The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07201999 - C198 n s TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: PML BATCHELOR, County Administrator DATE: June 14, 1999 SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO DEPORT NO. 9904 OF THE 1998-99 GRAND JURY-THE PRESENT STATUS OF GROUP HOME PROGRAMS OF THE CHILD WELFARE DIVISION "YOU'VE' COME LONG VAY, HILD WELFA EI KEEP ON T UCKINI)s ................ a.anoe............aae...ma®e.®e®.s......as..........mm.eneQe:mma.... --------m ---------s-®m-.a--------ss—m--------m ---- PECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR OMMEND ATION,S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIMCATION RECOMMENDATION, ,ADOPT"the report prepared by John Cullen, Director of Employment and Human Services, as the Board of Supervisors' response to the Report No. 99€4 of the Grand Jury entitled "The Present Status of Group Home Programs of the Child Welfare Division "You've Come A Long Way, Child Welfare! Keep on T°ruc in" BACKGROUND: The 1998®99 Grand Jury filed the above report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisor and subsequently referred to the County Administrator and the Employment and Human Services Director. After reviewing the report, the Employment and Human Services Director prepared this report, which clearly specifies: A. Whether the finding and recommendation is accepted or adopted; B. if the finding and recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C, A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a calendar year; and D. The reason for not adopting a finding and/or recommendation, O .€NEED ON A TACHMEN. _X_YES SIGNATURE: 4 .. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COIt:I Arr,EE _APPRO -OTHER SIGNATUREEIs): OF BOARD ON 3tllgr 2E) 1939..._APPROVE VE RECOMMENDED XK OTHER V0%TF OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE D CORRECT COPY OF A&ACTION TAKEN I B ° �4— AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF TGIF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE ,AYES:--- _NOES: SHOWN, ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED CONTACT: John W (925)313.1679 PHIL BATCHELOR,ELOR .E THE BOARD OFSUFERVISORS AND COUNTY C-0: Grand Jury Foremen ADMINISTRATOR Presd4ng Jude of the Sup Mor Court E p€qytY end Hum Show DW., sntyAddmiNspa BY. DEPUTY Y f � YY FINDINGS BY THE GRAND JURY AND RESPONSE BY THE EPA T T: I. Three new approaches being developed by the C D is the oversight of the Independent Living Skills Program (ILSP)$ the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (C 1C ) and Improved foster home and group hone program. We accept the finding. 2. CWD rakes only one (1) unannounced visit per year, or on complaint of resident.. The Community Care Licensing Division (CCL) of the California Department of Social Services is required to make one (1) unannounced visit to each licensed facility per year. They also may visit unannounced if a licensing infraction is reported, including complaints y residents, County Social Service staff visits residents monthly, . Group home sta rig numbers are not mandated by CWD, but by the State (Health & Safety Cods, Title 22, Division 6, Chapters 1 & 6)t We accept the finding. 4. Some group homes visited are not well maintained. We accept the finding. 5. In group homes, minora on probation are sometimes housed with non—probation children. We accept the finding. 6. parenting classes for parents reuniting with their children are available but optional, unless mandated by the court. We accept the finding, 7. At a group home in West County, a physician reported one 1) case of over-use of proscribed medication. We accept the finding. CONCLUSIONS BY THE GRAND JURY AND RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT, I. Group homes appear to be operated by qualified staffs. Each staff works as a team for the welfare and benefit of the children living there. We accept the 2. Although CWD doss an adequate job of supervision and monitoring of group homes, there is room for improvement. We accept the conclusion. 1 Unless passage of SIB 933, part of Ch. 311, Status of 1963, effective October 1, 1998, group homes were not visited often enough to ensure efficient operation. We accept the conclusion. 4. poor maintenance of group homes is unacceptable in a tax-supported tax—supportedprogram, We accept the conclusion. 60 When housed together, probationary children have an adverse influence on non. probationary children. We disagree with this conclusion because the conclusion makes an affirmative statement that probationary children have an adverse Influence on non-probationary children. We would suggest that the word "may" would be more accurate, We believe it is prudent not to stereotype children according to their legal labels, We have had experiences with children who happened to core to the attention of the Social Services Department because of parental neglect or abuse. However, these children may be gang involved, be out of control behaviorally, and feel safer on the street than In s family. Conversely, there are children on probation that got into criminal activity because of the influence of friends who are timid and easily 2 victimized. The challenge is to get to know each child's individual situation and needs in making placement decisions, RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE GRAND JURE'AND RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT: A. Require that management of all group homes maintain the state-required number of staff on each shift. Adopted. It is the responsibility of the Community Care Licensing Division (CCL) of the California Department of Social Services to ensure compliance with regulations related to staffing levels. Hovmver, county staff absolutely agrees that minimum staffing patterns rust be maintained ed by all group homes we use. Should we become aware of violations in staffing patterns, we promptly report there to CCL and, should the violations persists we would not use an understaffed facility for placement of Contra Costa County children. B. Stop housing probation department children with non-probationary children. Not adopted. It is the position of the Department that placement decisions about children are made by the child's treatment reeds; behavioral issues and/or psychological problems rather than the legal label or the child. It is not uncommon for a child who eaters placement through the dependency door to also have delinquent behaviors. Conversely, there are children who initially become known to the placement system because of law violations who have had extremely abusive families. Matching the child to the most appropriate treatment program is our primary concern, Perhaps the €nd rlying reason for the Grand Jury's recommendation is the concern that innocent children not be exposed to criminal behaviors or victimized by aggressive/assaultive group home residents. That principle is consistent with our current practice of considering the treatment reeds, behavioral issues and psychological problems of the individual child. CY Conduct mandatory parenting classes for all parents reuniting vAth their children, Not adopted. It is not within the authority of the Department to mandate parenting classes for all parents. The Juvenile Court Judge ultimately decides when the parent has dare enough that the child may be safely returned to his/her care. We agree with the Grand Jury that all parents whose children come into placement reed to receive services to enable there to be effective and good parents. Parenting classes is one such service. It is our practice to routinely recommend parenting classes be required as a condition of reunification for all our parents. Whether that recommendation becomes an order of the court is a matter of litigation. D. Have its staff make monthly or bi-monthly visits to group ho e& Adopted. SB 933, the Group tome Reform Bills became law in 1998, part of our legal requirement is to make monthly visits to every child it group home care. We are in the process of increasing staffing in our group home unit to assure that this happens consistently. E. On their visits, check for and report signs of possible over-medication, or other aberrations. Adopted. It is always our practice to spend time privately with each child in placement. At each home visit, an assessment is done to determine if the current placement continues to meet the child's needs. The child is engaged in that process and any concerns regarding medication or any other issues are promptly brought to the attention of the caregiver. Following the hones visit, any necessary follow-up, such as contact with the child's teacher or physician is dare. 3 Fs instruct the director of each horns to review policy on medication with his/her workers and follow directions from each child's personal physician. Adopted, As in Recommendation , compliance with state regulation is under the jurisdiction of CCL. All group hoes are required to provide in-service training to all staff: on medication of minors. If we become aware of any violations in training or problems with a particular child's medication, we would report that to CCL, if there were persistent problems, we would not place Contra Costa Court} children in the offending facility. G. Require that group hones he kept in good physical repair. Adopted. Same response as Recommendations A and F. 4