HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09121995 - C149 41
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
_ c
FROM: 11 Costa
FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE A County
DATE: September 12, 1995 'e V
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE REPORT OF THE 1994-1995 GRAND JURY:
NO. 9505, "ETHNIC INSENSITIVITY IN THE FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION
SYSTEM"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of
Supervisors ' response to the Report of the 1994-1995 Grand
Jury No. 9505, "Ethnic Insensitivity in the Foster Care and
Adoption System. "
2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On May 25, 1995, the 1994-1995 Grand Jury filed the above report,
which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1995 and
was subsequently referred to the Family and Human Services
Committee. On August 14, 1995 our Committee met to discuss the
recommendations and review proposed responses . At the conclusion
of those discussions, we prepared this report utilizing a format
suggested by a former Grand Jury, which clearly specifies :
A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted;
B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will
be responsible for implementation of a definite target date;
C. A delineation of constraints if a recommendation is accepted
but cannot be implemented within the calendar year; and
D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIqJ
APPROVE OTHER
A&D SAULNIER ITH
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON T Ia A PROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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.
.County Administrator ATTESTED , / - I� ' 9 9.Ss
Contact: Superior Court Presiding Judge PHIL ATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Grand Jury Foreman SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
BY DEPUTY
"CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES"
.REPORT NO. 9505
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 :
Within six (6) months, the Contra Costa County Department of Social
Services implement a training program for all social workers,
setting and maintaining higher standards for case record
documentation including court reports.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. A Training Supervisor has been hired and a training program to
address the recommendation will be implemented within the time
frame.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 :
Within sixty (60) days, develop cultural sensitivity training
programs to ensure that the social workers meet the needs of all
the children in their care.,
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The Department' s staff development personnel and Affirmative
Action Coordinator will incorporate the recommended elements
into the training curriculum.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 :
Within six (6) months, develop and implement a system to monitor
case records for quality and consistency. This system should
include routine reports to the Director of Social Services
Department on improvements made in the quality of documentation as
well as the relative rates for placement of minority and non-
minority children.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. After conducting California's first Quality Case Management
Review earlier this year, the Social Services Department
started an Administrative Review process that addresses all of
the concerns in the Grand Jury' s recommendation. In addition,
' 1
-2-
the
2-the Department is developing a Supervisor's case review
process that will ensure a regular and timely assessment of
casework quality and record keeping.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4:
Within six (6) months, develop a public awareness program to
communicate the children's needs to the community in order to
increase the availability of permanent placement to the hundreds of
children, minority and non-minority, alike who linger in the
County's system.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The Social Service Department is developing a foster and
adoptive parent recruitment campaign that will combine local
public awareness programs with our renewed commitment to
Region-wide media efforts such as the Brian's Kids program on
KPIX Channel 5 . The Department is also targeting specific
communities in order to ensure that we attract the numbers of
minority homes necessary to meet the needs of our children.
The Board encourages the Department to take a proactive
approach to reach the minority community through its proposed
recruitment plan, such as utilizing the resources of the
County' s community television (CCTV) , and outreach to minority
families and their communities through organizations such as
the Black Families Association and the Inter-Denominational
Ministerial Alliance, Inc.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Departnie;abuN o 1 '1595
DATE: May 31, 1995
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Danna Fabella cc: Phil Batchelor
Assistant County Welfare Director C. L. Van Marter
Bob Hofmann
SUBJECT: Contra Costa Grand Jury Report No. 9605
The Contra Costa County Department of Social Service has worked closely with the Grand Jury
over the past year in an attempt to collaboratively address a mutually agreed upon concern, the
welfare of children in foster care. The issues in Report 9605, dated May 25, 1995, are also of
concern to the Department and we believe that we are creating solutions to problems that
underlie those concerns.
