HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12131994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,E.... ...Lo
s. _. Contra
f L
FROM:
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE :/'X"
/ Costa
•
County
November 14, 1994 �T
DATE: co +�
REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE ADOPTIONS PROGRAM IN THE SOCIAL
SUBJECT: SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . DETERMINE how to fund the continuation of four Social Worker
positions and one Supervisor for six months (January 1, 1995 -
June 30, 1995) for the purpose of maintaining the current
level of Adoptions Program staffing.
2 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to return to the Internal
Operations Committee on December 12, 1994 with a Plan and
timeline for,implementing the recommendations set forth in the
attached report by the Family Welfare Research Group in their
report on the Adoptions Program in this County. This Plan and
timeline should also include a listing of the staff and
financial resources which will be required in order to
implement these recommendations .
3 . DIRECT the Social Services Director to determine the cost and
potential scope of a follow-up study by the Family Welfare
Research Group after either six months or a year to determine
what progress has been made in implementing the
recommendations made in the report and report this information
to our Committee on December 12, 1994 .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YE SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF O NTVER
JOVCOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
SIGNATURE(S): F MARK DeSAULNIER
ACTION OF BOARD ON I ember 13 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
XX _ _ _ I 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.
ATTESTED December 13, 1994
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Juvenile Court Judge Lois Haight
Social Services Director
County Counsel BY �j`�. ,-
,DEPUTY
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors adopted the following
recommendation from our Committee:
1 . APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Social Services Director
to sign a contract with the Family Welfare Research
Group of Berkeley in the amount of $23,000 for the
period July 1, 1994 through October 31, 1994 for
the purpose of achieving the objectives and
carrying out the tasks outlined in Dr. Barth's
attached letter to Perfecto Villarreal dated June
22 , 1994 .
Our Committee received the attached report from the Family
Welfare Research Group and met with the researchers, staff
from the Social Services Department and interested foster and
adoptive parents on November 14, 1994 .
Brian Simmons from the Family Welfare Research Group carefully
reviewed each of the recommendations and explained the basis
for each of them. He noted that the Family Welfare Research
Group had undertaken the study with the following guiding
principles in mind:
✓ Children have the right to have their permanence decision
made as quickly as possible.
✓ What we traditionally think of as adoptions does not
start just in the Adoptions Program. It should start
much earlier. in the process .
✓ While the Department has the responsibility for remedying
any problems which may be identified, this cannot be done
without the cooperation of all parties who are involved
in planning for a child' s future home and family.
We are asking the Social Services Director to go through the
recommendations which are contained in this report and outline
for our Committee how and when these recommendations can be
implemented and what the cost will be to implement them. In
addition, some members of the audience did not have sufficient
time before our November 14, 1994 meeting to fully review all
aspects of the report. We believe that there are also a
number of questions from interested individuals which they may
not have had the opportunity to ask and have answered.
Therefore, we intend to commit another block of time on
December 12, 1994 to reviewing the Department' s Implementation
Plan and in allowing all interested individuals to ask their
questions and make comments on the report and the proposed
implementation of the report.
However, one issue needs to be resolved immediately.
Additional staff were added to the Adoptions Program at the
beginning of this fiscal year. They were funded only for the
first half of the fiscal year. This funding runs out December
31, 1994 . The additional staff include four Social Workers
and a Social Work Supervisor. We have been advised by the
Department that it will require an additional $254 ,047
[$157,530 in County funds] to continue these positions through
the end of the current fiscal year. This additional staff has
been instrumental in eliminating some of the backlog in the
Adoptions Program. We believe that it is critical to maintain
this additional staffing at least through the end of this
fiscal year.
2
POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST No. 1�?
e Date: 11122;W
Dept. No./ COPERS
Department Social Service Budget Unit No. 0500 Org. No. 5301 Agency No. 53
Action Requested: Add one(1) Social Work Supervisor II (XOHA) , four (4) Social Casework
Specialist II (X and one 1) Clerk-Senior level (YUC) for Adoptions_
Proposed Effective Date:ASAP day after
Board approval
. Explain why adjustment is needed: Study of Adoptions unit by independent consultant, and
internal Operations recommendation to expedite processing of adgptions
Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No X . %D . Mc) �
Cost is within department's budget: Yes X No MQ
Total One-Time Costs (non-salary) associateith this request: $ 2500 for cler� _o
associatedwith a
Estimated Total cost of -adjustment (salary/benefits/one-time): n :;=X-
Total
1-
Total Annual Cost $ 319,968 Net County Cost $ JU3,Rp
c�cn
--pp
Total This FY $ 186,648 N.C.C. This FY $ 5
tV n
Source of Funding to Offset Adjustment: State and Federal and County Genera M-C
4M -�
Department must initiate necessary appropriation adjustment
and submit to CAO. Use additional sheets for further
explanations or comments. (for3Departpent Head
-- ---------------------------- --------�- --- - ---
Reviewed by CAO and Released To Personnel Department /0"7- P?--J Ll
Deputy CoiInty Administrator Date
Personnel Department Recommendation Date: Dec. 7, 1994
Add one (1) 40/40 Social Work Supervisor II position at salary level C5-2108 ($3738-4543);
Add four (4) Social Casework Specialist II positions at salary level C5-1971 ($3259-3962);
Add one (1) 40/40 Clerk-Senior Level position at salary level XB-1563 ($2064-2636).
Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the
Basic/Exempt Salary Schedule, as described above.
Effective: day followinBoard action.
954
Date or it t r P rsonnel
County Administrator.Recommendation Date:
Approve Recommendation of Director,.of Personnel
Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Personnel
Other:
(for) County.Administrator
Board of Supervisors Action Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of
Adjustment APPRO on A t�-,-f Z Z4g/Q9upervisors and County Administrator
Date: PJ. ��, /yc�y By: i
APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL/SALARY RESOLUTION AMENDMENT.
P300 (M347) 7/F4 (Rev_ )
t
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
To: Phil Batchelor, County Administratbate: November 22, 1994
Attn: C. L. Van Marter, Asst. County Administrator
From: Perfecto Villarreal, Director/oracc: D. Fabella
By: B. Anne Crisp, Personnel Svcs Asst III J. Campbell
S . Hoffman
M. Draper
T. Harvey
Subject: BOARD AGENDA ITEM: P300 TO ADD FOUR SOCIAL CASEWORK
SPECIALIST II, SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISOR II AND CLERK SENIOR
LEVEL FOR ADOPTIONS
I . REQUESTED ACTION
Add four (4) Social Casework Specialists II, one (1) Social
Work Supervisor II and one (1) Clerk Senior Level for
Adoptions .
II . FINANCIAL IMPACT
Information and recommendations for increased staffing in the
Adoptions program of the Social Service Department was
provided to the Internal Operations Committee earlier this
month.
CALCULATIONS
$17, 598 Monthly salary for 4 Social Casework Specialists
Step II at Step 1 with 35% benefits
- 6, 687 38% State and Federal Funding
10, 911 Monthly County Cost
$5, 841 Monthly salary for Social Work Supervisor II at Step
4 with 35% benefits
-2, 219 38% State and Federal Funding
$3, 622 Monthly County Cost
$3, 225 Monthly salary for 1 Clerk Senior Level at
Step 4 with 35% benefits
-1, 225 38% State and Federal Funding
$2, 000 Monthly County Cost
$16, 533 Total monthly County cost for Adoptions staffing.
III . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR REQUEST
The Department and the County through an outside consultant
have studied the operations of the Social Service Adoptions
program. It is the recommendation of the Department to the
Internal Operations committee of the Board of Supervisors to
hire four Social Casework Specialists II, one Social Work
Supervisor II and one Clerk Senior Level for the Adoptions
Gen 9c (New 3/86)
program in order to stabilize the program and to expedite the
adoption process . With the addition of these positions delays
in the adoption process will be minimized for families seeking
children that have been released for adoption by the Courts .
Presently, temporary staff has been hired to fill these
positions the Department is in jeopardy of lossing -Some of the
trained temporary social work staff to counties with approval
to hire permanent staff.
The Social Work Supervisor II supervises the Unit and
coordinates the work of the Caseworkers conducting home
studies in Adoptions and the Project Foster Care Recruiter.
The four Social Casework Specialists II conduct home studies
of families requesting adoption, process paperwork for
adoptions, prepare court reports to complete the adoption
process. The Clerk Senior Level types the home study reports
for use in court, sends out adoption applications, and tracks
receipt of follow-up documentation in the adoption process .
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
If this freeze exemption is not approved we will be unable to
provide the necessary staff to maximize the effectiveness of
the Department ' s Adoption Unit . Without adequate staff we
continue to run the risk of coming under criticism from the
public for our effectiveness and timeliness in providing
services to prospective adoptees and adoptive families .
ac.disk 9
p300adopt. stf
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
1„
P
.`v 7
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO''t SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRUZ
a�
r
T T� nFamily Welfare Research Group
I A L School of Social Welfare
(Child Welfare Research Ce) 1950 Addison Street, Suite 104
Berkeley, California 94704
Tel: (510) 643-7020
Fax: (510)643-7019
EVALUATION OF THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
ADOPTIONS PROGRAM
Prepared by
Richard P. Barth, Ph.D.
Brian Simmons, M.S.W.
Colleen Stephens, M.S.W.
Sandra Owens, M.S.W.
November 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Description of Operations and Outcomes . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Client Satisfaction with the Adoption Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Compare and Contrast the Operations of Contra Costa County with Four Other
California Counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, San Diego; and Sacramento . . . . . . . . 8
SAMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Summary of Recommendations and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Establish a systematic process for early identification and referral to the
Adoption Program of children who may be "adoptable.". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2. Revise the home study process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 38
3. Increase the mutual understanding of social workers and persons working
in the juvenile court (i.e.,judge, attorneys, and county counsel) regarding the
effect of the judicial system on children in foster care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4. Improve the relationship between foster parents and county social workers. . . . . . . 43
5. Set up continuing education curriculum and training for all social workers. . . . . . . . 48
6. Automate, to the extent possible, controls and record-keeping now
performed manually. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendices
PREFACE
Effective July 1, 1994, the Contra Costa County Department of Social Service contracted with
the University of California Berkeley, School of Social Welfare's Child Welfare Research
Center (CWRC) to conduct a review of the Department's adoption program. This review was
prompted by the Board of Services Internal Operations Committee following two reports
issued by the 1993-94 Grand Jury criticizing the operations and practice of the Adoption
Program.
This document describes the methodologies and samples used during the review, reports the
findings of the reviewers, makes recommendations for changes in the Department's Adoption
Program, and suggests means for implementing those changes.
The authors wish to recognize the assistance of several individuals and groups .without whom
this work could not have been accomplished. We acknowledge the leadership of Supervisors
Jeff Smith and Mark DeSalnier in initiating this review and attempting to resolve the
differences between the Department and the Grand Jury. Department Director Perfecto
Villarreal and Assistant Director Yvonne Bullock were responsive to our requests for
assistance from beginning to end. Program Manager Linda Waddington and Adoption
Supervisor Casey Dixon were the Department's liaisons to the Center staff and addressed our
many logistical needs. Adoption Supervisor Sharon Bacon assisted with sampling for one of
our surveys. Ms. Waddington and Ms. Dixon also participated in individual interviews.
Seven adoption workers also participated in individual interviews and three units of Family
Reunification workers participated in group discussions, all of which provided the reviewers
with useful information about and insight into the internal processes.
Several people outside the Department also provided invaluable assistance. The Honorable
Lois Haight, Presiding Judge of the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court, participated in an
individual interview, as did Deputy County Counsel Michael Farr. A number of foster
parents, some of whom desire anonymity, provided suggestions throughout the process and
assisted in arranging for members of the review team to meet with a group of foster parents.
Two of-them also reviewed and commented upon a draft of a questionnaire sent to potential
and actual adoptive applicants.
Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of several colleagues at the Child
Welfare Research Center: Sally Allphin, Devon Brooks, Emily Bruce, Carmen Caballero,
Melissa Jonson-Reid, and Daniel Webster participated in the review of children's records.
Blanche Grosswald was an early member of the project team. Barbara Needell generated the
sample of children using the FCIS data base. Susan Katzenellenbogen assisted in the
preparation of the final document.
The CWRC reviewers appreciates the opportunity to review the Contra Costa County
Adoption Program during this challenging time. The unsettling effect created by the two
Grand Jury reports provides the Department an opportune moment to make significant and
1
progressive changes in its operations. This time for renewal also provides an opportunity for
foster and adoptive parents, and Department employees alike, to let go of hurt feelings and
allow old wounds to heal. Nothing is gained and much is lost by maintaining the current aura
of mistrust. Responsibility for improving the relationship lies with both the Department and
the foster parents. Both groups exist to serve Contra Costa County's children. Neither can do
it without the other.
We wish them well in this endeavor.
2
INTRODUCTION
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury issued two reports criticizing the Social Service
Department Adoption Program. Reflecting the testimony of foster and adoptive parents, staff
from private agencies, and Department staff as well, a variety of charges were rendered. The
Department in turn issued formal responses, essentially denying those charges and questioning
the competence of the Grand Jury. At the behest of the Board of Supervisors Internal
Operations Committee, the Department contracted with the Child Welfare Research Center at
the University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare to conduct a program review.
From the outset, the reviewers declined to assume the role of arbiter. Seeing little benefit in
joining the fray, the reviewers instead opted for a course that would shed some light into the
systems and structures of the county's child welfare system through which a child comes to
adoption. To accomplish this, a multi-prong approach was selected: (a) individual interviews,
(b) surveys, (c) case record reviews, (d) focus groups, and (e) county-to-county comparisons.
Please refer to sections III and IV for more detailed descriptions of the methodology and
sampling.
The multi-prong approach reflects the reviewers' thinking that a systemic perspective was
necessary in undertaking this review. While the spotlight necessarily must focus on the
Adoption Program and its personnel, in reality the adoption process begins earlier than the
point where the Adoption Unit assumes jurisdiction of a case. Workers in the other child
welfare services and players beyond the Department all contribute in a significant way to the
decisions and dynamics of the adoption process. The reviewers attempted to cast the net wide
enough to include several of these players.
The systemic perspective also has implications for the resolution of identified problems. To
the extent that an individual or`organization affects decision-making, controls resources, or in
some other way has an impact on how children become adopted in Contra Costa, so too do
they hold a share of the responsibility for addressing issues and reaching solutions. The
reviewers believe the Adoption Unit,.with its managers and administrators, holds primary
responsibility for leadership in seeing these recommendations through to implementation.
They do not control the entire system, however, and must rely on the good faith efforts of all
the stakeholders to contribute to improving how children in Contra Costa become adopted.
