 1989 to• June 30, 1990 - 240
families will be served countywide.
These services will be provided at critical points in the child
welfare, probation, and mental health/education systems. In
order to prevent unnecessary placement of children and youth to
insure targeting of most at-risk youth, a common family
assessment to determine a family' s needs will be used by each
system. IFP services will be provided under contract to the
County by a -private non-profit human services agency, to be
2
selected competitively. Families will receive intensive, in-home
services for 4-6 weeks, and follow-up services will be provided
by a Parent Aide. "Flexible dollars" will be available to the
therapists to help families with emergency needs.
A training component will impart necessary skills to provider
staff and will develop an on-going training capacity within the
County. In addition, training of 30-40 staff in each area of the
county in the four participating systems will be conducted as
that area implements IFP. This is the first step toward training
all County staff in a family-based service approach during the
next two years.
An evaluation component will be developed to assess the degree to
. which the program reduces new entrants into out-of-home care,
affects program costs, and leads to broader systems change among
the participating agencies. The baseline for this evaluation
will be a trend analysis already underway in -the County.
The participating county agencies have committed $125,000 per
year in cash, plus in-kind resources. The County has received a
$225,000 two-year. Grant .from the .Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
to partially fund this program in only East County. Expansion of
the IFP requires selection as a pilot county under AB 558.
IA:ed
louise/summ.doc
I. Origins of Contra Costa County's Family Preservation Effort
Like many other communities across the country, over the
past decade Contra �Costa County has witnessed mounting
..problems among troubled children and families, while support
resources have diminished. Passage of California's
Proposition 13 in 1977 reduced many services for children
and families drastically and prevented development and
expansion of others. At the same time, Contra Costa County
experienced rapid population growth, and with it, a
tremendous increase in reports of child abuse and neglect,
drug and alcohol abuse problems, and incidence of status
offenses and delinquency. Moreover, emotionally disturbed
children are being identified and treated in greater numbers
since passage of California's AB 3632, which places
authority for identifying, assessing, and treating these
children with the Department of Mental Health.
Taken together, these changes have resulted in growing
numbers and higher costs for out-of-home placements of youth
in Contra Costa County. 1 In 1987-88, the County estimates
that:
1 As part of the planning for IFP, Contra Costa County has begun
an analysis of trends in its out-of-home placement of children.
This analysis will be completed in August 1988. However,
,preliminary data indicate that placement rates will continue to
increase unless family preservation services are available as the
.number of families in the County grows and children's and
families ' problems become ever more severe.
2
♦ Social Services will pay placement.' costs for 1,530
children outside their own homes, at a total cost to
the federal, state, and county governments of $13 .4
million. The Social Services Department reports that
many of its referrals are for more severely disturbed
children and more. .dysfunctional families than in years
past.
♦ The Alcohol/Drug Abuse/Mental Health Division of the
County's Health Services Department will pay an
additional $572,333 for residential treatment costs for
some 30 minors. Many of these children are placed
outside the home when a chaotic, dysfunctional family
cannot provide a healthy and stable environment needed
for the child to overcome his/her emotional
difficulties.
♦ The County Probation Department will maintain another
5, 000+ children in juvenile detention and commitment
facilities at a costs of over: $4 million. Many of
these children are placed in detention facilities
because of criminal or delinquent activities that stem
from drug abuse or the parent's inability or
unwillingness to control the child's behavior.
Each of these three agencies, plus the education system,
recognizes that many of these children are placed outside
their homes because of family problems, at least some of
which could be alleviated with intensive .in-home services.
Further, the agencies know that while the children they
serve are often similar -- or even the same children -- they
may receive dramatically different assistance depending on
the categorical "label" placed upon the child. Inview of
.rising placements, rising costs, and insufficient in-home
services, County agencies are committed to addressing
children' s and families' needs in a new way that cuts across
the separate service systems. This will yield a more
intensive collaborative response for families.