Attached you will find a copy of a recent letter in which we responded to the concerns that the
Grand Jury addressed to the Department following their case review. We must, however,
respectfully disagree with much of the May 25 report, including the fundamental assertion that
ethnic insensitivity is a factor in the excessive length of foster care and the resulting low rate of
permanent placement of children in the system. We are specifically concerned about the
following assumptions, findings, and conclusions:
Finding; #1: The conclusions of this report are based upon a very small sampling of the total
caseload of over 2000. The State of California recently reviewed a much larger sampling, and
a coalition of Child Welfare staff from other counties conducted an in-depth quality case review
process; neither of these reviews raised a concern about the Department's ethnic sensitivity.
Finding #2: These findings have not been substantiated by any other review processes and we
do not believe that this is an accurate reflection of the cases in our system.
Finding 3: We agree that permanency for children is often delayed due to the due process
requirements of the legal system.
Finding#4: We do find that court cases are often continued, but we do not agree that this is
due to failure to notify parents, and we certainly disagree that this occurs disproportionately in
the cases of minority children. We are not certain that the Grand Jury understood that all cases
are continued for six month intervals between hearings for dependency status reviews.
Finding #5: We agree that approximately 1270 children (or 58% of the 2200 children in the
foster care system) are African American. Approximately 30% are Caucasian, and the balance
are of other ethnic origin (i.e., Hispanic, Asian, Asian Indian, American Indian, Alaska Native,
Pacific Islander, etc.)
Memo to: Board of Supervisors May 31, 1995
Subject: Grand Jury Report No. 9605 Page 2 r
Conclusion #1: As noted in my attached letter to the Grand Jury, my own case reviews have
failed to reveal any of the bias suggested by the Grand Jury.
Conclusion #2: My own case reviews have not revealed the bias suggested by the Grand Jury.
Conclusion #3: We have not previously understood that this is a problem in our system, but we
will ask the Court whether this is a systemic problem that we should work on. We have learned
that there is sometimes a lack of proper documentation of notice and we are committed to
solving this problem.
Conclusion #4: The Grand Jury has highlighted a problem that exists throughout the California
Child Welfare System, in part due to the disproportionate numbers of minority children placed
with relatives and the disproportionate numbers of minority children living in poverty. This is
true in Contra Costa County and we are committed to working with our communities to develop
strategies to keep children with their families and achieving timely permanency for children who
must go into foster care.
Recommendation #1: We have hired our Training Supervisor and will implement a training
program within the recommended time frame which will address the concerns of this
recommendation.
Recommendation #2: We will work with Staff Development and our Affirmative Action Officer
to incorporate these elements into bur training curriculum.
Recommendation #3: After piloting California's first Quality Case Management Review earlier
this year, we have started an Administrative Review process that addresses all of the concerns
in the Grand Jury's recommendation. In addition, we are developing a Supervisor's case review
process that will ensure a regular and timely assessment of quality of casework and record
keeping.
Recommendation #4: We are developing a foster and adoptive parent recruitment campaign that
will combine local public awareness programs with our renewed commitment to Region-wide
media efforts such as the Brian's Kids program on KPIX Channel 5; we are targeting specific
communities in order to ensure that we attract the numbers of minority homes necessary to meet
the needs of our children.
Concluding`Comment: The Social Service Department has committed to strategies that will
reduce the number of children in out-of-home care, irrespective of ethnicity or race. We
currently are working on increasing voluntary in-home services, we are doing early intervention
-through the placement of Social Workers in our Services Integration Teams in Richmond and
Bay Point, and we are expanding our Family Preservation and Family Support programs to help
families keep their children at home.
DF:sjb
Social Service Department Contra Please reply to:
Perfecto Villarreal 40 40 Douglas Drive
Director Martinez,California 94553-4068
ts,o,313-1583County
5E L
February 9, 1995
S},q'C4U1'1�
Ms. Clarine Johnson
Civil Rights Committee Chairperson
GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Clarine;
In response to your letter of December 15, 1994, which followed concerns expressed
to me directly during my meeting with the Grand Jury on December 14, 1994, this
letter is to advise you of my recent review of cases.