The interviews and focus groups produced a number of discernible themes. The surveys and
case record reviews gaveadditional credence to some of those themes and suggested some of
their own. These are presented in the Findings and Recommendations sections.
The principles guiding the conducting of the review and preparing the report are contained in
the philosophy of permanency planning. In brief, CWRC has a commitment to establishing
children in permanent settings in as brief a time as possible. Ideally, this will be with the
child's birth family, and so the reviewers believe considerations of the child's permanence
must be included even in the initial decision to remove him or her from the home. Similarly,
3
the reviewers believe permanency planning requires a return of the child to his or her birth
family as quickly as it safe to do so. When the likelihood that a child will be unable to
return home manifests itself, it is incumbent upon those responsible for the child to plan for
some alternate permanent arrangement. Adoption is the most permanent of these alternate
arrangements, followed by legal guardianship and long-term foster care. Placement under one
of these conditions with relatives with whom the child already has an established familial
relationship affords the child the least amount of disruption and the greatest continuity. One
aim of the review is to reinforce the permanency planning philosophy in the provision of
child welfare services in Contra Costa.
The recommendations stem also from CWRC's familiarity with adoption practice both
statewide and nationwide, and are indicative of the reviewers' desire to help the Department,
building on already existing strengths, shape its program into one reflecting contemporary
thinking about adoption practice. The recommendations provide concrete steps which would
allow for an evaluation of progress after an appropriate amount of time. The reviewers
encourage the Internal Operations Committee to establish with the Department a plan with
timelines for the implementation of these suggestions and for a subsequent review.
4
METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology used to evaluate the Adoption Program. The
evaluation attempts to achieve three primary objectives: (1) to accurately describe the
operations and outcomes of the Contra Costa Adoption Program, (2) to assess client
satisfaction with the Adoption Program, and (3) to compare and contrast the operations and
outcomes of the Program with other public adoption programs in California. The various
methodologies used were (a) interviews, (b) survey questionnaires, (c) focus groups, (d)
review of case records, (e) media announcements, and (f) FCIS database.
Description of Operations and Outcomes
Individual Interviews
The reviewers conducted individual interviews with Linda Waddington, Division Manager,
and Casey.Dixon, Adoption Supervisor, to gain insight into the program's policies and
procedures. In addition, research team members individually interviewed seven veteran
Adoption Program workers. Four new,adoption workers were not interviewed since they did
not have extensive experience with the Program. The interviews were extensive, lasting on
average 45 minutes.
Additionally, reviewers also interviewed the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court Judge, a
Deputy County Counsel assigned to Juvenile court, and a member of the private bar who
accepts appointments in Juvenile Court. Reviewers also conducted telephone interviews with
employees from private adoption agencies, one from each agency. The agencies included
those with whom the county has collaborated: (a) Sierra Adoptions, (b) Black Adoption
Placement and Research Center, and (c) Adopt a Special Kid (AASK).
Case Record Review
The reviewers used the Foster Care Information System (FCIS) data to generate a sample of
children who (a) entered foster care in July 1991, (b) stayed at least one year, (c) were six
years old or younger upon entering care, and (d) were not initially placed with relatives. The
reviewers gave a list of 200 cases to the Division Manager who was instructed to pull cases
beginning with the second number and continuing with every other name. This resulted in
100 cases representing the following three categories of children: (1) those currently in the
process of adoption, (2) those with closed cases, and (3) those currently involved in Family
Reunification efforts. The review team received 91 cases. Since the team wanted to insure
the independence of the observations, the team eliminated 19 cases with the following
children's characteristics (a) not in the foster care system at least one year, (b) not first
dependents of the Court before entering the Adoption Program, and (c) siblings of children-
already reviewed. This brought the total number of cases reviewed to 72.
5
The case record review examined the decision-making process of the Family Reunification
and Adoption Program workers. The instrument specifically looked at five areas: (a) child
characteristics, (b) birth parent characteristics, (c) custody order, (d) compliance with the
reunification order, and (e) child placement prospects (i.e., Permanency Planning and other
review hearings).
Focus Groups
Three focus groups, one in each of the Department's divisions, were conducted with Family
Reunification and Permanent Placement workers. The casework of these employees
frequently lays the foundation for later adoption work. Including them was necessary to
obtain a comprehensive view of the adoption system in Contra Costa County.
Client Satisfaction with the Adoption Program
Individual Interviews
Several foster parents sought out the reviewers and shared the history of their experiences
with the Adoption and Foster Care programs. Individual interviews were conducted with
three foster parents who contacted the review team to discuss their experiences with the
County's Adoption Unit. The interviews did not follow a specific interview guide, but
provided the opportunity for narratives by the parents in which they were able to detail their
experiences with Contra Costa County. Their comments helped shape the design of the
survey questionnaires, and these parents were later contacted to help with pilot-testing the
instrument.
Focus Group
Members from the review team facilitated a focus group with Adoptive and Non-Adoptive
Foster Parents in Contra Costa. County. Mr. Steve Warga, President of the Contra Costa
Foster Parent Association, Inc., provided a list of parents who were then invited to participate
in the focus group; five parents attended the meeting. The focus group was held in a neutral
site, the fellowship hall of a church in Richmond.
The purpose of the focus group was to explore the experiences of the Foster Parents with the
county's foster care and adoption workers. The reviewers endeavored to determine how that
relationship affected their ability and willingness to adopt a child. Finally, the reviewers were
interested in understanding the process of becoming an adoptive parent, and how that process
affected their desire to adopt through the County's Program.
6
Surveys
The review team designed two client-satisfaction surveys (see Appendices A and B) to elicit
opinions regarding services rendered by staff of the Contra Costa County Adoptions Program
between July 1991 and August 1994. Survey samples included: (a) parents in the process of
adopting a child, (b) parents who did not adopt, but had contacted the county due to interest
in adoption, and (c) parents who adopted a child. The same set of questions were asked of
the first two groups. Different cover letters were used so as to identify to which group an
individual response belonged.
With the help of key foster parents, a pilot-test of the questionnaire was completed in
September 1994. Revisions of the surveys incorporated their comments and suggestions.
The surveys covered the following topics: (a) parent/applicant information, (b) relationship to
child, (c) child characteristics, (d) services, and (e) information distributed to parents. In
addition, space was provided at the end of the questionnaire so that parents could write
additional information and comments.
To assure the confidentiality of the respondents, the reviewers used the following,procedure.
An Adoption Supervisor called those persons currently in the process of adoption to obtain
verbal permission to have a questionnaire mailed to them. Strict confidentiality law
prohibited the reviewers from having access to the names and addresses of these people,
making it necessary to have Adoption personnel obtain this consent and mail the
questionnaires. In addition, the names of those persons who had contacted the Adoption Unit
to inquire about adoption between July 1, 1991. and August 1994 were compiled (N=425) and
then every other name was chosen to receive the mailed survey.
To maintain confidentiality, the reviewers do not know the names of persons receiving the
mailed surveys. Similarly, Contra Costa County will not know who decided to complete the
questionnaire, nor the specific responses of those who participated. Furthermore, in order to
ensure that the surveys were mailed to all persons chosen (i.e., all names on the list), staff
members from the office of the Director of Social Service, Perfecto Villarreal, coordinated the
mailing efforts.
Media Announcements
The reviewers used the following media forums to increase awareness of and participation in
the client satisfaction portion of the evaluation: a newspaper advertisement in five editions of
the Contra Costa Times, two cable television community boards, and two radio stations,
including one serving the African American community. Because of legal constraints on
access to closed adoption records (by law, adoption records are not public information), the
use of the media was of primary importance in reaching those parents who had completed an
adoption through the County's Adoption Program.
Compare and Contrast the Operations of Contra Costa County Adoption Unit with Four
Other California counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, San Diego, and Sacramento
To put Contra Costa 's performance in some context, the reviewers selected four comparable
counties. The Foster Care Information System was then used to generate information on
children entering the foster care system in the first six months of 1988 and exiting care by the
end of December 1993. To select the children with the highest likelihood of adoption, the
reviewers looked at all children in this cohort who were 0-6 years old at the time they entered
care. The data of the five counties was compared using ratios in the following manner:
A. Number of full-time employees (FTEs) per completed adoptions (see Table 1).
B. Number of children,exiting non-relative foster care by adoption per those remaining
in foster care (see Table 2).
C. Number of children; adopted from relative care versus those adopted from
non-relative care (see Table 3).
8
SAMPLE
This section described the sample used by CWRC's reviewers in evaluating the Adoption
Program of Contra Costa County. The reviewers recognize that many different people are
involved in the decision to place children for adoption and in the completion of adoptions.
This section outlines the efforts to obtain information from those valuable sources.
Client Satisfaction
To obtain a clear picture of how satisfied parents are with the Adoption Program and staff,
and to examine any differences in the treatment of parents found to be eligible to be potential
adoptive parents and parents screened out of the process, the reviewers selected three different
groups of people to receive the client-satisfaction surveys: (a) those who successfully adopted
a child, (b) those currently involved in adopting a child, and (c) those who asked about
adoption, may have completed some or all paperwork, but who were ultimately not considered
potential adoptive parents. In total, 330 questionnaires were mailed; 102 were received and
analyzed. This 31% return rate is acceptable but not ideal.
Case Record Review
The case record review attempted to look at the decision processes leading to and away from
adoption, especially whether it was decided that a child is "adoptable." The reviewers
requested access to 100 cases from the following categories: (a) completed adoptions, (b)
those currently in the process of adoption, and (c) those still receiving Family Reunification
services. Laws of confidentiality prevented the review of completed adoption cases; this
amounted to 10 cases we could not review. The reviewers requested 100 case records to
review. Only 72 case records were received and analyzed since the reviewers screened out
sibling cases, cases where the child was not in foster care for at least one year,. and voluntary
relinquishment cases.
Individual and Focus'Group Interviews
To gather information from those individuals working directly with or in the Adoption
Program, the review team conducted several individual interviews, focus groups and telephone
interviews. The team members interviewed 12 people including: foster parents, Department
staff, and judicial personnel. Also, the team conducted three focus groups with FR workers
and one with foster parents.
9
FCIS Data
To compare and contrast the placement of children in adoptive placements in Contra Costa
with other counties in California, the review team selected four counties of varying size,
population, caseload, and full-time adoption workers. The team attempted to answer
questions such as: How does Contra Costa compare to counties of similar caseload size, and
with counties with much larger volume of cases. The children were chosen by using the
following parameters:
1. Ages 0-6 years at the time of placement
2. Initial placement from January through June, 1988
3. Outcomes reported as of December 31, 1993.
4. Sample divided into two groups, those initially placed with relatives and those initially
placed with non-relatives.
10
DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
QUESTIONNAIRES
SAMPLE TOTAL TOTAL MAILED TOTAL
REQUESTED RECEIVED
Adoptive Parents through various 6 1
n=unknown media
announcements
Inquiring Parents 212 212 44
n=425
Parents currently 189 112 58
adopting
n=189
CASE RECORD REVIEW
SAMPLE TOTAL REVIEWED
Open FR/PP cases 36
Closed FR/PP cases 21
Open Adoption cases 15
Closed Adoption cases 0 (no access due to legal
n=10 constraints)
INDIVIDUAL AND FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS
SAMPLE TOTAL CONDUCTED
Foster Parents 3
Administration 2
Judicial/Legal 3
Private Adoption 3
Agency
Foster Parent Focus 1
Group
Family Reunification 3
Workers Focus Group
I1
FINDINGS
The purpose of this section is to report the major findings of CWRC's evaluation of the
Contra Costa County. Department of Social Services. Using information extracted from the
FCIS database, the team compared and contrasted Contra Costa County with four other
California counties: Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Mateo. The reviewers
analyzed the following quantitative data from the case record review and the client
satisfaction surveys: (a) demographic information, (b) reason for entry into care, (c) amount of
cases in care beyond 18 months, and (d) percentage of cases with Permanency Planning
Review Hearings. Qualitative data collected from interviews, focus groups, client-satisfaction
surveys and case record reviews are organized and presented according to "common themes"
evident throughout the evaluation.
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
FCIS Data
The CWRC reviewers compared the performance of Contra Costa County's Adoption Program
services to four other counties using administrative data. The sample of children included in
the following tables was generated from the Foster Care Information System (FCIS) database.
The children chosen have the following characteristics: (a) ages 0-6 years old at the time of
placement, (b) initial placement from January through June 1988, (c) initially placed with
either relatives or non-relatives, and (d) outcomes as of December 31, 1993. The Center
compared and contrasted the counties according to the number of adoptions per full-time
adoption worker, and the,number of children adopted compared to the number of children still
in care (children placed with both relatives and non-relatives).
Number of Adoptions per Adoption Worker FTE
The number of full-time adoption workers used in Table 1 was collected from the counties
themselves; it includes adoption workers who are supported by funds other than Adoption
Program budgets. For example, in San Diego County, the Adoption Budget funds only 35.8
workers, but there are actually 51.5 FTE Adoption workers. The CWRC reviewers used the
"actual" number of workers, not only the "official" number, to compute the ratios. For Contra
Costa County the reviewers used eight workers as the estimate of the Program's FTE because
the recent increase in staff does not reflect the staffing in prior years. Because these FTE
estimates are from a point-in-time perspective and the events related to adoption span 1988 to
1993, the reviewers recognize that the ratios created are rough estimates of efficiency.
During the period between 1988 and 1993, San Diego completed the highest number of
adoptions per full-time employee, 3.5. San Francisco County completed the next highest
number of adoptions with 2.67. Contra Costa and San Mateo counties completed the same
number of adoptions per adoption worker FTE, 2.48.
12
Children Adopted to Children Remaining in Non-kinship Foster Care
Table 2 shows the adoption outcomes by county for the young children placed in foster care
who did not return home. San Mateo is ranked number one with the ratio of adopted to those
children remaining in care at 6.0 to 1. Although this county had fewer total children entering
care than all other counties, they also had significantly fewer children remaining in care.
Although Contra Costa County had nearly the same number of total children as San Mateo
(Contra Costa, n=143; San Mateo, n=117), San Mateo only had 3 children remaining in care
compared to Contra Costa's 41. Contra Costa ranked last among the five counties in this
ratio. Children in foster care living with non-relatives are least likely to be adopted if they
live in Contra Costa County.
Ranked Order Ratio of Children Adopted to Children Remaining in Kinship Foster Care
The desirability of adoption for children in kinship care is still receiving much debate. San
Mateo County also ranks highest in this category of ratio of adoptions vs. remaining in long-
term foster care. San Diego County ranked second highest with 3 children adopted for every
child remaining in care. The other counties were significantly lower in ratio. Sacramento
County was the next highest with only .33 children adopted per those remaining in care.