3
. Contra Costa County's commitment to address children's needs
on an interagency basis began when the County Board of
Supervisors established a Youth Services Board (YSB) .
Comprised of the County Administrator, the Welfare Director
(who is responsible for Social Services) , the Mental Health
Services Director, the County Probation Officer, and the
County Superintendent of Schools. The Board has worked over
the past several years to plan coordinated services for
children and youth.
However, the County's planning of in-home services was
accelerated when in 1987 a proposal was made to create a new
125 bed facility for troubled youth. Reacting strongly
against . this proposal, an ad hoc study group (consisting of
agency staff, providers, and advocates) recommended to the
YSB that the County instead develop alternatives to stem the
rising number of out-of-home placements:
♦ It emphasized the importance of "the family as central
to any effective intervention, " and recommended that
this principle underlie public and private services;
♦ It. released a study of the existing out-of-home care
system in Contra Costa County which highlighted the
need for coordinated services that cut across the
traditional categorical program boundaries;
♦ Finally, the study group recommended the development of
a continuum of community-based services that prevent
unnecessary placement and begin to shift resources from
out-of-home care to in-home care.
Based on these recommendations, a Family Preservation Task
Force was created in late 1987, with representatives from
4
County Social Service, Mental Health, Probation, and
Education. With strong support from the County
Administrator as well as the four county agency directors,
the Task Force has helped make Family Preservation the
. County's highest human services priority. Further, the
County sees interagency family preservation as a step toward
further interagency services delivery, as- described in
Section III below.
In summary, the IFP emerged from a recognition of the value
of treating the whole family as well as a commitment to use
the joint 'resources of all relevant service systems on
behalf of troubled children and families. IFP goes- beyond
rhetorical collaboration by putting in place an interagency
service response through which families will be assessed and
served in a common manner, regardless of. which agency door
they happen to enter. . Ultimately, , the County hopes to use
the Interagency Family Preservation Program to lead to
greater "systems change" that will yield a more effective
service system for vulnerable children and families.
II. The Goals .of this Initiative
To strengthen families in crisis in Contra Costa County and
reduce the rate of increase in out-of-home placement, the
Interagency Family Preservation program has the following
specific goals:
5
1. During the first program year; to provide intensive,
in-home services to families in which a child is at
imminent risk of out-of-home placement, and to prevent
such placement for a minimum of 75 percent of those
families. Families at risk will be referred from the
child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental
health/education-. systems.
. 2. To ensure follow-up services to families participating
in the service in order to assure that, of the families
completing the intensive, in-home program without
placement of the child, a minimum of 80 percent
experience no later placements within one year of the
service.
3. To demonstrate a model training program for the
implementation of family preservation services across
multiple service systems. In the first program year,
approximately 60 staff will be trained, including
direct providers of family preservation services as.
well as staff from the child welfare, mental health,
juvenile justice, and education systems who are
involved in the family assessment and referral for the
program.
4 . To use the "cross-agency" implementation of family
preservation services as the first step toward further
integration of these systems, specifically through (a)
the development of family assessment and service plan
materials that could be used by all of the
participating county agencies, and (b) the development
of "family-based" training for all appropriate staff of
the child welfare, mental health, education, and
juvenile justice systems.
5. To evaluate the impact of this service on the rate of
entrance into, duration of, and costs of out-of-home
care in Contra Costa County. (Target goals for each of
these variables will be set after completion of a trend
analysis in August, 1988. )
III. Program Description
Contra Costa County' s IFP program has been designed to
provide intensive, in-home services to prevent out-of-home
placement for .the County 's, child welfare, probation, mental
health, and special education systems. The long-term goal
6
is to have IFP serve as. a uniform "barrier" to placement for
all appropriate families .moving through these systems. This
would ensure that families, -- regardless .of which system
they entered-- would have access to..the intensive services
required to keep their. children at home. Conversely,-
decisions to place children -- regardless of which system
made this decision -- would be made only .when substitute
care was indeed the most ,appropriate care setting for the
child and family.
