The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09171996 - D6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-03 SE..L Corltrea FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE s Costa County DATE: September 9, 1996 sT'9 CUUN'� SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE GROUP HOME PLACEMENT PRACTICES OF THE SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT SPECIFICgge6Mf&i�ffK &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 1. ACCEPT this report from the Family and Human Services Committee on the status of the group home placement practices of the Social Service Department. 2. DIRECT the Social Service Director to determine the average vacancy rate of group homes with Rate Classification Levels (RCL's) of 10 or 11 located in Contra Costa County in order to determine whether there are any differences in average census between group homes which are owned by African- Americans and group homes with non-African-American ownership and forward that information to the Family and Human Services Committee as soon as reasonably possible. BACKGROUND: On July 8, 1996, our Committee received a report from the Social Service Director dated July 1, 1996. In response to complaints from Mr. Alfred Simmons that he had not received all of the relevant reports from the Department, our Committee directed that all of the relevant reports to the Family and Human Services Committee be furnished to Mr. Simmons and others and that this matter be scheduled for discussion again in September in West County. In addition, the Department was asked to respond to a number of questions raised by the Human Relations Commission. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAF90 APPROVE OTHER At SIGNATURES: MARK Des IER ACTION OF BOARD ON September 17, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Rogers (Dist. I ) 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. ATTESTED September 17, 1996 Contact: County Administrator P A CHELOR'CLERK OF TH OARD OF cc: Social Service Director S ISORS AND COUN ADMI ISTR R Y DEPU Y F&HS-03 On September 9, 1996, our Committee met in West County with the Social Service Director, John Cullen; the Assistant Director, Danna Fabella; Mr. Simmons; Ms. Faye Crosley; members of the Grand Jury and other interested individuals. Mr. Cullen provided the attached report to our Committee and those present. It responds to the requests we had made in July and includes the letters sent to Mr. Simmons and others and the response made to the questions raised by the Human Relations Commission. Mr. Simmons reiterated his concern that despite all of the reports that have been prepared, African-American-owned group homes are still not getting African- American children. Danna Fabella again reviewed the data on the relatively small number of African-American children who are in group homes. Ms. Crosley complained about the lack of cultural sensitivity of the staff who are making placement decisions and noted that unless you are African-American you should not be placing African-American children in group homes. She called for the formation of a board which would include African-American ministers to review and participate in making placement decisions. There was considerable additional frustration expressed at the lack of children being placed in African-American-owned group homes. Mr. Cullen tried to explain that the number of children in group homes overall is going down and that more and more children are being placed with relatives or in foster care. He suggested that some group homes are going to go out of business. Unless we come to grips with the reality that the number of children needing group homes, particularly those with lower RCL's, is being reduced dramatically, we will never be able to resolve this dispute. Danna Fabella noted that the Department's policy is to do a thorough assessment of the child's needs and then place the child in a home which has a program that can best meet the needs of that child, regardless of the ethnicity of the operator or owner of the home. The Rev. Curtis Timmons indicated that he wanted to be able to be supportive of the Department, but needs to have solid evidence that there is not discrimination in the placement of children in African-American-owned group homes. He asked for data which showed the number of children who have been placed in African-American- owned group homes over a period of perhaps a year versus the number of children placed in non-African-American-owned homes. He indicated that if this data were to show that similar numbers of children are being placed in both groups of homes he would be the first to come to the Department's defense. Mr. Cullen indicated that the Department does not have historical data which shows the number of children placed in a particular group home. To get this information it would be necessary to review every placement record for every child to see where they had been placed. However, it would be possible to contact the group homes themselves and get average vacancy rate information from them which shows the number of beds for which the facility is licensed, what level of RCL the facility can accept, and the average number of vacancies the facility had over a period of a year. Mr. Cullen agreed that his staff could obtain this information from both African-American-owned and non-African-American-owned group homes with RCL's of 10 or 11 and, with the -2- F&HS-03 cooperation of the group homes themselves, provide the information Rev. Timmons is requesting. We have asked Mr. Cullen to advise the Board on September 17, 1996 how long it will take to obtain this information and provide it to our Committee. We will review this information and then make a further report to the Board of Supervisors. -3- �'4 > CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department DATE: September 9, 1996 TO: Family and Human Services Committee FROM: John Cullen, Director c: Danna Fabella SUBJECT: Follow-up Report from July 8, 1996, Family and Human Services Committee on Group Home Placement Practices 1) Copies of all reports made to the Family and Human Services Committee were provided to Mr. Simmons, Ms. Crossley, Rev. Timmons, and Ms. Perls on July 18, 1996. 2) Attached is a copy of the Department's August 29, 1996, response to the letter from Ms. Perls from the Human Relations Commission. 