Contra Costa County was ranked fourth with only .12 children adopted. San Francisco was
ranked the lowest with .02 children adopted per those remaining in care. Contra Costa
County appears to have a de facto policy not to encourage adoption over long-term foster care
for children in kinship care.
Discussion
Contra Costa County consistently performs poorly when compared to San Mateo, San Diego,
Sacramento, and San Francisco Counties. The adoptions per FTE rate is low but not
dramatically lower than that in other counties. The proportion of young children placed in
foster care in Contra Costa County who do not go home and are adopted is strikingly lower
than it is in other counties (especially San Mateo). Adoption is a service that should involve
child welfare personnel from intake onward. Counties with a high ratio of placements per
adoption FTE or high ratios of placements per FTE often achieve those goals by having close
coordination between foster care and adoption workers. This maximizes a county's efficiency
in making adoption placements.
13
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF ADOPTIONS PER ADOPTION WORKER FTE
Young Children (0-6 years) placed Jan.-June, 1988:
Outcome as of December 31, 1993
County Total Total Number of Number Rank:
Number of Number of Full-time Children Number
Children e Children Adoption Adopted Adopted
Adopted a Employees per FTE per FTE
(FTEs) b
San Diego 765 180 51. 5 3 .50 1
San 187 40 15 2 . 67 2
Francisco .
San 117 18 7 .25 2 . 48 3
Mateo
Contra 143 . 17 8 2 .48 3
Costa
Sacra- 219 44 20. 2 2 . 18 4
mento
a: Foster Care Information System-University of California Database
b: Self-report of Counties via Questionnaire (1993-1994). Contra Costa County reported 11 adoption workers,
however 8 workers was more typical from 1988-1993, so 8 was used as a denominator.
14
TABLE 2
RANKED ORDER RATIO
CHILDREN ADOPTED to CHILDREN REMAINED IN FOSTER CARE
CHILDREN INITIALLY PLACED WITH NON-RELATIVES
Children (0-6 years) placed Jan.-June, 1988:
Outcome as of December 31, 1993
TOTAL # TOTAL # TOTAL # RATIO:
COUNTY CHILDREN ADOPTED STILL IN ADOPTED/
CARE IN CARE
San Mateo 117 18 3 6. 00
San Diego 765 180 98 1.84
Sacramento 219 44 56 .79
San Francisco 187 40 80 . 50
Contra Costa 143 17 41 .41
Source: Foster Care Information System-University of California Database
15
TABLE 3
RANKED ORDER RATIOS
CHILDREN ADOPTED to CHILDREN REMAINING IN FOSTER CARE
CHILDREN INITIALLY PLACED WITH RELATIVES
Children (0-6) placed Jan.-June, 1988:
Outcome as of December 31, 1993
TOTAL # TOTAL # TOTAL # RATIO:
COUNTY CHILDREN ADOPTED STILL IN ADOPTED/
CARE IN CARE
San Mateo 8 2 0 undefined
San Diego 109 24 8 3 . 00
Sacramento 53 5 15 . 33
Contra Costa 55 3 25 . 12
San Francisco 85 1 49 . 02
Source: Foster Care Information.System-University of California Database
16
Case Record Review
The case record reviews were of children who were 6 years old or younger upon entry into
the foster care system, entered since 1991, were living with non-kinship foster parents, and
remained in care for at least one year. Given their ages and circumstances, the reviewers
expected a sizable proportion of these children to be heading toward adoption. The findings
of the case record reviews were consistent with the FCIS data analyzed. Young children in
foster care in Contra Costa County are not clearly not headed toward adoption. Specific
findings from the case record reviews are presented below in Tables 4 and 5, and in narrative.
Demographic Information on the Children
The children in the sample of cases reviewed (see Table 4) were primarily African-American
(40%), Caucasian (26%), or Bi-Racial or Mixed Race (20%). Children were removed at
young ages. Nearly one-half of the children were less than one year at removal. One quarter
were more than one year, but less than 2 years old, and 15 % were 2 to 4 years old. The
remaining 12.5% were 5 to 6 years old. More children were female (55.6%). See Table 4.
Length of Time Spent in Foster Care with a Non-relative
The reviewers analyzed 72 cases which remained in foster care at the 12-month Permanency
Planning Review Hearing. Of these cases, 89% (n=64) remained in foster care at the 18-
month Review Hearing and nearly two-thirds (65.3%) of those cases remained in foster care
at the 24-month Review Hearing. At three and one-half years and at four years after
placement, 43.1% of these young children remained in foster care. The open cases are in
various stages of reunification or alternate permanent placement planning. For example, cases
remaining open to FR/P include some families who remain in or have been returned to the
family reunification services unit. For cases open to the adoption unit, some are families who
had not yet had parental rights terminated, while others are in various stages of the procession
toward adoption or guardianship.
17
Table 4
DEMOGRAPHICS OF CHILDREN IN CASE RECORD REVIEW
Frequency Percentage
Ethnicity
African American 26 40.0%
Caucasian 17 26.2%
Hispanic/Latino 7 10.8%
Native American 1 1.5%
Bi- or Mixed Raced 13 20.0%
Age at removal from home
Less than one year 34 47.2%
More than one less than two 18 25.0%
Two through four 11 15.3%
Five through six 9 12.5%
Sex
Male 40 55.6%
Female 32 44.4%
Reason for removal [Multiple Reasons are Possible]
Failure to protect 59 92.2%
No provision for support 12 18.8%
Serious physical harm 8 12.5%
Serious emotional damage 2 3.1%
Sexual abuse 2 3.4%
Conviction of another 1 1.6%
child's death
18
Table 5
CASES IN SAMPLE THAT WERE OPEN AT DISPOSITION HEARING
12 Month Hearing 72 cases open
18 Month Hearing 64 or 89.0% cases open
24 Month Hearing 47 or 65.3% cases open
30 Month Hearing 38 or 53.0% cases open
36 Month Hearing 31 or 43.1% cases open
[42 Month Hearing 31 or 43.1% cases open
Case Outcome or Current Status
The case record review indicates that the Department and the Juvenile Court do not routinely
use 12 months as a critical decision making milestone for young children in non-kinship
foster care. Of the 72 cases reviewed, 43 (67%) were continued beyond the 12-month
hearing., At the 18-month hearing, 29 cases were continued for an additional period of time.
Even at two years, 16 cases were continued. A parental rights termination hearing (WIC
366.26) was ordered for only 12 children (18.8%) at 12-months. An adoption plan at the 12-
month hearing was identifiable in the record of only one child.
The overall impression from the case record review is that it is very difficult to tell from the
case records why children are not considered candidates for adoption However, the reviewers
did understand that long-term foster care or guardianship was the goal for far more children
than expected or, that is desirable from a developmental, legal, or fiscal perspective. The
reviewers repeatedly read of recommendations to keep very young children in long-term foster
care,.or even recommend guardianship, despite the likelihood that these children could have
been adopted into families that would provide far more lasting family relationships.
Decisions not to pursue adoption too often seem to be made on the basis of very short-term
objectives like "this (3 year old) child has a very good relationship with her foster mother and
this relationship should not be disturbed." The Department continually allowed such decisions
to go forward even though common sense and decades of experience with adoption indicate
that children in.long-term foster care are unlikely to remain in the same placement until they
reach the age of majority. And that at best, a child's relationship with her foster parents will
be undisturbed until age 18 when she will be "aged out" of foster care. The evidence from
the FCIS data and from the case record reviews suggests that adoption is the exception rather
that the expected outcome for young children in non-kinship foster care.
19
Client Satisfaction
Concern about the public's experience with Contra Costa County's Adoption Program led to a
survey of consumers. The following results are.based on 102 responses to surveys mailed to
people who inquired about the adoption process or began the adoptive procedure of the
county program.
Demographic Information on Parents
Three quarters of the respondents were Caucasian and another 10% were African American.
Six people responding were Latino, and five were Native American. The remaining'four
respondents were either Asian or Pacific Islander, or Multi-racial. Only one person chose not
to respond to this question. Most (80%) respondents were females. Over 75% of those
responding were not foster parents before trying to adopt a child. Those parents willing to
adopt transracially comprised 73.5% of the respondents.
Satisfaction with the Adoption Program
Of the 90 respondents that answered the question of whether or not they would recommend
this county's Adoption unit to others, 60 % of the respondents said they would definitely not,
or were not sure if t.hey would, recommend the program to others. The remaining 40% said
that they definitely would recommend the program to others.
Satisfaction with the Adoption Worker
A vast majority (73%) of the 74 respondents answered affirmatively to the question of
whether they would recommend their adoption placement worker to others. The remaining
27% answered that they would not or were not sure if they would their recommend worker to
others.
The respondents were asked to describe their adoption worker in terms of several specified
characteristics. The respondents rated the worker on a scale of one to ten with the lower
numbers representing the: presence of negative characteristics and the higher numbers
representing positive characteristics. Of the 69 respondents to the question about worker
efficiency, the modal (40.6%) response was a rating of 9 and the median response was just
over 8. Of the 70 respondents to the questions about worker helpfulness and worker
professionalism, the modal (45.7%) response was a rating of 10 and the medians were just
under 9. When asked about worker friendliness, the modal (51.4%) response of the 70
respondents was also 10 with the median at 9.
Satisfaction with the Family Reunification Worker
The respondents were asked to describe their family reunification worker in terms of several
specified characteristics. The respondents rated the worker on a scale of one to ten with the
lower numbers representing the presence of negative characteristics and the higher numbers
representing positive characteristics. Of the 61 respondents to the question about foster care
worker efficiency, the modal (32.9%) response was a rating of 10 and the median response
was 7. Of the 62 respondents to the questions about worker helpfulness, the modal (35.57%)
20
response was a -rating of 10 and the median was just under 8. When asked about worker
friendliness, the modal (39.7%) response of the 63 respondents was also 10 with the median
at just under 8. Of the 61 respondents to the question about worker professionalism, the
modal (41.0%) response was 10 and the median response was also just under eight.
Satisfaction With the Home Study Process
Respondents were asked"whether the home study process enabled them to determine which
type of children would best fit into their family. Of the 55 respondents to this question 6%
stated that the home study process was very unhelpful, 26% stated it was not helpful and an
additional 29% said it was only somewhat helpful to determination of what type of child
would best fit into their home. A total of 40% of the respondents stated the process was
very helpful.
Reported Threats or Retaliation from Program staff
Because of concern expressed by foster parents to the Grand Jury that foster parents and
adoptive applicants werebeing routinely threatened, the reviewers queried respondents about
their experiences. Of the 35 respondents to this query, six respondents (17.1%) reported that
they experienced retaliation from the Adoption Program staff.
Reasons for Not-following Through with the Application Process
Only six (6.0%) of the 102 respondents to the survey reported that they applied for adoption
but were counseled not to continue the process, and 40.0% of the respondents reported that
the prospective adopted child is currently living in their home.
Discussion
Client satisfaction surveys are difficult to interpret without data from comparison counties,
however, these data certainly indicate a high regard for adoption and family reunification
workers. The adoption p"rogram itself is less highly regarded, a function in part of the
frustration that families and individuals experience when they understand that they will not be
chosen as adoptive parents. The written comments also indicate other more avoidable reasons
for dissatisfaction, including phone calls that went unreturned, making decisions for families
that 'they'were not really Jlready to adopt, and "brusque" responses to interest in adoption. In
general, social workers seem to be well regarded by respondents once they get to know them,
but find the process of b6coming involved with adoption to be onerous. Adoption staff also
need to develop more acceptable strategies for communicating the likelihood of adoption to
inquiring citizens.
21
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
Operations
The Need for a Formal Fast/Adopt Program
There is widespread support for a system of early identification and planning for children who
might be appropriate foradoption. This would require development of procedures and
attraction of sufficient numbers of foster parents willing to accept fast-adopt placements is a
concern. Moving children into permanent settings as quickly as possible was a universal
concern. Everyone from] the Juvenile Court Judge to Department staff to foster parents and
members of the community concur that decisions about a child's permanence should be made
as quickly as possible. The concept of having a program in place which identifies and begins
adoption planning for children in the Reunification mode who, upon sound assessment, appear
to have little chance of going home, was warmly received. Workers in both the adoption and
reunification programs were very supportive. They believed such a program would work best
with very young children and children whose parents previously had children in the system
and whose previous reunification efforts were unsuccessful. Some held the opinion that the
mere existence of such ai;program would keep FR workers attuned to the adoption option.
Other perceived benefits include a reduction in the number of placement changes a child must
endure and placement with a "forever" family at the beginning of protracted termination of
parental rights proceedings rather than afterwards.
People inquiring with the county welfare department about becoming foster parents do so with
a variety of motives: some want to provide only short-term care for children, others are
willing to make longer commitments, while others still view foster care as the means for
increasing the likelihood',that they will be able to adopt. The existence of a fast/adopt
program creates a legitimate role for this latter group, with the understanding of the risks
associated with accepting a child whose case plan calls for a return to the birth family.
Having an adequate supply of foster parents who wish to participate in this program was a
concern raised by both workers and foster parents (most of whom had also adopted). Some
of the workers indicated that many foster parents will be unable to accept the risks associated
with this kind of placement. The reviewers talked with foster parents who suggested that
adoption was not a motive for them when they initially entered into fostering, but allowed
that it might have been' 'what brought others to the program. There was a suggestion that the
selection of which foster:p parents should be in the fast-adopt program should be made jointly
by the foster care licensing staff and the adoption staff.
Criteria for placement of children in LTFC or Adoption
There is much confusion,about the criteria used to determine which children should be
accepted for study in thel adoption program and a sense that some children who are not
accepted for study could actually be candidates for adoption. Decisions regarding which
permanent plan the Department will make for a specific child are made by the Permanency
Planning Review Team at least after 10 months of foster care. The Team is comprised of an
Adoptions supervisor, the Division Manager whose district is responsible for the child's case,
the child's caseworker, and that worker's supervisor. The presence of the Adoption supervisor
provides some continuity: for each review, but the otherwise constantly changing cast of
22
characters suggests an inconsistency in the decision-making process. This perception was
related to the Team by the FR workers, who were hard pressed to describe the criteria used to
admit children into the adoption program. Workers were able to describe essentially identical
situations in,which one child went to adoptions and the other did not.
As a group, Adoption Program social workers were far less restrictive in their attempts to
describe an adoptable child than were the FR workers. FR workers tended to think older
children and children with medical problems and developmental disabilities were not likely
candidates for adoption. Adoption workers were more open to the possibility of finding
adoptive placements for such children. One source outside the county who was conversant
with Contra Costa's operations suggested that the Department's tendency is to use too narrow
a definition of adoptability. This person expressed specific concern that African American
children are more likely to be placed in long-term foster care than in adoption.