A. The' Service Model. To move toward this goal, Contra
Costa County proposes to begin implementation of the
Family Preservation Program in FY 1988-89. The four
participating agencies would "pool" funds and jointly
contract with a private non-profit agency for
administration of the family preservation services.
After reviewing a number of program models around the
country, the agencies have established the basic
specifications for the service:
♦ Intensive services would be provided in the home;
♦ Service duration would be from 4-6 weeks, with an
average of 5 weeks;
♦ Caseloads would be limited to two families per
family preservation worker at any one time;
♦ Flexible dollars would be available ($400 per
family) to purchase needed specialized services or
to meet basic needs;
♦ A parent aide would be a part of the family
preservation unit to provide follow-up support
services for those families who do not have a case
7
manager assigned after completion of the program.
Additionally, the parent aide could assist the
therapist in some cases.
The IFP would be phased in countywide as follows:
Phase I - East County
48 families to be served by .4 family preservation
therapists and a supervisor; Program Coordinator
to be hired in October, contract to start in
October, and cases to be started in December,
1988.
Phase II - West County
40 families to be served by 4 family preservation
therapists and a supervisor; contract to be
expanded in February, and .cases to start in April,
1989.
Phase III - Central County
Contract to be expanded in May, and cases to start
in July, 1989.
In the second year - July, 1989 to June 30, 1990 -
240 families will be served countywide.
Services would be targeted in Phase I to the East
County area, where resources are particularly scarce.
Countywide services would be targeted to families with
at least one child 7-14, since this age group
represents a. high and growing, number of placements.
B. Target Population and Referral Arrangements. In
designing the IFP, extensive deliberations have
occurred among County agencies to ensure that the
programs. would, in. fact, be able to prevent .placement
for each of the participating agencies. These
discussions proved useful in themselves because they
revealed how differently placement was defined and
handled by each of the agencies. A major task in
program design was determining which types of referrals
from each agency would be made to IFP, and the relative
proportion of IFP-'s caseload that would come from each
8
agency. The initial decisions are outlined below, with
the recognition that these will be- altered if program
experience indicates that a different mix of referrals .
would be more appropriate programmatically or more
cost-effective.
Social Services referrals will constitute
approximately 50 percent of IFP referrals, as this
represents the largest source of substitute care
placement. •Families referred will be those in
which abuse .or neglect has occurred. Referrals
will be made by the emergency response or family
maintenance (protective services) worker at the
time abuse or neglect is confirmed and placement
seems imminent. Access to IFP services will be on
an as-available basis and no waiting list
established. When IFP services are not available,
placement will proceed.
0 Probation/Juvenile Justice referrals will occur
from one of. two sources. Many youth are
temporarily."removed from their home and placed in
.detention, after which a plan is developed for
placement in a residential (non-correctional)
facility. Referrals to IFP may be made for these
youth, prior to residential placement. We
recognize that. this differs from the usual use of
family preservation services, but .believe the
referral from detention is essential if IFP is to
be of immediate significance for youth in the
juvenile justice system, is to prove its
effectiveness to local judges, and is to prevent
costly residential placements.
In addition, some juvenile justice referrals will
be made for youth prior to placement in detention
or- other out-of-home placement. This will require
negotiation with the police and the courts to
allow IFP referral instead of detention or other
placement.
It is expected that probation referrals will
represent another 25 percent of all referrals.
Due to AB 558 's restrictions to Section 300 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, Contra Costa County
will use Edna McConnell Clark Foundation grant
moneys and county funds to implement Probation's
participation in the IFP.
9
♦ Mental health/special education referrals will be
made through the IFP process, in which a child is
assessed for educational and related service
needs, after a determination is made that these
needs can only be met by placement outside the
home. These are expected to constitute few
referrals, but the .Family Preservation Planning
Committee believes it is important to test IFP's
utility with these referrals, as they often
represent seriously emotionally disturbed children
as well as some of the County's most expensive
placements.