3) Per Alameda County Program Manager, Carol Collins, Alameda County Social Services Agency does not have a placement review board. Last year, they did have a placement review board that consisted of staff: Program Manager, Licensing Supervisor, Shelter Care Supervisor, Placement Specialist, and the social worker carrying the case. The board focused on children in emergency foster placements with the goal of finding regular foster care placements for these children. The specific issue that their placement review board was trying to address was the lack of movement of children from the emergency foster care system to regular foster care placements. When children do not . move, the emergency system does not have the capacity to care for children in emergency situations (i.e., the immediate removal of children from parent's homes by Child Protective Service (CPS) workers. Because of staffing changes and problems with their data system, the board no longer meets. They are currently meeting to discuss possibly reconvening this group. As we have outlined in our reports dated February 16 and July 1, 1996, to the Family Human Services Committee, placements of foster children are often complex and must take into considerations many factors. The selection begins with an assessment of the child and his/her family situation. Relatives are considered prior to other placements. We consider whether the family can meet the needs of a particular child: transporting for therapy, handling behavioral problems, visitation requirements, sibling arrangements, etc. The need for a group home is generally identified in one of two ways. The most common is when a child has been in a family-type home (either relative or foster home) and can no longer safely be maintained in the home due to behaviors that are disruptive. The second way is when the child is referred from a mental health profession or a parent is unwilling to care for their child because of the child's emotional problems. Memo to: Family & Human Services Committee September 9, 1996 Subject: Follow-up Report ... Group Home Placement Practices Page 2 When a child is assessed as needing group home care due to the above reasons, a referral is made to our Children's Residential Placement Unit (CRPU). A referral packet consisting of court reports, placement history, psychological, school information and other pertinent information is sent to the CRPU (see attachments CRPU 6 and CRPU 6A). The Placement Specialist is responsible for keeping abreast of group home resources. The Placement Specialist assesses the child's needs and reviews the availability of group homes with RCLs that can meet the child's needs. All group home placements of children under the age of ten (10) and all children in placements where costs exceed $4,000 are reviewed by the Division Manager. Packets with all information on the child are sent to group home placements for their consideration. The Placement Specialist arranges for the interview for the child at the group home to assist in determining whether both the group home, the child, and the social worker believe there is a match. All children being placed by Social Service, Probation or Mental Health systems (who are being considered for a placement in a facility with an RCL 13 or RCL 14) must be staffed by the Interagency Placement Committee (IPC). The IPC is made up of representatives from Social Service, Mental Health and Education. JBC/DF:sjb Attachments i ��-SE L O� _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY " l Social Service Department John Cullen, Director July 18, 1996 Ms. Faye Myrette-Crosley 2919 Mullens Drive Richmond, CA 94806 Dear Ms. Myrette-Crosley: Per your request at the July 8, 1996, Family and Human Services Committee meeting, enclosed please find a copy of the following reports: Date Subject December 6, 1994 Report to Internal Operations Committee Regarding Implementation Plan and Timetable for Adoptions Recommendations from the Family Welfare Research Group February 9, 1995 Follow Up to the Report to the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors on the Adoption Program March 23, 1995 Follow Up to the February 9, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoption Program July 5, 1995 Follow Up to the April 11, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoptions Program October 5, 1995 Status Report on the Review of the Adoptions Program in the County December 11, 1995 Children's Services and Adoptions Program Follow Ups February 16, 1996 Children's Services--Out-of-Home Care March 6, 1996 Status Report on the Adoptions Improvement Project ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 40 Douglas Drive Martinez - CA r 94553-4068 • Voice (510) 313-1500 • FAX (510) 313-1575 Ms. Faye Myrette-Crosley July 18, 1996 Page 2 July 1, 1996 Report Regarding Out-of-Home Care and Placement Practices Sincerely, 4A, U1.11-1 John Cullen Social Service Director JC:ceb Enclosures _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department C1lJiilG'�8, f"� John Cullen, Director SpA-COUIZ'� July 18, 1996 Reverend Curtis A. Timmons P.O. Box 8213 Pittsburg, CA 94565 Dear Reverend Timmons: Per your request at the July 8, 1996, Family and Human Services Committee meeting, enclosed please find a copy of the following reports: Date Subject December 6, 1994 Report to Internal Operations Committee Regarding Implementation Plan and Timetable for Adoptions Recommendations from the Family Welfare Research Group February 9, 1995 Follow Up to the Report to the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors on the Adoption Program March 23, 1995 Follow Up to the February 9, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoption Program July 5, 1995 Follow Up to the April 11, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoptions Program October 5, 1995 Status Report on the Review of the Adoptions Program in the County. December 11, 1995 Children's Services and Adoptions Program Follow Ups February 16, 1996 Children's Services--Out-of-Home Care March 6, 1996 Status Report on the Adoptions Improvement Project ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 40 Douglas Drive • Martinez • CA • 94553-4068 Voice (510) 313-1500 • FAX (510) 313-1575 Reverend Curtis A. Timmons July 18, 1996 Page 4 July 1, 1996 Report Regarding Out-of-Home Care and Placement Practices Sincerely, C�A.L.UN-\ John Cullen Social Service Director JC:ceb Enclosures -_ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department John Cullen, Director �oSrA-cov>s� � July 18, 1996 Mr. Alfred C. Simmons 2936 Linden Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 Dear Mr. Simmons: Per your request at the July 8, 1996, Family and Human Services Committee meeting, enclosed please find a copy of the following reports: Date Subject December 6, 1994 Report to Internal Operations Committee Regarding Implementation Plan and Timetable for Adoptions Recommendations from the Family Welfare Research Group February 9, 1995 Follow Up to the Report to the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors on the Adoption Program March 23, 1995 Follow Up to the February 9, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoption Program July 5, 1995 Follow Up to the April 11, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoptions Program October 5, 1995 Status Report on the Review of the Adoptions Program in the County December 11, 1995 Children's Services and Adoptions Program Follow Ups February 16, 1996 Children's Services--Out-of-Home Care March 6, 1996 Status Report on the Adoptions Improvement Project ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 40 Douglas Drive • Martinez CA • 34553-4068 • Voice (510) 313-1500 • FAX (510) 313-1575 Mr. Alfred C. Simmons July 18, 1996 Page 6 July 1, 1996 Report Regarding Out-of-Home Care and Placement Practices Sincgrely, John Cullen Social Service Director JC:ceb Enclosures _ _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY `�• Social Service Department o: •.