Some concern was expressed that children who may be adoptable but for whom a home is not
readily identifiable may be unnecessarily ordered into long-term foster care. A recent
appellate court decision forbidding this practice should make this a moot topic.
Other concerns surrounded the issue of moving a clearly adoptable child from an ostensibly
stable placement where adoption is not being considered. There is some consensus that
relatives ought not be pressured into adopting and that the child should remain. There is
disagreement regarding children placed with non-kin.
Organization of the Adoption Program
The present system is fragmented and contributes to an inconsistent application of rules and
poor communication. Workers in the three groups all expressed a sense of fragmentation and
a lack of understanding of how other units operate. Both FR and Adoption workers agreed
there is little communication regarding children who may be eligible for adoption. FR
workers report that such communication is inhibited by concern that the Juvenile Court will
experience it as compromising required reunification efforts. The absence of adoption staff in
each district makes communication difficult and so has understaffing. FR workers reported
that Adoption workers have been more quick to respond to messages with the recent addition
of new staff.
Understanding of the Function of the Adoption Program
FR workers reported not fully understanding how Adoption workers decide on homes for
children. They also think that Adoption workers should do the .26 Hearings, not the FR
workers. These hearings are contrary to the reunification services provided to families.
23
Home Study Process
Questions used to evaluate potential foster and adoptive parents
Adoptive workers need to ensure that intrusive questions are not asked unnecessarily and that
applicants understand why certain questions are asked. Some of the questions used during the
home study are too intrusive and based on antiquated thinking about adoptions. Foster
parents who had also adopted questioned the content and timing of certain questions asked of
them during the home study process. This was also true of parents adopting transracially:
while accepting that some of the questions regarding providing the child a positive l
perspective of his or her race or culture are appropriate, these parents wondered why they
were not posed at the time the child was originally placed rather than at the time of the home
study. Numerous respondents in the survey indicated that they were basically told they could
not adopt until they had resolved their infertility issues. They were not clear what this meant
or why it was a criteria.'
Adoptive workers for the most part seemed to have a good understanding of the types of
issues they should be inquiring about with families. However, questions regarding fertility
issues and the couple's sexual compatibility are overly intrusive and based on the style of
home studies from a generation ago.
The CWRC reviewers were struck by the traditional views of the adoption unit about who
makes an acceptable adoptive parent. The emphasis on infertility seems particularly archaic
as the last decades have witnessed a revolution in adoption that has involved successful
adoption into families with many different family constellations (certainly including families
with biological children). The adoption staffs continued belief that they can understand
whether or not a family is really ready to adopt a child better than the family can decide
seems odd. Actions to discourage or deny adoptive families on the basis of an adoption
worker's assessment of a'family's motivation to adopt and a couple's resolution of infertility
should not continue. Adoption staff should more fully embrace the paradigm of the last
decade which suggests that the role of the adoption worker is to screen out only the grossly
unqualified families and help the others to develop the understanding and sills they need to
adopt. The focus groups provided much data which suggests that adoption workers do not
see their priority to be the facilitation of adoption, instead they work unnecessarily hard and
without a sufficient evidentiary base to limit and control who can adopt.
24
Legal and Judicial System
Interdisciplinary Training for All Social Workers and Attorneys
Family Reunification (FR) and Adoption workers indicated a need for greater understanding
of the legal system. In particular, FR workers stated that attorneys' overriding concern is with
the rights of parents, not children. This is demonstrated by the number of requests for
continuances made on behalf of the parents. The emphasis of the attorneys on the side of
parents seems to ignore the fundamental problem of children "in limbo" as the social workers
attempt to reunify the family, and the attorneys make a case against the removal of children
from the home in the first place.
Child-specific Recruitment
The reviewers found that Adoption.and FR workers use child-specific recruiting methods,
such as Brian's Kids, or other private adoption agencies only when there is not a County
family available to adopt a child. They reported that there are generally enough families in
the Contra Costa County. Furthermore, the workers state that the "designated" family of
choice is the foster family. Primarily for that reason, they report little need to do child-
specific recruitment. (Yet, many young children have been assigned to long-term foster care
over the last few years when there were not sufficient homes available.)
This finding corresponds with information gathered through telephone interviews with
personnel from the three.private agencies. The private adoption agencies stated that in the
past two years there has been a decrease in number of collaborations with Contra Costa
County. One agency could not remember the last time they assisted the County's Adoption
Program staff locate a home for a child.
FR workers reported uncertainty about their role in determining whether a foster parent will
adopt a child. They also stated their reluctance to discuss adoption with foster parents as a
permanent placement option for a child until parental rights are terminated since they did not
want to be perceived as ",baby brokers."
Guidelines for Continuing FR Services
Family Reunification workers stated that they are in a double-bind situation with regard to
looking for an adoptive home and providing FR services for parents. If workers begin
looking for an adoptive home when they realize the family is not likely to reunify (the worker
often knows within 6 months if the family is likely to reunify) they face a potential accusation
of not providing reasonable FR services. If the worker waits 12 to 18 months to complete FR
services before they begin searching for possible adoption placements (as the current approach
in Contra.Costa County expects), then the older child will be more difficult to place for
adoption if the foster parent does not want to adopt.
In addition, FR social workers report that the law needs to be more strict with continuing FR
services with drug-abusing parents. If parents do not eliminate or reduce their drug-use, then
some workers believe they should not be able to reunify with the child and certainly should
25
not be given a six-month extension at the 12-month review.
Continuances in Juvenile Court
Family Reunification social workers stated that the child welfare system is bogged down in
continuances. Social workers recommend that in order to reduce the volume of unnecessary
continuances, and eliminate wasted time workers spend appearing in court (only to learn that
the opposing attorney has requested a continuance) attorneys should be required to request a
continuance in advance (as the law requires). For example, they state that the Termination of
Parental Rights (TPR) hearing may be delayed months, and sometimes years, due to
continuances.
26
Foster Parent and County Social Worker Relationship
Role of Foster Parents in the County System
Adoption workers, Family Reunification workers and Foster Parents spoke at great length
about the role "foster parents have within the County's child welfare system. Social workers
state that they view foster parents as resources, not clients. On the other hand, foster parents'
comments ranged from the desire to be friends with the social workers to wanting to be
treated as "professional parents." Due to the discrepant understandings of the role of foster
parents, this is clearly an area in need of attention.
The reviewers found much dissatisfaction with workers' apparent lack of interest in the
children. Some foster parents stated that they only spoke with the Permanency Planning or
FR worker when they needed to set up visitation, or write a court report. In general, the
foster parents would like the workers to know the children. In addition, the foster parents
would also like to spend time getting to know the worker and what the worker sees as the
long-term outcome for the child.
When the foster parents were asked about previous efforts to increase communication between
foster parents and social workers (e.g., teas with the workers), they stated that this type of
interaction does not work well. They suggested that it is better to get to meet the workers on
a one-to-one basis. One foster parent, who is satisfied with the social workers with whom she
works, reported that she .has made specific attempts to get to know the worker on a personal
basis. The reviewers do,not believe that it is strictly up to the foster parents to develop and
maintain relationships with the social workers.
In terms of changing the current treatment of foster parents by social workers, foster parents
would like to change the, power dynamic of social workers acting like employers of the foster
parents. For example, the foster parents are intimidated by workers known to have done
something unpopular with other foster parents i.e., removing a child from the home when they
state they are interested in adopting the child. Other foster parents worry that the same action
will happen to them if they say they are interested in adopting. The reviewers believes that
the intimidation, real or perceived, thwarts the Department's efforts to find permanent
placements for children and to expeditiously remove children from the child welfare system.
The overriding request from foster parents is to be treated with "respect." They want to be
part of the "TEAM", respected as "professional parents", more like they are treated by private
agencies. As such professionals, the foster parents would like to be asked for information to
be included in the Permanency Planning meetings.
27
Continuing Education Curriculum and Training for All Social Workers
Knowledge About the Entire Child Welfare System
Through focus groups and individual interviews, the team learned that workers have a
difficult time obtaining information about a variety of subjects: laws, department policy, and
the duties of workers in different units. FR workers, in particular, stated that information is
not filtered down to them in an effective manner. Although there are frequent meetings
between Division Managers, policy analysts, and judges, the workers do not know what topics
are addressed in the meetings. In terms of the notice the workers do receive regarding new
laws or,policies, they report that they typically receive written memos unaccompanied by
training. The social workers report that the written memos alone are not effective since they hey
become just another piece of paper on their desk.
In addition, many FR workers stated that they did not understand how the Adoption Program
staff decided which children were eligible for adoption. They did not have a clear
understanding of the criteria used. The reviewers believe that to facilitate the best placement
for children, all workers regardless of their assigned unit, should have an understanding of
how other units operate.
Finally, many workers reported they are reluctant to use voice mail related to adoption. The
reviewers believe that its use would increase communication and cooperation among both
workers and units, (An audit of the current e-mail system should be made to be sure that
messages can be marked private and that passwords are secure.)
Racial Matching and the Moore Bill
In response to the Grand Jury Investigation regarding the transracial placement of children,
the reviewers attempted to evaluate the understanding of the requirements of the Moore Bill
(AB 548) among social workers and foster parents. The reviewers found that neither
Adoption nor FR workers were conversant in law which specifically addresses placing a child
in a transracial home. Although the majority of workers did not recognize the law by name
or number, when the reviewers referred to it as the "Matching Law" they were able to discuss
the Department's policy and their efforts to place in same-race homes which appears
inconsistent with'the intent of the law. Specifically, many workers did not know about the
90-day period requiring social workers to pursue a same-race home for the child after a
Parental Rights Termination, and the lesser restrictions after the 90 days. One social.worker
stated that there is no formal tracking system for the 90-day limit, but she proudly reported
that 99% of the children were placed in same-race homes, regardless of the amount of time
needed to locate the home. The priority to find same-race homes may be due, in part, to the
agency's requirement of Manager approval for all non-same-race placements. The limited
experience with the requirements of AB 548 may also result from racial matching of children
by FR workers and the high proportion of children adopted by foster parents. Further, the
lack is experience may result from the County's infrequent termination of parental rights prior
to recruitment for an adoptive home. At least as likely, the lack of understanding is a result
of the Department's lack of complete implementation of the law, and failure to provide
training in this matter.
28
Foster parents report that the Department workers over-emphasize finding same-race homes
for children. They stated`'that social workers have removed children from their homes saying
that they found a same-race home for the child. Although Adoption workers acknowledge
that there was one worker who removed children from foster homes to place in same-race
homes, they report that this is no longer the practice of the unit. The workers stated that
attachment issues make removing the child for racial reasons a hardship for the children.
Furthermore, unless there is an adolescent involved who is experiencing identity problems that
placement in a same-race home would alleviate, the workers do not remove children from
homes based only on race.
In addition, personnel from private adoption agencies reported that their experience shows
that even after diligent searches for adoptive homes fail to locate a home, the children are
most likely placed in long-term foster care. This is most evident in cases involving African
American children.
Social workers, foster parents and those working in private agencies reported that the County
does not have an adequate amount of people of color on their staff. In the past, there were
workers who were African American. At that time, the agencies and foster parents believe
that the County was more involved with the community, families and outside agencies.
Automation of Adoption Program
The review team found that Adoption and FR workers are in favor of an automated system.
Automation would facilitate the location of same-race homes and allow workers to spend
more time case-managing the children and families while streamlining the overall functioning
of the unit.
FR workers state that their clerical tasks are overwhelming, and without eliminating some of
the paperwork, they are not able to concentrate on the duties they are trained to perform, i.e.,
working directly with clients. These workers view automation as a way to facilitate their job
performance.
Adoption workers believe that automation would benefit their job in many ways. They would
be able to locate homes more easily, especially same-race homes. In addition, automation
would keep track of potential adoptive parents, making it easier to call on those parents when
a child becomes available for adoption. Finally, an automated Fost/Adopt program would
facilitate documentation of criteria used to determine adoption eligibility, efforts to reunify,
and potential families for placement of the children according to their characteristics.
29
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
Over the past three months, the Child Welfare Research Center's (CWRC) reviewers have
endeavored to obtain a clear picture of the practices of the Adoption Program of Contra Costa
County Social Services Department. Analysis shows that the Contra Costa County Adoption
Pfogram includes substantial strengths and problems. On the positive side, the Department
currently has enough families available to provide placements of those children they have
identified as needing placements. The Department also takes quite seriously the goal of
placing children with families of the same race and/or ethnicity and, at the same time, is
discontinuing their practice of moving children out of unmatched homes to prevent transracial
adoption. The Department has made progress in this area, although there is more to do in
implementing a culturally competent but flexible program.
On the negative side, the Adoption Program has not kept pace with the movement toward
greater permanency for children at the earliest possible point. In addition, regardless of when
adoption planning begins, reviewers found a great deal of uncertainty about the criteria for the
acceptance of children into the adoption program, an uncertainty reflected in an observed
inconsistency in the kinds of cases that were accepted and rejected for study by the Adoption
Unit. Other systemic problems in the areas of home studies, internal operations and external
relations, were documented in this report. Based primarily on-findings from the evaluation
and from extensive experience in Child Welfare Services, the research team presents the
following list of recommendations for changes in the existing systems and practices. In
addition, this section includes the rationale for the proposed changes, goals for reform, and
suggestions for implementation.
30
SUMMARY of RECOMMENDATIONS and GOALS
1. Establish a systematic process for early identification of children who may be
"adoptable."
a. Develop a formal Fost/Adopt program in Contra Costa County.
b. Create a standard decision-making criteria regarding Family Reunification and the
placement of children in long-term foster care or adoption.
C. Review the need to reorganize the Adoption Program to improve communication
with FR social workers.
d. Create an adoption worker's desktop manual.
2. Revise the home study process.
a. Articulate the relationship between the proposed "10-session" training process and
the current "4-session" home study process so that home studies are streamlined.
b. Eliminate intrusive and irrelevant questions about sexual practices and infertility
from the standard home study.
3. Increase the mutual understanding of social workers and persons working in the
juvenile court (i.e., judge, attorneys, and county counsel) regarding the effect of the
judicial system on' children in foster care.
a. Organize interdisciplinary training for social workers and attorneys.
b. Develop an agreement with the. Juvenile Court Judge regarding child specific
recruitment for adoptive homes, even if the child is not freed for adoption.
C. Create stricter guidelines for continuing Family Reunification services.
d. Strictly limit requests for continuances of Juvenile Court hearings.