To establish priorities among placements and to ensure
that all referrals are appropriate and at imminent risk
of substitute care, a Placement Committee will be
established.. Membership will consist of liaison staff
from each of the four participating agencies, the IFP
Coordinator and the Program Supervisor. This body will
. also assure that each agency is receiving fair access
to IFP, since this is critical to continued interagency
support and investment in the .program. In addition,.
written Memoranda -of Understanding will be developed
between participating agencies to clarify relationships
and procedures.
To further ensure that,: all agency referrals meet
agreed-uponcriteria., an interagency IFP assessment and
referral form will be developed prior to program
implementation. and will be used by all agencies. This
form will be 'developed by staff from participating ..
agencies.
10
It is likely that in some instances, participating
agencies will not be able to agree on the
appropriateness of a referral, or about which agency
has first priority for an IFP opening. Every effort
will 'be made to have such disputes resolved by the
Placement Committee. If this group cannot resolve it,
the matter 'wil1 be referred to the Youth Services Board
for resolution:
Participation in the program is voluntary. However,
based on the experience of other family preservation
programs, the initial criteria will define some
families as inappropriate for 'IFP services. These
include: families involved in substance abuse who are
not willing to participate in a treatment program;
families where active psychosis or severe mental
retardation of the parent(s) would prevent them from
benefiting from services; and those situations where
safety of staff or a family member cannot be insured.
During the course of treatment, the Case Manager for
each referred family will come from the referring
agency (i.e. , Social Service, Probation, Mental Health,
Schools) . The Case Manager will fulfill any
court-mandated activities and will coordinate these
with the IFP therapists.
• 11
C... Steps Toward Additional Interagency Improvements
Planning of - IFP has led the participating county
agencies to consider additional changes leading to even
greater consistency among the County's children and
family services. These include the development of a
common family assessment instrument that would be used
by all agencies, as well as the possibility of common
family-based training for all agency staff. In
addition, the joint planning which. has led to IFP will
continue for the further development of the County's
continuum of care.
Additional planning and identification of necessary
resources by the four agencies will be necessary before
final commitments are made about these activities.
However, they illustrate the type of further systems
change that the county expects to occur from IFP
implementation.
The difficulties of implementing IFP in a way that
serves all of these participating systems should not be
underestimated. Different mandates, diverse .
professional perspectives, dissimilar client flows, and
varying degrees of court involvement have had to be
reconciled just in the IFP planning. As IFP is
implemented, these issues will need to be continually
12
revisited and further adaptations made in order to
assure effective placement prevention. However, we
believe it is this dimension of IFP that makes it a
potential national model.
IV. Administration and Training
Administration of the IFP initiative will be overseen by a.
Program Coordinator, employed by one of the participating
County Departments, but selected by all four agencies. The
coordinator will be responsible for assuring that the four
participating systems work together effectively in the
implementation of IFP; that IFP referrals represent the
highest priority cases of each agency; and that
participation in IFP leads to continued examination of ways
in which the three placement systems can. be better
integrated.
The Program Coordinator will work full time since phase-in
periods for each part of the County are in December, April,
and July. Requirements for this position will include a
Master's degree in social welfare, clinical psychology,
counseling, or a closely related behavioral science, plus
four years of work experience do a human service agency or
educational system providing health or social services to
families similar to the target population for this effort.
The employee must be experienced in program design and
• I 13
development, contract development and monitoring, and
interagency coordination, as well as having direct service
experience.
A private non-profit agency will be selected to provide the
intensive in-home services under the program. The County
will distribute a Request for Proposal and a committee
comprised of representatives of the four participating
systems will select the best qualified organization.
It is expected that the contract agency will have the
following personnel:
♦ . A Program Supervisor, for each area of the County, who
must have the same educational qualifications as those.
cited for the Program Coordinator, plus four years of
work experience, at least two of which were in .a
supervisory capacity.