�ailliiiigg -� ee `• _ _ ,ti.4 John Cullen, Director T'9 CpUIi'� July 18, 1996 Ms. Pamela Perls P. O. Box 1392 Lafayette, CA 94549 Dear Ms. Perls: Per your request at the July 8, 1996, Family and Human Services Committee meeting, enclosed please find a copy of the following reports: Date Subject December 6, 1994 Report to Internal Operations Committee Regarding Implementation Plan and Timetable for Adoptions Recommendations from the Family Welfare Research Group February 9, 1995 Follow Up to the Report to the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors on the Adoption Program March 23, 1995 Follow Up to the February 9, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoption Program July 5, 1995 Follow Up to the April 11, 1995, Report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the Adoptions Program October 5, 1995 Status Report on the Review of the Adoptions Program in the County December 11, 1995 Children's Services and Adoptions Program Follow Ups February 16, 1996 Children's Services--Out-of-Home Care March 6, 1996 Status Report on the Adoptions Improvement Project ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 40 Douglas Drive Martinez - CA - 94553-4068 - Voice (510) 313-1500 - FAX (510) 313-1575 Ms. Pamela Perls , July 18, 1996 Page 8 July 1, 1996 Report Regarding Out-of.-Home Care and Placement Practices Sincerely, John Cullen Social Service Director JC:ceb Enclosures B E; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � = Social Service Department c ~ John Cullen, Director cou August 29, 1996 Ms. Pamela R. Perls CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION 2020 N. Broadway Street, Suite 203A Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Ms. Perls: QUESTIONS REGARDING FOSTER CARE This letter is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1996, regarding the placement of African-American children in foster homes and group homes. First, we would like to start by stating our Department has followed both law and regulation which requires the placement of children in the most home-like setting in this order: relative, foster home, group home. Since we place approximately 52 percent of the children with their relatives, we can assume these children are ethnically matched. Our Department put in place an interracial placement policy which predated the Gwen Moore AB 548 legislation which required ethnic matching as a placement priority. You may be aware that this legislation was replaced-by the Metzenbaum bill which places. ethnicity as only one of the factors which one considers when making placement. Newer federal law has been passed which further weakens the ability of public adoption agencies to consider ethnicity as a factor in placements. However, pending any federal/state directions to the contrary, our social work staff still considers the ethnicity of a child as a priority, especially for older children where schools and friendships occur as a part of their placement. In response to your specific questions: 1. Provide statistics regarding ethnic, national and cultural background of social workers and their supervisors. Following is a chart showing the ethnicity of the Department's social work staff. We do not have data that quantifies staff's nationality or cultural background. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE: 40 Douglas Drive • Martinez • CA • 94553-4068 • Voice (510) 313-1500 • FAX (510) 313-1575 Ms. Pamela R. Perls August 29, 1996 Page 2 .... SOCIAL:W(3RKER STAT;F IN;DEPARTMENT Job ETHNICITY Class. TOTAL Aft/Amer Cauc Hisp Other SCS II 16 102 6 5 129 SCS 1 0 8 0 1 9 Sw 17 38 4 7 66 Liaison Spec 1 -- -- — 1 TOTAL 34 (16.6%) 148 (72.2%) 10 (4.9%) 13 (6.3%) 205 2. Expand the pool of minority foster families in all geographic areas of the County such that children may have the: opportunity to be placed with a foster family of similar ethnic, national and cultural background. The following table shows the ethnic background of foster homes in our County by district. We wish to remind you that over 52 percent of our African-American children are placed with their relatives. However, we continue to recruit foster homes in order to have foster families who are reflective of the children in foster care. West East Central County County Coun Totals African- American 103 71 9 •183 Asian 2 0 1 3 Caucasian 28 94 73 195 Hispanic 1 12 3 16 African- American/ Caucasian 1 2 0 3 Caucasian /Asian 1 5 0 6 Ms. Pamela R. Perls August 29, 1996 Page 3 Caucasian /Hispanic 4 6 4 14 African- American/ Hispanic 0 1 0 1 Native American 0 0 1 1 Totals 140 191 91 422 3. Encourage social workers to place children with foster families which reflect the diversity of the County's foster child population. As stated earlier our workers do consider ethnicity as a factor in the placement of foster children, however they are instructed that must be only one of the considerations per federal law. 4. Plan and execute outreach to locate and train new social workers and foster parents of diverse ethnic, national and cultural background. Recently we held a forum on cultural diversity and invited foster parents and social workers to attend. We plan to expand this by providing district training to continue to focus on and discuss cultural differences and how to use these differences when assessing placements and determining services for our families. We outreach social worker hiring to the California State University system's Title IV-E graduates. These students are graduating from a MSW program which focuses on child welfare practice and recruits many minority candidates. Additionally, we routinely recruit through major minority professional organizations. 