4. Improve the relationship between foster parents and county social workers.
a. Develop a common conceptualization of the foster parent role within the Contra
Costa County.Social Service Department's system.
b. Have Department staff appear routinely at the Contra Costa Foster Parent
Association, Inc. meetings.
5. Set up a continuing education curriculum and training for all social workers.
a. Conduct in-service training to increase the staffs general knowledge of how the
decisions made in their unit affect the movement of a child through the child
welfare system.
b. Clearly describe procedures for implementing the Moore Bill (AB 548).
C. Institute a formal, structured, induction and training for workers newly assigned to
the Adoption Program.
6. Automate, to the extent possible, controls and record-keeping now performed
manually.
a. Create a PC-based information management system for the Adoption Program.
31
RECOMMENDATIONS, GOALS, RATIONALE and IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendation 1: Establish a systematic process for early identification and referral
to the Adoption Program of children who may be "adoptable."
Goal 1 A: Develop a formal Fost/Adopt proeram in Contra Costa County.
For any number of reasons, it may become clear early in the reunification process that a
return of a child to his or her birth family is not likely. In such situations, it is to the child's
advantage to promptly initiate the planning for an alternate permanent living arrangement.
While reunification activities must continue with proper diligence, social workers can also
begin to consider alternate "forever" homes to the birth family. Contra Costa foster care
workers often expressed the need for a formal mechanism to refer such children to the
adoption program.
Contra Costa currently has a Permanency Planning Review Team (PPRT) that meets to
review children whose cases are reaching the statutory end of the reunification process and to
decide on the recommendation for a permanent plan. During the focus group meetings,
foster care workers reported that there are no other formal opportunities to meet with
adoption workers prior to this decision being made. Such meetings to jointly staff cases
would generally be beneficial, but especially where early adoption planning might be
appropriate. Some workers reported having informal planning sessions with adoption staff to
discuss potential permanent plans for children on their caseload. Perhaps as a defense
against criticism from the birth parents' counsel regarding the sincerity of the reunification
efforts, the case record rarely includes information about such efforts. Further, the team saw
little evidence that the timing of the formal permanency planning reviews varies,
corresponding to the unique needs of the child. They instead appear fixed in time; this
should be changed.
The experience of other counties suggests that genuine efforts to reunify the family can and
do occur even when consideration of outcomes other than reunification takes place.
Continued reunification efforts need not be an impediment to expediting these children
through the process of developing the alternative of adoption, should reunification fail.
Besides having the resources for identification of these children, a system must be in place
for referring approved adoptive applicants. These applicants, understanding the risks
assumed in taking such,a placement, willingly open their homes to children on a potentially
permanent basis. This is the essence of a Fost/Adopt program. Evidence from other
counties in California suggests that operating such a program would simplify the adoption of
children who may not return to their birth families, but for whom the parental rights have not
yet been terminated. For example, San Mateo County has a very mature Fost/Adopt program
and a rate of timely adoption for children not reunified with their parents far higher than
Contra Costa County's rate.
32
Contra Costa's Child Welfare Services Program could benefit from a formal Fost/Adopt
Program that includes time-lines and decision-making criteria for discussing permanency
planning for children. Such a program would legitimize discussions among social workers
regarding permanent placement for children, whether the outcome is guardianship or
adoption, before they are legally freed for adoption.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Reach an understanding with the Juvenile Court that the best interests of the child dictate
that permanency planning begin prior to the child's Permanency Planning Review; and, that
discussions between foster care and adoption workers are appropriate for social workers to
undertake at any point 'during service delivery.
2. Have Adoption Program social workers available in each district office ata routine time
each week so FR workers can discuss the reunification status of cases they are carrying.
3. Organize training across units to enhance the understanding of the decision-making
process and to arrive at agreement about the mechanism for earlier communication. Ensure
that the specific training includes discussion of the importance of obtaining information from
the beginning of the case that might be needed to meet the legal requirements for the
termination of parental 'rights.
4. Create a planning team of managers, supervisors, workers, and foster parents to visit
counties with existing Fost/Adopt programs. After conducting these visits, prepare a formal
plan with action steps and timelines for the creation and implementation of a Fost/Adopt
program.
33
Goal 1 B. Create standard decision-making criteria regarding family reunification and
the placement of children in long-term foster care or adoption.
The agency needs to standardize the practice for deciding when children are selected for
adoption as opposed to long-term foster care. Information from the three Family
Reunification focus groups suggests inconsistencies among the three district units, and even
within units, regarding how to make these decisions. Individual workers have and need
substantial discretion to decide (with supervisor's approval) the recommended plan for a
child. However, without standardization of the decision-making processes, the system is
arbitrary and unfair to some children and parents. Generally, good practice suggests that an
adoptable child should not remain in long-term foster care, even if the foster care home
placement is an excellent one. Yet, many children in Contra Costa County enter long-term
foster care at very young ages after spending a relatively short time with a foster family.
Foster care workers report that they may recommend long-term foster care placements
because of concerns about disrupting relationships with foster parents who are unwilling or
unable to adopt. Such decisions may, at best, result in stable foster care placements through
age 18. Such an operational definition of a "permanent" placement for such young children
should not be accepted in Contra Costa County. In addition, children under age 10, not
living with kin and assigned to long-term foster care, should have their case reviewed
utilizing the new standardized criteria no less than once a year.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Create a detailed adoptability assessment form for Contra Costa County. Other counties
use forms requiring social workers to identify specific reasons for considering a child
adoptable at this time, or having the high potential for adoption (see Appendices C and D).
The reviewers suggest the agency assume a proactive approach, relying on more than just the
statutory language for why a child can be found unadoptable. In particular, the reviewers
believe that the starting.assumption in each review must be that the child is adoptable.
Arguments for reaching some other conclusion must be firmly questioned, especially when
they rely on old assumptions. The justification for proposing an alternate plan must be
clearly delineated in the case record. Records of the decision-making process, including the
assessment form and any related justifications, must be retained in the child's individual
folder and should be easy to locate.
2 Create a think-tank of workers to discuss common case scenarios that appear to lead to
particular placement recommendations other than adoption. Then, encourage the workers to
decide the acceptability,of those recommendations (e.g., when, if at all, does "attachment" to
a foster parent matter in this decision?).
3. Prepare a formal check list of criteria generated from the efforts of the think-tank, and
form a review of the law and regulations, which would then be included in the case record
for each child currently in FR. This list may cover the following areas: (a) available
34
1
relatives, (b) special needs, and (c) reasons why or why not adoptable. The scenarios
generated in step 3 could be included for reference.
4. Develop and distribute a clearly articulated Departmental philosophy regarding placing
adoptable children into adoptive placements from other long-term placements (including
kinship placements) where the caretakers are unwilling or unable to adopt.
S. Apply these criteria to the review of the cases of all children now in long-term foster care
with non-kin, to determine whether adoption may be the better plan.
35
Goal 1 C. Review the need to reorganize the Adoption Program to improve
communication.
Results from focus groups and interviews with staff suggest a lack of communication among
the three district FR units and the adoption workers located in the Central County office.
Although the recent addition of three new adoption workers appears to be helping,
communication between foster care and adoption workers, there continues to be considerable
time before adoption workers return calls. On the face of it, the workload appears to justify
two full Adoption Units. A more formal workload analysis may be in order. Other
structural changes, such as decentralization or caseload specialization, may also simplify
decision-making and encourage communication between FR workers and adoption workers.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Continue recently increased levels of staffing in the Adoption Program beyond the present
December commitment.
2. Review the likely effectiveness of alternate organizational structures for improving early
referral of children who'are unlikely to go home, particularly: (a) the organization of smaller
regional ,units, and (b) the continuation of one centralized Adoption Program with adoption
workers stationed in three district offices.
3. Consider creation of a home-finding unit.
4. Review the civil service classification of the licensing staff with an eye towards elevating
them to the same as other CWS workers so they can undertake licensing and home study
functions.
36
Goal 1 D. Create an adoption worker's desktop manual.
The Contra Costa County Social Services Department does not have an Adoption Program
Desk manual that details the operations and procedures of the Adoption Program. It.relies
instead on the California Department of Social Service Adoption Manual, a compilation of
rules and regulations, but not local procedures. Other California counties (e.g., Kern) use
such manuals to clarify the unique procedures developed in the agency, and to standardize
the decision-making process for the permanent placement of children. At minimum, the
.current Child Welfare Manual should have an adoption section so that all staff can find
answers to basic questions about adoption criteria and procedures. Development of the
manual will help clarify existing time frames and decision-making rules, and referral
procedures for all agency social workers. The manual will serve as a working tool for
current agency social workers and as training for new workers: The manual will also
provide a basic understanding of the agency's adoption process for other interested parties,
including birth parents and foster parents.
Implementation Ideas:
1. The manual may include: (a) check lists for services Tendered to child, birth parents, and
adoptive parents; (b) appropriate time lines for decision-making; (c) criteria necessary for
deciding the "adoptability"of a child; and (d) legal requirements for terminating parental
rights.
2. The manual should be designed so that revisions required by new legislation and
regulatory changes can be easily incorporated.
3. A specific individual should be appointed to be responsible for ensuring that statutory and
regulatory changes are reflected in the manual and for ensuring that the manual reflects
current practice.
37
Recommendation 2: Revise the home study process.
Goal 2 A: Articulate the relationship between the proposed "10-session" trainine
process and the current "4-session" home study process so that home studies are
streamlined.
Beginning in 1983, there has been statutory emphasis on establishing and maintaining
children in permanent placements. As a result, social workers began asking foster parents to
consider adopting children originally placed in their home on a temporary basis. This-
practice
hispractice has become more widespread, in Contra Costa County and across the state and
nation. Given this reform, having different procedures and standards for approving foster
and adoptive parents, seem less justified. Indeed, one might question the rationale of ever
having two different standards for people opening their homes to vulnerable children. The
team encourages Contra,Costa County to take the opportunity to provide some leadership
around this issue and to abolish the difference in approval methods and standards between
the two groups.
Generally, the child' welfare field's approach to home studies has broadened beyond an
examination of the family's history and psychosocial dynamics. It now also includes an
educative process for helping the family reach its own decision regarding adoption. During
interviews conducted with agency staff, the review team learned that the agency is planning
to institute a new 10-session training and orientation program beyond the current 4-visit
home study. The reviewers applaud this approach, but the overlap between the two
procedures is not clear. Although a greater level of preparation should be offered, those
wishing to adopt via the conventional four-session home study should not be discouraged
from doing so. Further, the group sessions could cover substantial parts of the home study
process, thus eliminating repeated information. The evidence is clear that there is a need for
a substantial supply of adoptive families to meet the needs of children in the County. The
evidence is less clear, however, that the additional increments in preparation resulting from
the 10-session program will lead to better adoptions. Whatever these gains might be, they
should not be at the cost of discouraging potential adoptive families.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Revise the current adoptive Home Study and Licensing study process so that the same
standards apply to both foster parents and adoptive parents. Recognizing that the standards
for approval are not presently the same in each program, the Department is encouraged to
counsel prospective foster parents who would not make suitable adoptive parents out of the
program. In the same vein, the Department is encouraged to provide leadership with the
County Welfare Directors Association in moving towards a revision of current regulations
which would enable County licensing workers to deny the applications of prospective foster
parents who wouldnot be appropriate adoptive parents.
38
2. Provide a range of alternatives for potential adoptive families, from the four-session home
study, to the full home study plus the training program.
3. Review the rationale,for requiring more than the minimal home study in order to qualify
as an adoptive parent, if,this is the plan.
39
Goal 2 B: Eliminate intrusive and irrelevant questions about sexual practices and
infertility fi-om the standard home study.
Through individual interviews with adoption workers and information analyzed from the
client satisfaction questionnaires, CWRC learned that social workers routinely ask questions
about infertility and the sexual relations of applicants. Traditionally, social workers try to
assess motivation for adopting and the quality of the applicants' relationship. While
questions about motivation and married applicants' relationships to each other are relevant to
an adoption home study, fertility problems and sexual compatibility of the couple are not
shown by research to predict a successful adoption. As such, the research team questions
their appropriateness in a home study.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Rewrite the standard question guidelines used in screening applicants and disseminate
them to all home study workers.
2. Provide new training,for all workers on the elimination of these items.
3. Develop a work group of social workers and parents to eliminate other dated,
conceptually unimportant, and intrusive items from the home study.
40
Recommendation 3: Increase the mutual understanding of social workers and persons
working in the juvenile court (i.e., judge, attorneys, and county counsel) regarding the
effect of the judicial system on children in foster care.
Goal 3 A. Organize interdisciplinary training for social workers and attorneys.
From the focus groups conducted with the FR units, the review team found a general lack of
understanding among the social workers about the legal decision-making process. The social
workers generally agreed that judicial decisions concerning the continuation of Family
Reunification (FR) services and the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) appear arbitrary.
In particular, there seems to be an inconsistent application of Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 366.21 (g) (1) that extends Family Reunification services beyond twelve months.
That statute was designed to reunify a parent with his or her child and to protect the child's
right to a quick decision about his or her permanence. All parties in the judicial process
(i.e., social workers, attorneys, and judicial officers) need to maintain that balance. Both the
County Counsel's office' and'Judge Lois Haight expressed their interest in seeing questions
regarding children's permanence resolved as quickly as possible. The reviewers encourage
the Department to capitalize on this consensus and provide leadership for the other parties in
moving children through the system expeditiously.
To enhance the mutual understanding between agency social workers and Juvenile Court
personnel, the agency should institute interdisciplinary training on permanency planning.
The training should recognize differences in professional orientation and create a bridge
between the two professions as they collaborate for the best interests of children.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Encourage social workers to suggest specific legal areas in which they would like to
expand their level of expertise (e.g., TPRs, and court reports). Provide in-service training to
address the specific areas. This could be accomplished during departmental meetings, perhaps
quarterly.
2. Begin a training for attorneys serving the Juvenile Court. Design the training to sensitize
the professionals to the difficulties of growing up in the foster care system. It may include
video tapes and presentations of typical case histories of children in foster care and after
foster care. The training should clarify ways that adoption provides greater permanency. In
addition, it should describe the option of open adoption that provides children with a
permanent and safe family without totally severing ties to biological parents, kin, and foster
parents. The reviewers recommend that Judge Haight make membership on the Juvenile
Court counsel appointments' list conditional upon attending such training:
41
Goal 3 B. Develop an agreement with the Juvenile Court Judge regarding child specific
recruitment for adoptive homes, even if the child is not freed for adoption.