♦ - Four Family Therapists, for each area of the county,
who must either (1) possess a Master's degree (in the
fields listed above) plus two years of full time work
experience or its equivalent in a human service agency
(as defined above) ; or (2) possess a Bachelor's degree
plus three years of full time work experience as
defined above.
A key aspect of this proposal is a training program for the
IFP direct service personnel as well as for other staff from
the participating agencies who will be making referrals to
the program or providing follow-up case management for some
families. The County will contract with one or more private
organizations to develop and conduct the training which will
include components on family systems theory, family
• 14
preservation services, and the referral process in Contra
Costa County. The organization selected will have
well-established experience conducting training for family
preservation workers.
The training program .will be designed to provide on-going
skills development and consultation during the first program .
year. It will include:
♦ Initial four-day training for the IFP program staff at
the outset of the program;
♦ Quarterly follow-up training sessions for the above
staff;
♦ Training at the time of "start-up for approximately
30-40 staff from the four participating agencies who
will be making referrals to the program; and
♦ On-going program consultation to staff, as needed.
We anticipate expanding training in family-based service
methodologies to a much wider range of staff from the four
participating agencies during the second year of this
effort. This training will be designed during the first
year. We also intend to hold orientation sessions for all
agency staff, during the first year, since the program will
be of interest to other agencies.
V. Evaluation
The IFP will be evaluated to determine its impact on the
County' s out-of-home placements, to document how the program
15
was implemented by the multiple agencies, and to assess
whether the coordinated development of IFP is leading to.
their methods of better integrating the services of .the
participating agencies.
The baseline for much of the evaluation will be provided by,.
a trends analysis which is underway in Contra Costa County.
This analysis is examining the change in entrants into
out-of-home care from each of the service systems for the
past 3-4 years, as well as examining trend data in duration
of substitute care and cost of care. This analysis uses the
model developed by the Vermont Coalition of Runaway
Services, and assistance is being provided by the Center for
the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. This analysis .
will be completed in August 1988.
Specifically, the evaluation will examine:
♦ 'The impact of the IFP on the rate of new placements
from the child welfare, probation, and mental
health/educational systems;
♦ A comparison of the rate of new placements after IFP
implementation with projections of new placements if
IFP had not been implemented;
♦ A similar comparison of the costs of substitute care
following IFP' s implementation;
♦ Analysis of IFP's success in preventing placement among
the families served, both immediately after the period
of service and for a one year follow-up period;
♦ An analysis of the implementation of IFP by the
multiple County agencies, in order to describe the
varying ways in which placement prevention services
must be adapted to fit the particular needs of the
. 16
child welfare, probation, and mental health/education
systems;
♦ A documentation of other steps taken by the multiple
participating agencies to make services more responsive
to families "across" agencies, such as the development
of common family assessment tools, common training,
and/or common case management techniques.
The budget includes $40, 000 for evaluation costs. An
individual or agency contractor will be selected to conduct
the necessary work, based on specifications set for the
evaluation by the Family Preservation Planning Committee,
after completion of the trend analysis.
I
i
VI. Program Funding and Budget
A proposed budget for the first year of IFP is attached.
Total expenditures are expected to be $387, 117 in year one,
and $930,716 in year two.
i
Contra Costa County has received support from the Clark
Foundation to help develop this program as an interagency
program that meets the needs of families referred from the
participating service systems. Additional funding
($250, 000) is being provided by the participating County
agencies. These funds are being redeployed from existing
budgets. It is noteworthy that no special appropriation has
I
yet been made for this program by the County, and thus
agencies are changing other priorities in order to begin
family preservation.
17
F
In addition to these sources of financial .support, the
County Social Service Department is requesting that Contra
Costa be one of two counties to receive a waiver under
California legislation (AB 558) , allowing use of up to 10%
of our 1987-88 foster care allocation to establish family
preservation services.
Louise/IFPP