5. Provide opportunities for social workers to become familiar with new foster families. Our Department has a Social Worker/Caregiver Committee which consists of foster parents, relative caregivers and social workers. This Committee focuses on working with any difficult relationships, makes recommendations for training and reviews policies and procedures which impact our caregivers. Additionally, we recognize our foster parents at an annual luncheon, and we now provide a quarterly newsletter for our caregivers which provides an avenue for both social workers and foster parents to express concerns and to know what is happening within the Department. Ms. Pamela R. Perls August 29, 1996 Page 4 6. Develop a better working relationship between your Department and Afro- American foster-families in Contra Costa County by providing adequate support for the families and children placed with them. Contra Costa County receives funding for recruitment, training and respite of foster parents who take care of drug-exposed infants. This program, which is called the Heritage Project, was designed to recruit and train primarily African- Americans and other minority homes since these homes are reflective of the children coming into our system. Social workers are also assigned to work with and support foster parents and children placed in these homes. 7. Reduce social worker caseload and expansion of the number of social workers. As you may know, the Department receives federal and state funding, which is matched by County funds, to employ social workers to work on child welfare cases. Our County operates close to our funding yardstick, and decreasing workload by adding social workers would require a substantial amount of County funding. Our County has in fact increased funding for child welfare services, primarily in the adoption program to provide much-needed support in order to help finalize adoption plans for our foster children. 8. Develop internships for students and train students to work with new foster families to provide support and education. Our Department has taken graduate students from MSW programs through the years, and we in fact have plans to put together a more comprehensive graduate program as time permits. Other current training priorities are the development of both on-going and new-worker training and Foster Pride/Adopt Pride training for caregivers. I hope these answers adequately address your questions. The Department would be very willing to discuss these items in greater detail with the Commission or its members. Please do not hesitate to call me, or Assistant Social Service Director, Danna Fabella, at 313-1583, should you wish to meet. Sincerely, C� John Cullen Director JC:ceb � . L Contra Costa County Social Service Department CRPU PLACEMENT REQUEST DATE WORKER PHONE A. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ❑ MALE CHILD . ❑ FEMALE RACE BIRTHDATE DATE OF INITIAL DEPENDENCY FR/PP MOTHER ADDRESS PHONE FATHER ADDRESS PHONE PRESENT CARETAKER ADDRESS PHONE RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD DATE PLACED B. REASON FOR RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT C. FAMILY 1. What are family problems? 2. What is attitude of parents toward child ? 3. What is attitude of parents toward placement? C. THE CHILD 1. School: a. Last Public School attended(other than Lion's Gate/County Day): b. Address c. Current grade d. Type of school program needed: 1. Regular _ 2. Special Ed. : SED LH (I.E.P.needed) e. Actual grade levels(If available) 1. Math 2. Reading f. IQ (if available) CRPU 6(New 8/88) File: Service Case; lower fastener/3 C. THE CHILD(continued) 2. Date of last psychological testing: (Copy needed) 3. Name of child's therapist: (Report needed) 4. Child's attitude toward placement: 5. Appearance of child: 6. Child's actual behavior toward: a. Parents: b. Siblings/Peers: c. Other adults: 7. Child's interests,abilities: 8. Sexual/Dating patterns: 9. Use of drugs? Alcohol ? Cigarettes? 10. Physical/Helath limitations: 11. Medications: D. TYPE OF FACILITY NEEDED 1. Type of therapy needed 2. Ideal type of facility: 3. Estimated length of placement: 4. After plan: E. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CRPU 6 • LO Contra Costa County Social Service Department MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH CRPU REFERRAL (IN DUPLICATE) ❑ CRPU Placement Request Form (CRPU 1) ❑ Court Reports: ❑ Initial court report ❑ Latest court Report ❑ Any showing significant changes ❑ Placement History Sheet. ❑ Psychological(s) if available. ❑ Date scheduled ❑ School information:;. ❑ I.E.P. (Individual Education Plan) ❑ Information from school showing grade level ❑ Immunization Record. ❑ Other material if available: ❑ Report from Lion's Gate, or ❑ Interim group home CRPU 6A(New 7/88) — file: Service Case; Lower fastener #3 a Request to Speak Form, 7). ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Cwvf ete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board . Name: > rhone: `._�33 ! am speaking for myself!or organization: Wrne of organEsatioN CHECK ONE: Fe� I wish to speak on /Agenda Item #--.-- pater MY comments wilt be: general �tor.._�ainst I wish to speak on the abject of I do not wish to speak but leave these oomrnents for the Board to consider: Request to Speak Form l ( THREE (3) M!N UTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board -Cknd� I am speaft for myself. or organization: "-hf C/ hank of orpnisaitjoN CHECK ONE: _ 1 wish to speak on agenda Item �- Mr comments will be: general 1 wish to speak on the subject of _ i do not wish to speak but leave dwe comments for the Board to consider. 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. Name: Z/�z Phone;S- /y 1 am speaking for myself_or organiudw-, , Omm of oryanEtsOf CHECK ONE: sp .� J -7 -..:-�� ! wish to eak an Agen la Ran #. vote: My comments will be: general_for j*WnK ._.._.. i wish to speak an the subject of . 1 do not wish to speak but love these mmdg for the hoard to consider., _ Y �U • � 77RECEIVED SEP 1 7 1996 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. A CALL FOR A WORDING FOSTER CARE PARTNERSHIP Of Foster Parents, Other Providers, the Community and the Alameda County Social Services Agency based on a Community Review of the Foster Care System in Alameda County A working paper presented to Alameda County Board of Supervisors Alameda County Social Services Agency(ACSSA) and to the People of Alameda County on behalf of Children Needing Out-of-Home Care by The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee March 1996 Table of Contents Acknowledgments....................................................................................... ...... .1 Introduction...................................................................................................... .2 The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee..............................................3 Committee Fxndin„s and Report to Alameda Comty Social Services Agency........3 A Call for a Working Foster Care Partnership........ ........................ .................4 Making the Foster Care System Work for Children... ... .................... ................5 Conclusion................................................................... ................. ..................8 Appendix.......... ... ............................................................................................10 A 1993 Recommiendations for Improving the Foster Care System B.. Foster Care glossary Acknowledgments This report represents a wide range of views on foster care in Alameda County.The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee appreciates and thanks all who have come forward to share their experiences,concerns and recommendations,including relatives, community advocates,foster parents,former committee members and county staff. In particular the Committee applauds Supervisor Keith Carson for being a voice for children and for creating a forum for listening and responder to cor munity concerns. We acknowledge with appreciation and admiration the commitment and Ieada*7 of Mar erite Wright who has served as chairperson of the Committee throughout the review process. We also eaten.d our deep appreciation to Alona Clifton, Supervisor Carson's Chief of Staff for her encouragement and able assistance. Members of the Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee Marguerite Wright,Ed.D., Chairperson Faye M. Crosley Alphonso Galloway Janette Holman Giendora Patterson,Ph.D. Marion Payne Clemmie Shaw Al Simmons With assistance from Alona Clifton,Chief of Staff£or Supervisor Keith Carson Alameda County Board of Supervisors Introduction Children in foster care have no voice. Advocates must publicize and demand a child's right to grow up in a stable,nurturing and supportive home,giving the child the oppommity to become a valued,eating and contributing member of society. For the past three years the Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee has served as a voice for children, asldng questions about how foster care works in Alameda County and malong recommendations for changes and improvements. It is our intern that this review will encourage further discussion and generate an action agerida on behalf of children in Alameda County who need foster care. r Foster care in Alameda County and throughout the nation is at a crossroads, sadly lacking both the resolve and the resources to meet the needs of-close to 500,000 children currently in care in the United States. In Alameda County,3800 children are in out-of- home care as of January 31, 1996. Ofthese,2835 or 75%are African American, Over 50%of African American children needing care are placed with relatives. According to Rick Barth.,University of California at Berkeley researcher, African American clildren linger longer in foster care than any other ethnic group,are least Ulcely to be adopted or to have a permanent plan, and are subject to multiple placements. This chronic situation of children inadequately served, lingering in care and bounced from one placement to another goes against all that we believe is.in the best interest of children Awareness of numerous children affected by these circumstances led several community groups and individuals to demand that action be taken to protect and provide better services for children. Alameda County Social Services Agency(ACSSA)is responsible for prote=rg and serving the county's children and for delivering foster care services in the best interest of each cliild. This is an enormous responsibility given an increasingly large workload and reduced resources. Pat Engelhard,Director of Children and Family Services, deserves recognition for her Leadership and openness to work on improving the foster care system.Under her leadership, ACSSA,has taken several significant steps toward improving se,-vices to children, including hiring new stag; making key changes in supervisory and management assigarnents and piloting and upgrading programs for recruitment, training and support of foster parents. Despite these positive developments, serious concerns continue. In January 1996, only 25 (10°%)of the county's 250 child welfare workers were African American, contrasting sharply with the fact that 75%of the children in care are African American and with the value of having staff reflect the cultural and racial diversity of the clientele. No African Americans hold top management positions. When children must be removed from their primary families, appropriate personnel, immediate and reliable planning, effective systems and programsas well as accountability structures are needed to ensure tate children's safety,nurture and expedienc placement in permanent homes. 2 E0 'd The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee was formed in April 1993 by the Alameda Courcy Board of Supervisor upon the recommendation of Supervisor Keith Carson. The Committee's charge was to investigate widespread complaints from Uhuru and other community groups,parents and dissidents that foster care was failing to meet the needs of children,particularly African American children. The complaints ranged from charges of unnecessary removal of children from their birth families to allcgations of inadequate service and discriminatory and unequal support for foster care providers. In addition to investigating the complaints,the Committee was asked to develop recommendations for addressing the grievances. The work of this Committee was also to take into account the June 1992 recommendations of the Alameda County Foster Parents Task Force. r From April to July 1993,the Committee held several meetings, open to community and staff presenting information and perspectives about the status and needs of children in foster care. The Committee reviewed numerous policies,regulations and reports which indicated how placement decisions were formulated and supervised. Committee members, reflecting extensive personal and professional experience in child welfare,brought.their own insights and wisdom to the Committee's work- The orkThe Committee valued and incorporated into its l ndinm and recommendations the collective concerns, experience, knowledge,wisdom and vision represented within this large group of stakeholders. Committee]Findings and Report to Alameda County Social Services Agency In July 1993,the Committee submitted to ACSSA a detailed report identifying twenty- seven major concerns each with recommendations for actions for alleviating the problems. (See Appendix A) ACSSA provided a written response to the report in June 1995, indicating the status of each recommendation_ The Committee has acknowledged and observed that a number of positive steps have been taken to strengthen and improve foster care systems and services. For instance, during this period ACSSA initiated regular meetings with officers of the