As per the Grand Jury's request, I personally reviewed records in the Antioch office on
December 23rd. Approximately one-half hour prior to my arrival, I directed the Division
Manager, Linda Canan, to pull the case files with the following case numbers:
#242478-11, #337635-14, #380805-11, #380805-12, #360541 and #290984-12.
1. Non-minority female, age 15. Case opened July, 1979.
Mirror with multiple birth defects placed with current caretaker since birth. Is
severely disabled requiring specialized care. The foster parent receives base rate
of $444 and difficulty-of-care rate (DOC) of $846 for a total of $1,290.
2. Minority female, age 4. Case opened November, 1990.
The minor has been placed with her half sister since shortly after birth. The half
sister decided not to become legal guardian because of a lengthy contested
hearing where the father requested placement. The court ordered that the best
interest of the minor was with her half sister. The child's caretaker receives
$485/month which includes a difficulty-of-care rate of $140/month.
3. Non-minority female, age 7. Case opened October, 1993.
Minor is part of a sibling roup. Other sibling ages are 8, 5 and 3. This minor is
placed in the home of a paternal aunt and uncle. The other children have different
fathers. The children were neglected by the mother who had a prior history with
child protective services. The mother moved to the state of Washington where her
Ms. Clarine Johnson
February 9, 1995
Page 2
mother lives. Through Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC),
Washington assigned a social worker to work with the mother. The mother is
"clinically depressed", and according to the social worker in Washington, she has
been making progress in treatment. This minor is doing well in the home of her
aunt. The aunt receives the basic foster care rate for a 7-year old; i.e.,
$375/month.
4. Non-minority male, age 5 (half sibling to No. 3). Case opened October, 1993.
The minor is currently placed in a license-pending home subsequent to the death
of his paternal grandmother where he was previously placed. His teacher reports
he is a curious, delightful child, however he tends to be solitary. Mother is in
Washington, and per the Washington worker is progressing. Foster mother
receives the basic rate of $375.
5. Minority female, age 7. Case opened March, 1989.
Minor came into care at age 2 with three other siblings (ages 3 years, 1 year and
6 weeks) as a result of chronic neglect, and the baby was born drug exposed. A
relative was found who wanted the children. However, because the relative was a
second cousin, it was necessary to license her home per state regulations. The
license process began and minor was placed, but the cousin, who was
experiencing marital problems and had children of her own, could not keep the
children and the children were removed. At the 1993 permanency planning
hearing, the recommendation was for guardianship and not adoption because the
minor knew the siblings and her mother. The caretakers receive the basic rate of
$375.
This case had a like-minority caseworker and originated in the Richmond office. It
was transferred to Antioch. The "green dot" on the record was put on the case by
the Richmond office. In that office, if there are multiple siblings, all the case notes
for the family are found in just one of the children's records, and they mark that
record with a "green dot."
6. Minority male, age 15. Case opened April, 1993.
Minor is part of a sibling case. He and sister were originally placed with maternal
grandmother and two other siblings placed with another relative. Grandmother
has an ill husband and had to ask for minors' removal because of his disruptive
behavior. The mother is mentally ill but in denial of her illness. The minor is in,a
residential treatment center as he is severely depressed, has difficulty controlling
his rage and requires a very structured, therapeutic environment. His group home
receives $4,423 for his care and treatment.
Ms. Clarine Johnson
February 9, 1995
Page 3
In summary of the cases reviewed, three were minority and three were non-minority.
Of the three non-minority cases, one was in the permanency planning program as a
long-term foster care case where she has been for 15 years and two were part of a
larger sibling group still in the family reunification program because the case has not
reached the permanency planning hearing. One of the children is with a relative and
the other two are in either a licensed foster home or a license-pending foster home.