There is indication that children generally do not wait for adoptive homes in Contra Costa
County. Indeed, there is.currently an adequate supply of approved adoptive homes. The
greatest fault of the current child welfare system is that it identifies too few children as
needing adoptive homes. Thereview team believes that implementation of
Recommendations 1 and 2 will increase the need for adoptive homes. Evidence from the
case record review suggests that a substantial number of the children reviewed currently
reside in long-term foster care despite their very young ages. Although the case records are
not clear about the reasons why these children were not adopted, the reviewers infer that
many are there because;of the belief that there were no adoptive homes for these children.
Although the agency does make some effort to place children through the collaboration with
private agencies (i.e., sharing children's photos before the TPR hearing), workers need to
make more consistent, diligent, and creative efforts to locate adoptive homes for children
now in long-term foster'care. With Court approval this can and should be done for children
in long-term foster care before the termination of parental rights (TPR).
Implementation Ideas:
1. Use the newly devised Adoptability Assessment checklist to identify children who may
merit adoption despite their status in long-term foster care.
2. When it is appropriate, move children into Fost/Adopt homes at the 6-month review, and
before the 10-month Permanency Planning Review Team (PPRT) meeting.
3. For guidance, consult with judges and agency personnel from neighboring counties (e.g.,
Sacramento) that conduct child specific recruitment of unfree children.
I
42
Goal 3 C: Create stricter euidelines for continuing Family Reunification services
Although all birth parents have the right to Family Reunification (FR) efforts, those parents
who show little ability to care for their children, nor willingness to comply with the FR
agreement, ought to have reunification services terminated promptly. Evidence from the case
record review indicates that cases are routinely delayed due to continuances. To move
children out of the foster care system in a timely manner, stricter guidelines about
continuances ought to be developed and implemented.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Develop a single document that specifically identifies services rendered. This is done to
reflect more closely the' status of the case. The document could also provide a clear
rationale for the Court when justifying the continuation or termination of Family
Reunification services.
2. The Juvenile Court Judge should strictly enforce Welfare and Institutions Code Section
366.2 (g) (1) regarding jcontinuing reunification services for an additional six-month period.
The team encourages the Court to require counsel requesting the additional time to state for
the record the specific circumstances which support the finding of a "substantial probability"
that the child will return home if the additional services are offered.
43
Goal 3 D: Strictly limit requests for continuances of Juvenile Court
hearings.
A concern expressed almost universally by the participants in the interviews and/or focus
groups centered on delays in Juvenile Court. The case record reviews confirmed what
appeared to the team to be a remarkable number of continuances of the six-month and
permanency planning hearings. While continuances are unavoidable in some situations, the
reviewers are concerned that the apparent ease with which continuances are requested and
granted, creating unnecessary delays in making decisions about the child's permanence. The
reviewers note in passing that in some situations, continuances placed the case in conflict
with the statutory requirement that the permanency planning hearing be held no later than
eighteen months from the date the child was detained.
Implementation Ideas: .
1. The Juvenile Court Judge and Referee should strictly enforce Welfare and Institutions
Code Section 352 (a).
2. Foster parents and rel'ative.caretakers who are completing home studies should do so
expeditiously so as to avoid unnecessary delays in the child reaching permanence. The
Department and the Juvenile Court Judge should exercise their respective influences to
encourage prompt completion of home studies.
44
Recommendation 4. Improve relationships between foster parents and agency social
workers.
Goal 4 A. Develop a common conceptualization of the foster parent role within the
Contra Costa County Social Service Department's system.
Foster parents are the greatest source of adoptive homes for Contra Costa County's children.
Yet, analyses of individual interviews and focus groups conducted with staff and foster
parents show substantial tension and distrust between the two groups. The reviewers found
that neither the social workers not the foster parents have a consistent view of the roles that
foster parents are to play within the Department's foster care program. The lack of role
definition appears to have contributed to the current atmosphere of distrust and resentment
between foster parents and social workers (FR and Adoption). Both groups must work
toward a resolution of the differences. This must include an acknowledgement of their
respective responsibilities for the present difficulties and desire for change.
Ambiguity about the role of foster parents reaches far beyond the boundaries of Contra Costa
County, to all public child welfare jurisdictions in the county. The reviewers again
encourage Contra Costa County to assume a leadership position on this issue and act as a
trailblazer for other child welfare agencies. The agency could specifically outline role
expectations, and then educate all involved parties, according to those expectations. By
collaborating with foster parents to follow a standard role, the agency social workers would
reduce their own inconsistencies in treating foster parents as clients, co-workers (e.g.,
teammates), or friends of the county workers.
The reviewers wish to emphasize, however, that ultimately the relationship between the
foster parents and the Department is for most purposes a relationship between individual
workers and individual parents. The development of mutual respect, the exercise of common
courtesies, and the granting of the benefit of the doubt will provide a firm foundation from
which these individual relationships can flourish.
Implementation ideas:
1. Agency workers and foster parents should appoint a representative committee to meet
together to develop a standard role for foster parents. This committee should not be limited
to the leadership of foster parent organizations or the Department; rather, the membership
should be broad-based. The development of specific guidelines that standardize the role of
foster parents in the county system should be the objective of this group. If needed, the two
groups should pursue mediation.
2. Include a specific training session for the county foster care workers concerning their
support of foster parents in the understanding of the role definitions.
3. Institute an annual training encompassing the nature of the child welfare service programs
offered by the County and the Department's philosophy concerning the role of the foster
45
parents in implementing those programs. Attendance at the annual training should be a
condition for foster parents to continue receiving children from the Department.
4. Insure that practices in dealing with foster parents are consistent within and among the
three districts.
46
Goal 4 B: Have Departmental staff appear routinely at the Contra Costa Foster Parent
Association, Inc. meetinp-s.
Increased frequency of contact between Department Staff and foster parents in a variety of
settings can only improve communication between the two groups. The regular meetings of
the Foster Parent Association provide a natural arena for Department staff at all levels to
meet with the foster parents and exchange concerns.
Implementation Ideas:.
1. The reviewers suggest the Department work with interested foster parents and, perhaps,
the State Foster Parent Association to revitalize the Contra Costa County Foster Parent
Association and that the.Association invite Department representatives to participate
routinely.
47
I
Recommendation 5: Set up a continuing education curriculum and training for all
Department social workers.
Goal 5 A: Conduct in-service training to increase the staffs general knowledge of how
the decisions made in their unit affect the movement of a child through the child welfare
system.
For months, even years, before sending a child's case to the Adoption Unit, social workers
from various units (i.e., Emergency Response, Family Reunification, and Family
Maintenance) make decisions regarding the permanent placement of the child. Through
information gathered during focus groups with FR workers, the reviewers learned that
workers typically have little knowledge of how other units operate, unless the social worker
worked in another unit at some point. The case record review revealed at least one situation
in which the FR worker's lack of understanding of the implications of his or her actions on
the process of terminating parental rights created a delay. In this circumstance, the child had
an alleged father known to the worker, but the worker did not.make efforts to reunify this
man with the child. The Adoption worker had to request a delay in the completion of the
termination of parental rights to address this man's interest. Best practice standards would
provide instruction about the legal requirements for the TPR allowing the permanent
placement of children in: a timely manner.
Educating unit workers in this vein will increase their understanding of how their
responsibilities are distinct from the duties of workers in other units. In addition, they would
learn how their decisions affect the permanent plan for children. Instituting a training that
increases workers' overall comprehension of the Child Welfare System should expedite
permanency planning beginning at the time the child enters the foster care system.
Implementation Ideas:
Create a program plan for speeding up the transition from foster care to adoption, when
appropriate. Specifically, the plan would outline how decisions of one unit affect the
decisions about a child's',placement in the future. San Mateo has developed a flow chart that
may serve asa model (See Appendix E).
48
Goal 5 B: Clearly describe procedures for implementing the Moore Bill (AB 548).
Social workers need a clear understanding of the Moore Bill (AB 548) as it affects the
transracial placement of children in foster care and adoptive homes. Many social workers in
both FR and Adoptions could discuss the agency's policy of preferentially placing children in
same-race homes. On the other hand, few workers understood the law or its time frames.
Although there ought to be efforts to place a child in the same race home, children should
not have to wait in emergency foster care beyond the specified 90 days. If a same race
home is not available after 90 days, the child ought to be placed with another culturally
competent, if not racially matched foster family.
Implementation Ideas:
1. Schedule an in-service training session on AB 548 to present the specific requirements of
the law. The agency should discuss (a) the fit between their practice and the law, and (b)
the agency's view about the role of racial matching in foster care and adoption.
2. Be aware of current staffs knowledge concerning cultural diversity. Arrange, at
minimum, yearly in-service trainings or forums on diversity issues salient to adoption
practice.
3. Accelerate efforts to create a staff consisting of persons reflecting the diversity of the
community.
4. Conduct group exercises in which FR and Adoption staff members are paired to discuss
potential outcomes for typical case scenarios of children in foster care and how AB 548
might affect them.
49
Goal 5 C: Institute a formal, structured induction and training for workers newly
assiened to the Adoption Program.
In adoption practice, thea;kinds of issues, the type of thinking, and the way a case is
approached are different,than in other child welfare service programs. Whereas a background
in Emergency Response and/or one of the foster care programs is invaluable, it does not fully
prepare a worker for the range of tasks and conceptual challenges one faces in adoption.
More than a review of policy and procedures, the team believes new workers need an
orientation to the philosophy and thinking of adoption practice.
At the present time, Contra Costa relies primarily on informal, unstructured interactions
between the supervisor and worker and on-the-job training to assist a new worker to adapt to
his or her new assignment. The team believes a more formal established curriculum should
be provided to the new worker to orient him or her to the kinds of thinking needed to make
this a successful assignment.
Implementation ideas:
1. Make use of the vast experience of Contra Costa's Adoption unit. Brainstorm the kinds of
issues and experiences an adoption worker will face. Record these and the responses and the
thinking behind the responses of the workers who have already had these experiences.
Synthesize the philosophy and methods which maximized successful intervention in those
situations and organize it in such a way that is easily presentable to a new worker.
2. Consider working with other Bay Area counties to create a regional training academy, in
which new workers from the region are trained together by the respective experts in each
county.
50
Recommendation 6: Automate, to the extent possible, the controls and record-keeping
now performed manually.
Goal 6 A: Create a PC-based information management system for the Adoption
Program.
The statewide Child Welfare Services Case Management System (CWS/CMS) is a year or
more away from implementation and even then will not have the capacity to track applicants
and perform other case'control functions needed in adoptions. These functions are now
performed by hand in Contra Costa and can easily be automated. After initial start-up costs,
including time for software adaptation and data entry, the Department will realize immediate
savings in both clerical,,,and social worker time. There will be ongoing maintenance and data .
entry needs which the Department will need to address as well.
The potential uses are limited only by a lack of imagination. At least one county (Kern)
uses such a system to schedule CHDP examinations, complete monthly and quarterly reports,
control caseloads, and track applicants' progress through the home study. Other possible uses
include tracking persons who inquire about adoption, scheduling orientation and training
sessions, and matchingwaiting families with children needing a home.
Implementation Ideas:
Visit and/or talk with other county adoption staff to see what they have in place. Acquire
needed hardware and software. Ensure that staff have the appropriate level of computer
literacy. Arrange for ongoing support from in-house or county-level programmer-analyst
staff. Modify software and create necessary forms and procedures.
51
Implementing and Monitoring Change
The community, the Department, and the review team all recognize the need for change.
Necessary changes will come about through collaboration and compromise among foster
parents, adoptive parents,social workers, department administration, and the Juvenile Court.
The CWRC reviewers recommend that within three months of receiving this report, the
Contra Costa County Social Service Department develop a plan for implementing each
recommendation and goal. The plan should specify a time frame and specific administrator
responsible for accomplishing each recommendation and goal. Six months from the time of
this report, and every six months thereafter, a review of the implementation process should
take place until each goal is achieved or alternatives developed.
The success or failure ofefforts by the Department will be determined by whether or not
more children in need of adoption are so placed. The reviewers believe that Table 2 of this
report provides the best single indication of these changes and comparable data should be
used to estimate improvements in the foster care and adoption program. This table shows
whether or not young children entering nonkinship foster care remain in foster carer or are
adopted within four years of placement. The Department should show an improvement in
the proportion of adoptions so that, at a minimum, the odds that a very young child will be
adopted as compared to remain in long-term foster care are 50/50: Such odds would mean
that the adoption-to-in care ratio would increase two-and-one-half times from the current ratio
of .41 to a ratio of 1.00. The reviewers expect that far higher ratios could be achieved in
Contra Costa County. (The reviewers are less concerned about Contra Costa County's low
rate of adoption for children living in kinship foster care.) The reviewers have endeavored to
construct recommendations and goals so that they are achievable. The reviewers firmly
believe that the Contra Costa County Social Service Department will be able to successfully
carry out key changes to.better meet the interests of Contra Costa County's children.
52
APPENDIX A
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
i2
BERKELEY DAVIS IRVINE LOSANGELES RIVERSIDE SANDIEGO SANFRANCISCO�? - = jSANTA BARBARA SANTACRUZ
'= a
PUM
: s r
a%
se.j
P-
Family Welfare Research Group
CChild Welfare Research Center School of Social Welfare
1950 Addison Street, Suite 104
Berkeley, California 94704
Tel: (510)642-1899
Fax: (510)642-1895
Dear Adoptive Parent:
We are studying the adoption placement services provided by Contra Costa County Social Services
in order to evaluate them and develop suggestions for improvement. This study is a result of a
Grand Jury investigation into allegations regarding practices of the County's Adoption Unit.
Information from adoptive parents who have gone through the Contra Costa system is vital to our
study's success. You have been selected for this survey since you are part of a group of parents who
are in the process of adopting or who have adopted children via Contra Costa County since 1991.
You can contribute to the goals of this study by completing and returning the enclosed questionnaire.
We estimate that the questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Participation is entirely voluntary. Your comments will remain confidential. As reports of this
survey will not identify individuals or.programs, we do not envision any risk to you in completing
this questionnaire. We firmly believe that your participation will benefit children in Contra Costa
County through improved services.
This effort has the support of Steve Warga, President of the Contra Costa Foster Parent Association,
Inc. In addition, Perfecto Villarreal, Director of Contra Costa County's Social Service Department,
has expressed his assurance that your participation in this study will in no way affect your
relationship with the County's service providers. Moreover, it is against California State law to
threaten or take any retaliatory action against critics of a state agency or its employees.
The return of the questionnaire will serve as your agreement to participate in this study. Be assured
that we respect your right to decline participation. Please assist us in gathering this important
information by completing this survey and returning it directly to the University of California at
Berkeley by October 14, 1994 in the enclosed, postage paid return envelope. You may note that
while the County is sending out these questionnaires, they are being directly returned to us, the Child
Welfare Research Center at Berkeley, in order to protect your privacy. The county will not know
who has and has not chosen to respond. Finally, the responses of all who apply will be presented in
a summary fashion to ensure confidentiality.