Foster Parents Association and with Group Home providers_ Two ombudsperson were hired and a Foster Parents Complaint Handbook was prepared for use by foster parents and child welfare workers. ACSSA also initiated a mandatory preparatory training for all prospective foster parents called Model Approach to Partnerships in Parenting(MAPP) and entered into a collaboration with the Black Adoption Placement and Research Center to recruit and certify African American foster and adoptive families_ Despite these and other commendable accomplishments, the Committee found that the majority of concerns identified in the 1993 report to ACSSA were not addressed in ways 3 that resulted in substantial improvements in the care of children and services to care providers_ Where is a pervasive sense that too often placement decisions fail to reflect the best interest of the,child and that foster families are not prepared for and held accountable as partners in meeting the needs of the children. ,A,CSSA staffing continues to be disproportionately unrepresentative of the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the children in care although recently there have been some encouraaging promotions and reassignments of staff. There are complaints of minimal uniformity and accountability in performance standards fir both staff and providers. African American providers insist that they receive unequal support and that placement decisions are often biased limiting them to older,more challenging children, Kinship care providers also continue to complain that they receive less support acid training than other foster care providers. Community advocates perceive systems,practices and managemem are out of synch with children's and families'needs. Too frequently providers complain of child welfare workers as unsupportive,insensitive and incommunicative, It was particularly disappointing that the onnbudspersons who were considered by many parents to be responsive to their concerns are no longer in those roles. Only a complaint investigator is available with a much more limited role. There is growing dissatisfaction with the new policy of placing children in"receiving homes"when they enter the system. Both receiving foster parents and case managers have reported that children in receiving homes are unlikely to receive critical medical care and other services because of their brief stay in these homes, Further, receiving homes rather than reducing the number of placements that children experience seem to be increasing the number of placements. A thorough review of this policy is needed urgently. The 1993 report addressed a litany of concerns, some which could be resolved easily and others which would call for extensive planning as well as considerable financial and human resources. We acknowledged that there might be strong differences of opinion about the feasibility, cast-effectiveness and long-range results ofthe Committee's recommendations. While ACSSA's response indicated its efforts to resolve some of the concerns, the initial results are not as impressive as we had expected given the county's targe foster care population and the urgency of its continuing problems and trends. A CaD for a Working Foster Cure Partnership It is likely that foster care programs and resources in the twenty-first century will be very different from what exists currently. Changing perceptions of children and their needs as well as proposcd cutbacks in funding and resources will figure significantly in how services are designed and delivered. Proposed block grants and the contracting process; reduced budget allocations, the recent multiethnic,Placement Act(hMPA)which prohibits consideration of race, culture and etbnicity as sole factors in placement all pose challenges 4 to to building and sustaining a strong service delivery system. Consequently, children's advocates and concerned stakeholders must form new and revitalized coalitions in support of children and families. In conjunction with its review of ACSSA's responses to the 1993 recommaWations,the Faster Care Policy and Procedures Committee also took into consideration the impact that these national budget and legislative trends might have in Alameda County. For instance, new strategies would need to be devised to prepare the community to compete for block grants and to cope with reduced and/or different resources. Following discussions with community advocates,ACSSA staff and other policy makers the Committee came to a clear consensus: If the best interests of children in Alameda County are to be served through kdaship care and foster care,then new and different strategies are necessary. For instance, the Committee believes that it is in the best interest of children to have the permanent planning process begin as quickly as possible following the child's entry into the systema. The highest priority is for the child to grow up in a family that.is stable,nurturing and supportive,preferably with Idn or secondarily with an adoptive family. While the permanem:plan is being completed,the Committee advocates an equally stable,nurturing and supportive foster family recognizing that the foster home often develops into a permanent home for the child. flow do we ensure that each child will be valued and well-served? Over the years;the Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee developed a difFerent way of looking at the challenge of providing high quality services to children in foster care. On the one hand we want to improve the system and build highly effective services. At the same time we recognize that funding and legislation may adversely affect the desired.outcomes. It seems to us that the best overall approach in responding to the challenge is for interested stakeholders to join in a working partnership to ensure that' foster care in Alameda County moves each foster child toward a safe and secure future. The Committee calls for a planned set of actions facilitated and managed by ACSSA involving relatives, foster parents,community advocates,ACSSA representatives, other service professionals,various policy makers and the Boma of Supervisors,all wortdng to design and support a foster care system which protects and nurtures the children of Alameda County. Making the Foster Care System Work for Children The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committee proposes a working partnership among major foster care stakeholders,managed by ACSSA,with the goal of improving and developing services and programs. Based on our reviews and discussions over the past two and a half years,we envision several outcomes which could more adequately serve the child's best interest: 5 I. Stabilize the child's home It is critical to mWr dae the mmbe,r of placements for the child while a permanent plan is accomplished. It is important to consider the child's best interest at the point of entry into the system and to prepare both cluld and the foster or kin family for the necessary transitions, An assessment component which identifies strengths as well as needs is necessary. Placement outcomes should all be geared toward a permanent plan for the child. Whewbow will the plan be accomplished? Who decides? What is the consensus about desired outcomes for each child? 