Of the minority children, two are in the permanency planning program as guardianship
cases, one with a relative, and the other minor is in a group home still in the family
reunification program with little prospect of returning to his very disturbed mother, and
his grandmother with whom he was previously placed is not able to handle him.
Of the cases I reviewed, the minority children did have minority caseworkers. I was
not able to conclude from the sample that non-minority children moved through the
system more quickly. For example, one of the non-minority cases had been in foster
care for 15 years, and the other two (siblings) were still in family reunification because
they were recent cases. The mother may get her children returned depending on
what the case worker in the state where the mother recommends. Of the minority
children, one of the children seemed securely placed with a relative, and except for a
protracted court battle between the father and the relative, a guardianship would have
likely been established. I did not concur with the other permanent plan of
guardianship developed for one of the other minority children. I did agree with the
Grand Jury review that there seemed to be a lack of commitment on the partof the
guardians and have asked for further review. The other minority minor has some
severe problems and is placed in a high-level treatment facility.
wish to assure the Grand Jury Civil Rights Committee that I will continue to review the
Department's policies and practices in Child Welfare as I do believe the over-
representation of minority children in foster care is and should be of concern to us.
As we develop more family preservation and early intervention services to work with
birth parents as well as other relatives (especially grandmothers), it is possible that we
can decrease this number. For those children in out-of-home care, it is imperative that
we provide quality care. Our Department is "piloting" a case work review tool this
month in an attempt to see where our strengths and weaknesses are so that we may
use this information as part of our plans to move forward.
In regard to your concern about racism as an exclusive issue in the Antioch office, the
minority children all had minority social workers, and the two children (siblings) where
the case outcome is of most concern was developed in another district.
To respond to your concern about red dots, red asterisks and green dots, the old "red
dot" system was a way of identifying pre-1989 cases primarily children placed with
relatives and other stable situations prior to the change in child welfare laws that
shortened the time for termination of parental rights. The Department did not have a
staffing pattern to do the adoption work required on the 'old" and "new" cases that
Ms. Clarine Johnson
February 9, 1995
Page 4
were requiring action. Thus the red dots were a way of not "losing" the cases when
they were given to permanency planning workers. The red dot system was a way of
triaging workload. This system is not in use even though there may be a case with a
red dot on it. The Department is not excluding from adoption those relatives who wish
to adopt. Add'itionally, we are currently processing all the pre-1989 cases and will
have a report shortly.
The only explanation that the Department can find for the red asterisk is when cases
were inputted into the Social Services Reporting System (SSRS), clerical staff would
put an asterisk on the case.
However, as a result of my review, I do have concerns that will be addressed as part
of my responsibility to implement the recommendations from Child Welfare Research
Center which require changes in policies, practices and social worker training. For
example, court report writing needs to be strengthened, adoption assessments need
to clearly document the factors which lead to the finding, a better systematic internal
review of case work decisions to ensure quality case work and social worker training
on practice and policy issues.
I continue to be concerned that the Grand Jury believes that there are racial issues
exclusive to the Antioch office. I have discussed this with the Division Manager, and
we both agree that if there are other specific examples of staff's actions, we would like
the opportunity to meet with the Grand Jury so that we can address your concerns.
My concern for minority children rests primarily with the knowledge that they are over
represented in our foster care system. My goal is to work towards a system that
provides more services in the area of prevention and early intervention and with
services that are culturally and ethnically sensitive. Only then can we effectively deal
with the issue of racism in child welfare in general.
Please let me know if you would like to meet with me again to discuss my review and
whether you would like to meet directly with the Antioch Division Manager.
I appreciate your commitment to children and families and the opportunity to work with
you.
Sincerely,
Danna Fabella
Assistant County Welfare Director
DF:ceb
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) ✓ �� /�
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NA.1dE: 1R —� �- PHONE:
ADDRESS: t CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization: M, C-T) (2�,
T (�v,�E ' OR NIVXTION)
Check one: , e� .
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # C 1'�q N '
My comments will be: general for against �.
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider.
74
�`