If you have any questions, please call (510) 642-1899 to speak with the first available member of our
research team. Collect calls will be accepted. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Barth, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
QUESTIONNAIRE
ADOPTIVE PARENTS
When did your adopted child begin to live with you:
1. PARENT INFORMATION
1-1. What is your gender?
0 Male
1 Female
1-2 . What is your race/ethnicity?
1 Asian/Pacific Islander
2 African7American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi-Racial
1-3 . What is your highest level of education completed?
1 8th grade or less
2 Some high school
3 H.S. Diploma
4 Some college
5 B.A. or higher
1-4 . Was this a single-parent adoption?
0 No
1 Yes
If so, skip to Section 2.
1-5. What is your partner's/spouse's ethnicity?
1 Asian/Pacific Islander
2 African-American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi-Racial
Child Welfare Research Center 1 U.C. Bcrkcicy
2 . RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD
2-1. Were you a foster parent to this child before adopting?
0 No
1 Yes
2-2. Were you ,a foster parent to any other child before adopting?
0 No
1 Yes
2-3. Did you ever seek to adopt another foster child?
0 No
1 Yes, I/we have adopted another foster child.
2 Yes, but I/we did not adopt.
Please explain
2-4. Did this child become your foster child prior to being free
for adoption?
0 No
1 Yes
2 Don't know
2-5. When you began the adoption process, were you willing to
adopt a child of an ethnicity or race different from
your own?
0 No,the child had to be the same race.
1 Yes,either same race or transracial adoption was fine.
2-6. If Yes, please check the ethnicity of children acceptable to
you:
1 Asian/Pacific Islander
2 African-American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi-Racial
Child Welfare Research Center 2 U.C.Berkeley
i
2-7 . When you began the adoption process, were you willing to
adopt a child of either gender?
0 No,only a boy.
1 Yes,eithet a boy or a girl.
2 No,only a girl.
2-8 . When you began the adoption process, were you willing to
adopt a child of any age?
0 No, only an infant.
1 No, only under 3 years old.
2 No, only under 10 years old.
3 Yes, any age was acceptable.
2-9 . When you began the adoption process, were you willing to
adopt a child with disabilities?
0 No, only a healthy child.
1 Yes.
2-10. If Yes, please check below any disabilities you were
willing to consider.
Physical disabilities: None Mild Moderate Severe
Emotional problems: None Mild Moderate Severe
Mental retardation: None Mild Moderate Severe
Learning disabilities: None Mild Moderate Severe
3. CHILD
3-1. How old is your adopted child?
3-2 . What is your adopted child's gender?
0 Male
1 Female
Child Welfare Research Center 3 U.C.Berkeley
3-3 . What is the child's race/ethnicity?
3-3-1. Child's birth mother
0 Don't Know
1 Asian/Pacific Islander
2 African American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi-Racial
3-3-2 . Child's birth father
0 Don't Know
1 Asian/Pacific Islander
2 African American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi-Racial
4 . SERVICES
4-1. Do you have a foster care worker for this adopted child?
0 No
1 Yes
If No, please skip to 4-5.
Circle the numbers that best describe your foster care worker.
4-2 . Was your foster care worker:
Friendly 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Rude
Helpful 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Uncaring
Efficient 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not organized
Professional 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Too informal
Additional comments
Child Welfare Research Center 4 U.C.Berkeley
Circle the number indicating your level of agreement with each of
the following:
4-3 . Your foster care worker:
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
Answered questions
to my satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1
Showed sensitivity 5 4 3 2 1
Was supportive 5 4 3 2 1
Turned the home study
into a learning 5 4 3 2 1
experience
Additional comments
4-4 . Did you ever feel pressured by your foster care
worker either to adopt or not to adopt?
0 No
1 Yes,there was pressure to adopt.
2 Yes,there was pressure not to adopt.
Please elaborate
Circle the numbers that best describe your adoption worker.
4-5. Was your primary adoption worker:
Friendly 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Rude
Helpful 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Uncaring
Efficient 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not organized
Professional 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Too informal
Additional comments
Child Welfare Research Center 5 U.C.IkVkeley
4-6. Your adoption worker:
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree .Disagree
Answered questions
to my satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1
Showed sensitivity 5 4 3 2 1
Was supportive 5 4 3 2 1
Turned the home
study into a 5 4 3 2 1
learning experience
Additional comments
4-7. Did the home study process enable you to determine which
type of children would best fit into your family?
1. Yes, it was very helpful.
2 . Yes, it was somewhat helpful.
3 . No, it was not helpful.
4 . No, it was very unhelpful. .
Additional comments
4-8. Please circle the numbers which best describe your
experience of the home study process.
Supportive 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Intrusive
Empowering 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Disempowering
Encouraging Focusing on
parental 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 parental
strengths weaknesses
Additional comments
Child Welfare Research Center 6 U.C. Berkeley
4-9 . How long was the home study process? Please give answer in
months. months
5. INFORMATION
5-1. Overall, did the information you received concerning your
child:
1 Portray the child too negatively?
2 Give you an accurate, realistic picture of the child?
3 Portray the child too favorably?
4 Revealed, little or nothing about the child?
5-2 . What could. have been done to prepare you better for being an
adoptive parent? Circle all that apply.
1 More preplacement visits
2 More accurate information about the child
3 More information about resources for the child
4 More information about resources for me
5 Parenting skills training
6 More training to work with special-needs children
7 More contact with the social worker `
8 More counseling about adoption
9 Counseling for the child
10 Family counseling
it Higher AAP subsidy.
12 Other:
13 Nothing
5-3 . If you knew everything about the child before adopting that
you now know, how would that have affected your
decision to adopt?
1 I/we would have definitely accepted the child.
2 I/we would have probably accepted the child.
3 I/we would have probably not accepted the child.
4 I/we would have definitely not accepted the child.
5-4 . Overall, how well prepared were you for life with your
adopted child?
1. Very unprepared
2. Moderately well prepared
3 . Moderately unprepared
4 . Very well prepared
Child Welfare Research Center 7 U.C..Berkeley
5-5. Did you understand the criteria being used by the county to
evaluate you as a successful candidate to become an
adoptive parent?
0 No
1 Yes
If yes, what did they include?
5-6. Did you understand the criteria being used by the county to
determine whether or not the 'child was free to be
adopted?
0 No
1 Yes
If yes, what did they include?
5-7 . Do you think you will consider trying to adopt again in the
future?
0 Definitely No
1 Not sure;,
2 .Definitely Yes
Why or why not?
5-8. Would you recommend this county's Adoption unit to others?
0 Definitely No
1 Not sure;
2 Definitely Yes
Please elaborate
Child Welfare Research Center 8 U.C. Berkeley
5-9 . Would you recommend your placement worker to others?
0 Definitely No
1 Not sure ,
2 Definitely Yes
Please explain
5-10. Are there adequate grievance procedures available to
prospective adoptive parents?
0 Definitely No
1 Not sure•
2 Definitely Yes
Please elaborate
5-11. Did you make use of any of the following?
0 No
1 Request contact with placement worker's supervisor
2 File a complaint
3 Appeal final decision
4 Other
Additional comments
5-12 . If so, did you experience what you perceived to be
retaliation?
0 No
1 Yes Please explain
Child Welfare Rcscarch Ccnler 9 U.C.Berkelcy
5-13 .How long did the entire adoption process take? Please count
the time from the initial inquiry about adoption until
the final outcome date. Please give the answer in years
and months;.
years months
Please indicate any additional information that we should know
but did not ask. You may also call 642-1899 and ask to speak to a
member of the Contra Costa County Adoption research team.
Thank you.
Child Welfare Research Center 10 U.C. Berkeley
APPENDIX B
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
i2
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO? _ = e SANTA BARBARA SANTA CRU7
s r/
�I�� ATn Family Welfare Research Group
L111_ll L—
(C_hild Welfare Research Cente School of Social Welfare
�� 1950 Addison Street, Suite 104
Berkeley, California 94704
Tel: (510)642-1899
Dear Sir or Madam: Fax: (510)642-1895
We are studying the adoptions placement services provided by Contra Costa County Social Services
Department in order to evaluate them and develop suggestions for improvement. The study is occurrii
as a result of a Grand Jury investigation into allegations regarding adoption practices in this county.
Information from people who applied to be adoptive parents or considered adoption through the Contra
Costa County Social Services Department is vital to our study's success. You have been selected for
this survey as a representative sample of people who contacted the County regarding the possibility of
adopting children during the 1991-1994 period. You can contribute to the goals of this study by
completing and returning the enclosed questionnaire. We estimate that the questionnaire will take
approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Participation is entirely voluntary. Your comments will remain confidential and reports of this sur\
will not identify individuals or programs. We do not envision any risk to you in completing this
questionnaire. We firmly believe that your participation will benefit children in Contra Costa County
through improved services.
This effort has the support of Steve Warga, President of the Contra Costa Foster Parent Association,
Inc. In addition, Perfecto Villarreal, Director of Contra Costa County's Social Service Department, h
expressed his assurance that your participation in this study will not affect your relationship with the
County's service providers. Moreover, it is against California state law to threaten or take any
retaliatory action against critics of a state agency or its employees.
The return of the questionnaire will serve as your agreement to participate in this study. Be assured tl
we respect your right to decline participation. Please assist us in gathering this important information
completing this survey 'and returning it directly to the University of California at Berkeley by
October 14, 1994 in the enclosed, postage paid return envelope. You may note that while the Cou
is sending out these questionnaires, they are being directly returned to us, the Child Welfare Research
Center at Berkeley, in order to protect your privacy. The County will not know who has and has not
chosen to respond. Finally, the responses of all who reply will be presented in a summary fashion to
ensure confidentiality.
If you have any questions, please call (510) 642-1899 to speak with the first available member of our
research team. Collect calls will be accepted. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Barth, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
QUESTIONNAIRE
PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS
1. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Each of the following questions refers to the last three years.
1-1. Circle the category that most closely describes you:
0 Have not discussed adoption with a foster care worker
1 Applied for adoption but were counseled not to continue
2 Applied for adoption but decided not to continue
3 Applied and accepted but did not finish the home study
4 Completedhome study but were not approved
5 Have had an approved study for at least six months but
still have no placement
6 Prospective adopted child currently living in my/our home
7 Prospective adopted child no longer living in my/our home
8 Other
What gender are you?
0 Male
1 Female
1-3 . What is your race/ethnicity?
1. Asian/Pacific Islander
2 . African American
3 . Caucasian
4. Native American
5. Latino
6. Multi-Racial
1-4. What is your highest level of education completed?
1. 8th grade or less
2 . Some high'' school
3 . H.S. Diploma
4 . Some college
5. B.A. or higher
1-5. Was this to be a single-parent adoption?
0 No
1 Yes
If so, skip to section 2 .
Child Welfare Research Center 1 U.C.Berkeley
1-6. What is your partner's/spouse's ethnicity?
0 . Not applicable
1. Asian/Pacific Islander
2 . African American
3 . Caucasian
4 . Native American
5. Latino
6. Multi-Racial
2 . RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD
2-1. Were you a foster parent to this child before considering
adopting?
0 No
1 Yes
2-2 . Were you a foster °parent to any child before considering
adopting?
0 No
1 Yes
2-3 . How/why did you decide to try to adopt?
0 Infertility
1 Humanitarian reasons
2 Child was a blood relative
3 Child was a relative by marriage
4 Other
2-4. When you began the adoption process, were you willing to adopt a
child of an ethnicity or race different from your own?
0 No,the child had to be the same race as me/us.
1 Yes, either same race or transracial adoption was fine.
2-5. If Yes, please check the ethnicity of children acceptable to you:
1. Asian/Pacific Islander
2 . African American
3 . Caucasian
4 . Native American
5 . Latino
6 . Multi-Racial
Child Welfare Research Center 2 U.C.Berkeley
n
2-6. When you began the adoption process, were you willing to adopt a
child of either gender?
0 No,only a male.
1 Yes, either a male or a female.
2 No,only a female.
2-7. When you began the adoption process, were you willing to adopt
a child of any age?
0 No, . only an ,infant.
1 No, only under 3 years old.
2 No, only under 10 years old.
3 Yes, any age was acceptable.
2-8 . When you began the adoption process, .were 'you willing to adopt
a child with disabilities?
0 No, only a healthy child.
1 Yes.
2-9 . If Yes, please check below any disabilities you were willing
to consider.
Physical disabilities: None Mild Moderate Severe
Emotional problems: None Mild Moderate Severe
Mental retardation: None Mild Moderate Severe
Learning disabilities: None Mild Moderate Severe
If a prospective adopted child lived with you or is living
with you, answer the following questions. Otherwise, skip to
section 4 .
Child Welfare Research Center 3 U.C.Berkeley
is
2-10. What activities, if any, are/were you willing to participate in
to support your child's ethnic/racial/cultural identity?
0 We are of the same ethnicity
1 Choice of integrated neighborhood
2 Choice of integrated school
3 Involvement in ethnically diverse social and recreational
groups
4 Choice of multi-cultural entertainment
5 Family travel to culturally significant places
6 Choice of child care providers, teachers, and other adult
leadership` figures ethnically similar to child
7 Cultivation of friendships with families who are
ethnically/racially similar to child
8 Participation in ethnic/racial holidays and celebrations
9 Other: Please describe
10 None
3 . CHILD
3-1. Did the child you were planning to adopt ever live with you?
0 No
1 Yes
If Yes, continue. Otherwise skip to section 4 .
3-2 . What date did the child begin living with you?
3-3 . How old is the child?
3-4 . What is the child's gender?
0 Male
1 Female
3-3 . What is the race/ethnicity of the child's birth parents?
3-3-1. Child's birth mother
0 Don't Know
1 Asian/Pacific Islander
2 African American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi-Racial
Child Welfare Research Center 4 U.C.Berkeley
3-3-2 . Child's birth father
0 Don't Know
1 Asian/Pacific° Islander
2 African American
3 Caucasian
4 Native American
5 Latino
6 Multi- Racial
4 . SERVICES
Circle the numbers that best describe your foster care worker.
4-1. Was your foster care worker:
Friendly 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Rude
Helpful 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not caring
Efficient ,10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not organized
Professional i0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Too informal
Additional comments
4-2 . Indicate by circling the appropriate number your level of
agreement with 'each of the following:
Your foster care worker:
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
Answered questions
to my satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1
Showed sensitivity 5 4 3 2 1
Was supportive 5 4 3 2 1
Turned the home study
into a learning 5 4 3 2 1
experience
Additional comments
Child Welfare Research Center 5 U.C.Berkeley
4-3 . :Did you ever feel pressured by your foster care worker either to
adopt or not to adopt?