2. Provide appropriate on-going training and support for foster care providers: Training for providers should be rewired, It should be Culturally responsive„ community- supported and include comftd ng education, A range of preventive programs is needed. Accountability is pamaount. Needs of grandparents who parent their grandchtldren and older foster parents rewire special assessment,attention and resources. 3. Track and protect the child's welfare in the system. It is important to determine how trac'lcing will be planned and managed for elements such as number of placements, siblings, services needed and provided. A passport,already available from.the Children's Research Institute, should be made available to alb foster families in order to give providers complete and accurate information about each child. A review process is needed to ensure implementation and accountabi'li'ty. Clear,non-discriminatory placement and practices polices are necessary. Workers need a framework for determining child's best interests. 4. Ensure that staff and mmnagement rg7ect the diversity of the clientele Decisions about removal and placement of children require skilled and sensitive assessment and interpretations of each situation if the child is to be well served. Consequently,staff recruitment and hiring are needed to achieve similarities between the racial, cultural and ethnic composition of the clientele and the staff. Staff selection and training should stress multicultural experience,cultural competence and accountability Representative diversity at decision-makdng-levels,i.e. supervisors and managers, is essential as well. 5. Fardlitate partnerships between kinship and foster fa raJies and child welfare workers. Each is to be valued in planning for the child. Mutual understanding and respect are essential. Exploration of different perceptions is encouraged. Skilled providers should participate in training other providers. Increased ACSSA contracting with community- based services, supports and networks is ancouraged, e.g. health care systems, clinics, churches,schools,recreation and art programs,respite programs; child care, economic development programs, legal services. 6. Provide reWle statisdcal and progrwi data Service delivery and change require reliable, accurate statistical and program data about children,placements, matching efforts, sn-blings,needs,bac14-vound, etc. A strong culturally responsive research component is important(e.g. DeveIop extended partnerships with professionals conducting research on socio-cultural issues, particularly at UC$erkeley.). b 7. Recruit 4aUgently for caring;supportive famWem Seek to recrwt,train, and license foster families reflecting the racial and cultural backgrounds of the children in care. Give priority to placements which allow children to stay with their geographical, social and cultural comes. Consider collaboration with established foster organizations. Investigate the complaint that African American infants are placed disproportionately.with African American foster parents. S. Create a community-based advisory body. This groin could be accountable to the Board of Supervisors with broad community rrpresev=on. Its role would be to formulate and recommend various kinds of policies,enforce specified accountability measures,advise on community issues,recommend canclidates for ombudsperson,work with media,model and advocate for partnerships,become expert and articulate on fostcr care issues and needs. 4. Appaint an independent ombudspmon This person must be able to listen and assist those seeldng information and support. This position could be accountable to the community through the Board of Supervisors. 14. Increase and enrich staff development Working with children and families in foster care calls for specialized knowledgeand skills. To ensure quality performance, workers need competency training,support and a workload for which they can be held accountable. A competent worker must be aware of and appreciate the cultural nuances of each situation and have a working knowledge of the community and its resources. 11. Assign workers a manageable caseload Reducing caseloads is costly. 4n the other hand,it is costly in both human and financial terms when foster care workers have workloads too large for paying close attention to client needs. 12. Evaluate and review outcomes. Avery important function for the proposed partnership would be to assist ACSSA in evaluating its effectiveness in foster care delivery. Partners could help to determine the questions to be asked, the measures to be utilized and how findings might be utrflized to improve and upgrade services. for example,what are the prospects for family reunification as the permanent plan in each case? Is there improvement in children's behavior and mental health after they enter foster care? Trow are they faring and progressing in school compared to other children? 'What _ resources do families need to maximize the child's home and school experience? 13. Z zUke and support development of community resources Future block grrants will mean reduced funds for foster care. The community offers,or could offer,many useful and supportive resources to ACSSA in light of threatened reductions. Many community resources are already operational and others need development,including employment development, after school and mentoring programs for children of color, adult training programs, and provider advocacy groups. 