0 No
1 Yes,there was pressure to adopt.
2 Yes,there was pressure not to adopt.
Please elaborate
Circle the numbers that best describe your adoption worker.
4-4 . Was your adoption worker:
Friendly 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Rude
Helpful 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not caring
Efficient 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Not organized
Professional 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Too informal
Additional comments
4-5. Your adoption worker:
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
Answered questions to
my satisfaction 5 4 3 2 1
Showed sensitivity 5 4 3 2 1
Was supportive 5 4 3 2 1
Turned the home study
into a learning 5 4 3 2 1
experience
Additional comments
Child Welfare Research Center 6 U.C. Berkeley
4-6. Did the home study process enable you to determine which type of
children would best fit into your family?
1. Yes, it was very helpful.
2 . Yes, it was ,somewhat helpful.
3 . No, it was not helpful.
4 . No, it was very unhelpful.
Please elaborate
4-7 . Please circle all the numbers which best describe your experience
of the home study process.
supportive 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Intrusive
Empowering 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Disempowering
Encouraging
parental 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Focusing on
strengths parental weaknesses
Additional comments
4-8 . How long did the home study take? Please give answer in months.
months
5. INFORMATION
5-1. Did you understand the criteria being used by the county to
evaluate you as a candidate to become an adoptive parent?
0 No
1 Yes
If yes, what do you think they include?
Child Welfare Research Center 7 U.C.Berkeley
5-2 . Did you understand the criteria being used by the county to
determine whether or not the child could be freed for
adoption?
0 No
1 Yes
If yes, what do you think they include?
5-3 . What date was ; the last contact you had with a social worker or
the county concerning this adoption?
5-4 . Was . a specific child ever discused with you as a possible
candidate for ;your adoption? '
0 No
1 Yes
5-5. Where is the child living now?
0 Don't know
1 With me/us
2 Independently
3 With relatives of mine
4 With child's biological relatives
5 With a foster family
6 In a group home or residential treatment
7 With another adoptive family
8 Elsewhere: please specify
5-6. Was the decision not to become adoptive parents
1 Yours?
2 County's?
3 Mutual?
4 Other: Please explain
5-7 .' Do you think you will consider trying to adopt in the future?
0 Definitely No
1 Not Sure
2 Definitely Yes
Why or why not?
Child Welfare Research Center 8 U.C. Berkeley
5-8. Would you recommend this county's Adoption unit to
others?
0 Definitely No
1 Not Sure .
2 Definitely Yes
Please explain
5-9 . Would you recommend your placement worker to others?
0 Definitely No
1 Not Sure
2 Definitely Yes
Please explain
5-10. Are there adequate grievance procedures available to prospective
adoptive parents?
0 Definitely No
1 Not Sure
2 Definitely Yes
Please elaborate
5-11. Did you make use of any of the following?
0 No
1 Request contact with placement worker's supervisor
2 File a complaint
3 Appeal final decision
4 Other Please explain
5-12 . If so, did you ever experience what you perceived to be
retaliation?
0 No
1 Yes Please explain
Child Welfare Research Center 9 U.C.Berkeley
5-13 . Was your prospectve adopted child ever removed form your home
after the adoption process was begun?
0 No
1 Yes Please explain circumstances
5-14 . How long did the entire adoption process take? Please count time
from the initial inquiry about adoption including time spent
as the foster parent until the final outcome date. Please
give the answer in years and months.
years months
Please indicate any additional information that we should know but did
not ask. You may also call 642-1899 and ask to speak to a member of
the Contra Costa County Adoption research team.
Thank you.
Child Welfare Research Center 10 U.C.Berkeley
APPPPyENDIX C
AID `L.1!PTAB I J UTY ASSESS lid NT .
DATE of REQUEST Worker#
CHILD'S NAME: DOB
Casa COURT #
.Status: [ ] re -dsno [_1 PPH 1 Bost PPH C1 reassessment
JOIN`r ADOPTABILITY .ASSESMMNT j(to'be eonpi*t*d in conj=ction with adoption worker)
1. Child's potential for adopdoas jS bigh based on the following:
j I Paz=us wish to relinquish and no ocher family resoclroes are aNwlable.
[] The chM his beea abaadaaed and rhe wh=abouu and id=dty of relsdves sztr ualmown_
(I The child hu good phy*21 and menial health.
[I The cid expresses a wish to be adopted.
[] Adoptive fsmiI 2=available or can be re=*ttd.
U Pre=cLmtal=or odkr.adulls have cd adoptive Interest in this child.
L The rbM hat a probabiMtp of adoption but wM have spedal needs:
lj Tltere is no idend5ed pou=ial adopwte leu
[7 The mb3or is a member of a sZliag groap,
[] Thai is a diagnosed atedicaL physical or emodowl problem.
j I The t h7cr is age seven or older.
j] No appropriazc e6 match is avai'lablc.
[I Paaidn for drug tozic!7 at girth.
[I ocher: -
3. Termtnatioa of parental rights would be debitneutai due to one or atore of the foibwiag:
[I The parents have remaisxd bmlved with the child.
[] The ehiid is pbcod with a relative or foster parrot who.is tenable or unwzillimg to adopt dae to ezcepdonal
tircamns oes wbich do not induda=wMibp=to xompt legal rrspoasi'bility- l
[7 The pzrenr(s)is in a trestnteac progr=wkh a good pateucial for su,,ccss.
[l Tbc chM does not visit to be adopted.
[I Mace wor mAdca is to completed the arse==
[I Othw..
Comments:
ASSFSSWM DATE
ADOPTION IS: RECONOYCE IDED NOT RECOZv� M>
More information is needed in order to make this determination
Signabu-es:
Gild Welfare Wo,6ccr. Adoption Wo&er:
Adoption Supervisor:
Form# Section
APPENDIX D
f1��uxt# of �an v ttega
pEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT REVIEW
i
FOR 243 CASES
TO; RE; DOB:
FRO?4*nrm3nent 1-az=mtpt Assessment Unit RE: DOB:
DATE: RE DOB:
RE; DOL}:
RE: DOD:
This review is applicable for the _. _ _ mo. hearing scheduled on
ADOPTION:
[ ] We do not consider this child adoptable because:
There 1s no identified family willing to adopt.
There arc no families available to adopt children of this age.
_The child is now receiving Residential Treatment services.
Thcre are no familics available for a child with severe medical problems of—
There arc no families available for a child with the severe emotional, physical, and/or developmental
disabilities of
The child is age 10+ and will not consent to his/her own adoption.
The child currently Is dctalned/placed In the parent(s) house.
Other:
GUARDIANSHIP;
( j We do not consider Guardianship as appropriate because:
There is no family available and willing to become legal guardians.
Child is 10+and will not consent to guardianship.
The relative caretaker cannot afford the reduction In the monthly grant from AFDC-FC to AFDC-FG.
Other.
j ] We consider Long-Term Fostcr Care to be appropriate.
[ j We consider a 366.26 hearing to be appropriate.
NOTE; Talc form Is sot to be attached to the court report. Assessment Informatloa is to be lacorporated
Into the court report.
SOCIAL WORKER SUPERVISOR
02-90A (3/90) Origlaat to Assigned SW cc. Asseumeat Unit (3/92)
APPENDIX E
SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
FOST-ADOPT PROGRAM
ONGOING
CHILD WELFARE FOSTIADOPT
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT FOSTADOPT TRACKS
CHILD ENTERS OPPORTUNITY FOR
WELFARE SYSTEM ADOPTABILITY ASSESSMENT AND I NON-RELATIVE RELATIVE
DETAINED/ADJUDICATED REFERRAL TO FOST-ADOPT
SHELTER/ NOT APPROR REFER TO 11) Referral packet received by Adoption
FOSTER CARE' FOR FOSSupervisor, reviewed by Adoption and
TIADOPT FOST-ADOPT I
I I Homefinding Unit Supervisor.
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADOPTABILITY
ASSIGNED TO FAMILY ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL TO 2) (a) Case accepted: assign to
I
REUNIFICATION FOSTIADOPT Adoption Worker.
SHELTER/ NOT APPROR REFER TO
FOSTER CARE' FOR FOSTIADOPIT FOSTIADOPT (b) Case rejected - document reasons
and return to FR Worker for case
MANDATORY ADOPTABILITY file.
FR 6-MONTH REVIEW ASSESSMENT
VV
CHILD REUNITE SHELTER/ NOT APPROP REFER TO 3) Begin child study; gather background
WITH PARENTS I FOSTER CARE' FOR FOST-ADOPT FOSTinformation, medical tests and status,
I ADOPT I etc.
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADOPTABILITY
FR 12-MONTH REVIEW ASSESSMENT
CHILD REUNITED ADOPTION NOT APPROR REFER TO
WITH PARENTS OR FOR FOST-ADOPT FOSTIADOPT 4) Initiate search for 4) Relatives are re-
GUARDIANSHIP 366.26 adoptive family. ferred to Home-
Refer to HFU, finding Unit fot
OR TERMINATION then begin. initiation of home
LTP OF PARENTAL search of outside study
Review Adoptability RIGHTS resources? OR
every 18 mos.) TRANSFER TO
Home study is
ADOPTIONS 115) Family is identi completed by
fled and child is Adoption Worker
placed as foster
child. 5) Home study is
completed; child
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADOPTABILITY !6) Child is placed is placed as adop-
FR 18-MONTH REVIEW ASSESSMENT i as adoptive Live placement
placement follow- following receipt of,
ing termination AD4333
CHILD REUNITED ADOPTION REFER TO and receipt of
WITH PARENTS OR FOSTIADOPT AD4333.
GUARDIANSHIP 366.26
OR TERMINATION
LTP OF PARENTAL
Review Adoptability RIGHTS ADOPTION FINALIZED
every 18 mos.) TRANSFER TO
ADOPTIONS
In most cases, child remains in shelter care system until Fast-Adopt placement is identified to minimize number of moves.
2 Weekly review of placement possibilities -Adoption Supervisor, Homefinding Supervisor and staff.
3 Child may be reunified with biological parents at any point in this track.
0.\M(SCW407.W51
APPENDIX D
C=ttv of
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES ASSESSMENT REVIEW
FOR 243 CASES
TO. RE: DOB:
FROMPermanent P1ace001 Assessment nit RE. DOB:
DATE: M. DOB:
RE DO
RE:� __ DOB:
This review is applicable. for the_ mo. baring scheduled on
ADOPTION:
[ j We do not consider this child adoptable because:
There is no identified family willing to adopt.
There arc no families available to adopt children of this age.
The child is now receiving Residential Treatment services
There are no families available for a child with severe medical problems of—
There are no families available for a child with the severe emotional, physical, and/or developmental
disabilities of
The child is age 10+ and will not consent to his/her own adoption.
`The child currently Is dctatned/plaoed In the parent(s)home.
Other.
GUARDIANSHIP.
( j We do not consider Guardianship as appropriate because:
There is no family avallable and willing to bocome legal guardians.
_,.._,Child is 10+ and will not consent to guardlanship.
The relative caretaker cannot afford the reduction in the monthly grant from AFDC-FC to AFDC-FG.
Other.
[ � We consider Long-Term Foster Care to be appropriate.
[ j We consider a 366.26 hearing to be appropriate.
NOTE; Thls form k not to be attached to the court report. Assessment Information is to be Incorporated
Into the court report.
SOCIAL WORKER': SUPERVISOR
02-90A (3/90) Original to Assigned SW cc- Assessment Usti (3/92)
APPENDIX E
SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES/CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
FOSTADOPT PROGRAM
ONGOING
CHILD WELFARE FOSTADOPT
SYSTEM ASSESSMENT FOSTADOPT TRACKS
CHILD ENTERS OPPORTUNITY FOR
WELFARE SYSTEM ADOPTABILITY ASSESSMENT AND ; NON-RELATIVE RELATIVE
DETAINED/ADJUDICATED REFERRAL TO FOSTADOPT i
SHELTER/ NOT APPROP. REFER TO -► 11) Referral packet received by Adoption
FOSTER CARE' FOR FOSTADOPT FOSTADOPT Supervisor, reviewed by Adoption and
I Homefinding Unit Supervisor.
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADOPTABILITY
ASSIGNED TO FAMILY ASSESSMENT AND REFERRAL TO ;2) (a) Case accepted: assign to
REUNIFICATION FOSTADOPT Adoption Worker.
SHELTER/ NOT APPROP. REFER TO
FOSTER CARE' FOR FOSTADOPT FOST-ADOPT -+ ; (b) Case rejected - document reasons
I and return to FR Worker for case
MANDATORY ADOPTABILITY file.
FR 6-MONTH REVIEW ASSESSMENT ,
CHILD REUNITE SHELTER/ NOT APPROP. REFER TO -� !3) Begin child study; gather background
WITH PARENTS FOSTER CARE' FOR FOSTADOPT FOSTADOPT ; information, medical tests and status,
etc.
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADOPTABILITY ;
FR 12-MONTH REVIEW ASSESSMENT ;
CHILD REUNITED ADOPTION NOT APPROP. REFER TO ;
WITH PARENTS OR FOR FOST-ADOPT FOSTADOPT 14) Initiate search for 4) Relatives are re-
GUARDIANSHIP 366.26 I adoptive family. ferred to Home-
I Refer to HFU, finding Unit for
OR TERMINATION then begin initiation of home
LTP OF PARENTAL I search of outside study
Review Adoptability RIGHTS resources? OR
every 18 mos.) TRANSFER TO I Home study is
ADOPTIONS �5) Family is identi- completed by
fied and child is Adoption Worker
placed as foster
child. 5) Home study is
I completed; child
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADOPTABILITY I6) Child is placed is placed as adop-I
FR 18-MONTH REVIEW ASSESSMENT as adoptive tive placement
I placement follow- following receipt of
I Ing termination AD4333
CHILD REUNITE ADOPTION - REFER TO and receipt of
WITH PARENTS. OR FOSTADOPT ; AD4333.
GUARDIANSHIP 366.26 I
OR TERMINATION I
LTP OF PARENTAL I
Review Adoptability RIGHTS I ADOPTION FINALIZED
ry 18
eve mos.) TRANSFER TO I
ADOPTIONS
I In most cases, child remains in shefter care system until Fost-Adopt placement is identified to minimize number of moves.
2 Weekly review of placement possibilities -Adoption Supervisor, Homefinding Supervisor and staff.
3 Child may be reunified with biological'.,parents at any point in this track.
OWISCN67407A51