7 an 'a The poster Care Policy and Procedtues Committee recognizes that many cWdren in Alameda Couray will need out-of-home care when their birth family is not able to provide care. When removal of a child from his or her home is necessary, an able foster family is the resource of choice until reunification or a permanent plan can be accomplished. In many instances the foster family will opt through formal or infornnal adoption or guardianship to become the child's pc rm=cnt family. The foster care experience is to many a critical time in children's lives, often influencing their identity and future prospects in profound ways. The Committee believes that it behooves those of us who care about children to join the call to improve the foster ease system which currently eadsts. par too many children languish in care indefin%tety and marry receive inadequate support and care. The system is burdened with inflexible, often discriminatory policies,inadequate resources and a seemingly unmanageable workload. Both providers and staff express unmet needs for training and support. This situation can and must be changed. The Committee has presented factors which need attention and which could be addressed by a strong,committed partnership of stakeholders_ x*�xxxx:�xxxxx�t�x«xx�* Conclusion The Foster Care Policy and Procedures Committer sees this as an opportune time for ACSSA►.and other stakeholders to take a fresh look at the foster care system and how it might be improved or changed. In this report,the Committee proposes a working foster care partnership for accomplishina the desired changes- * hanan ges_ • A partnership implies a commitment to understanding and respecting the contributions of each partner in a spirit of equality. Hence the process will need to facilitate a sharing and appreciation of each individual's talents and hopes. • A belief that change can occur even in the face of limited resources and resistant mindsets is essential. Partners must be willing to cope with adversity. • The initial process should be devoted to planning and initiation of pilot projects which partners may el t to review. • The necessity for ACSSA to generate funds and resources for foster care will be pressing. Partners can be very helpful to ACSSA in identifying the variety and richness of community resources. • Many changes will require new and revised policies and guidelines,perhaps even new legislation. For instance, ACSSA and the court and legal systems often have conflicting policies and regWremerrts. Partners will need to be cognizant of these differences and include repre-santtatives of these systems in the partnership. an 'a • The partnership can play a major educational role in the community through media relations and various educational forums. This should be an ongoing effort to educate the public to the needs of children and families and to the realities of children who are inadequately served. • The role of the foster care provider is challenging and often under-appreciated. Partners can be instrumental in devising strategies and events which publicize, enhance and validate providers' contributions to healing children's lives. • Partners can facilitate understanding of the rights and strongths of birth parents and - other relatives in the permanent placement decision At all times the best iunit est of the child must be the primary placement goal. When feasible, supports must be provided to strengthen the birth family. Children must not be allowed to languish in the system. Instead,each placement,whether through reunification with birth parents, or with relatives or a foster fandy,should be timely, safe and nurturing for the child. It is the Committee-'s hope that this report will motivate families, advocates,ACSSA, the Board of Supervisors and others to become actively involved in the partnership for improving foster care for all children. Thera;are several ways to begin,including: • Participate in a public hearing on foster care soon to be convened by Supervisor Keith Carson, • Recommend community advocates for the proposed Community Advisory Board. • Initiate and support legislation which addresses improveme=in the system. • Advocate for an advice line. • Acknowledge Poster Care Awareness Week in Alameda County. 9. nT 'J if relT :^ Te• m. .... . Appendix A. 1993 Recommendations for Improving the Foster Care System B. Glossary of Foster Care terms 1.Alameda Cmmty Foster Parent Task Forcer a citizens gmup appointed by tho Board of Supervisors in rime 1992 to look into concerns voiced by the coatmunity about foster care. Z. Block Grant a lump sum of funds providedby the federal aovcrament for a broad triage of nc cds annually. The funk wilt be given to the states;the staters will thea distribute them to the couniic—,the counties will divide tho funds according to need,value or through a Request for Proposal(RFP)process. WIZz this emccation nms out there will be no responsibility for the i dard or state government to replenish it Current proposals arc to replace sone entitlement progmazs with block grants. , 3. Cetification-temporary authorization to ciao for a particular foster child pending Iicensing. 4. bhtitlemeat a guarantee of se+vicc for specific federal and state propg=as. Botitlaateat status nandates #hat services be provided for all those who quality for the.program. There are no time limitations for«ntiticmeacs. 5 Foster Cara out-of-home plawneat of infants,children and teens whose parents are unable to=e for thea because of neglect and/or abuse;a service managed by the Alamc&County Social Services Agmcy. 6. Foster Caro Pmvider-a c m*vm providing.out-of-home 7. Fos=Family Agency-licensed and/cr cawed to ret reit and certify foster homes;bas a th=pariic =nponeat to meet the aecds of children who cannot be cmvd for in a repizt fast—m home setting 8. Foster Home-home-IDD setting for the care of children,must have license andlor certification. 9. Group Home-Iicenzed and/or certined thempcutic piaccment which provides a high newel of struc = and supervision for clildren;higher level of=a determined by the Depat tsaent of Children and Family Services in conjunction with a psychiatric evaluation. 10.License-authori;mim to provide fwtcr or gOup home care. Alameda County has a contact witli the State of California-Commrntity tare Licensing to Iiccase foster care providers. X-ae County must abide bi--the rules and regulations of the State. Licenses art;provided in the carne of the State rather than the County. 11.Modei Approach to Partnerships in Parenting(W?P)-a tea-week=if-screening and far v prepmraucaltrainm.-pn,—, r for prospective foster and adoptive famrZies. 12.Ombudsperson-an assigned person who irrvestiptes complaints,reports and fnidfi s and helps to achieve egtdtable scrderm=ts. A position created.by Alameda Conmty Social Se vices Agency to hear concaus about the.Depattm=of Cfn'tdrerr end Family Se-•Vies. 13.Passport-a document giving medical,educational,psychological and other backerormd history which a=mpanies a child to eacz foster home plasfzrient 14.Receiving home-cf'Fective 211/96,a licensed foster dome for temporary emmraac placem-it(no more than tca days) for children=tering the syste= 15.Relative(Kinship)Care-care of childr:a provided by low Must be within the status of:us eosin or most obtain u foster care license. 16.Residential TrcatmcatFacility-a licaseal ancll 7r Cestiued bid le.ni gaup home,usually with a ficial school on the grounds. 17.Stakeholder-an individual or organization with a vested interest in a particular mamiate,pz==or outcome,in some instaaccs with dacinon•ma authority relative to its implementation. 10