The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10071997 - D3 P.C. �r✓ THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: October 7, 1997 Matter of Record The Board of Supervisors heard comments on this date from the following persons regarding utilization of the CWS/CMS computer system in the Social Service Department: B.J. Douglass, Social Worker in the Family Reunification Permancy Planning Unit; Joyce Baird, Business Agent - Local 535; Jim Hicks, AFSCME/2700, representing clerical workers in the Social Services Department; Beverly Posner, 4545 Delta Fair Blvd., Antioch, Casework Specialist for Children's Protective Services; Ted Gempf, 4545 Delta Fair Blvd., Antioch, Children's Protective Services' Worker; Beth Goettiy, 3536 Harrison, Oakland, Local 535; Marja van Kleef, Hercules, Children's Protective Services Social Worker; Judith Koretsky, 40 Muir Road, Martinez, Family Maintenance Social Worker; Michael Goodman, 942 Yuba Street, Local 535, Richmond; Glenda E. Edwards, 2520 Kirker Rd., #85, Concord. -d Following the comments, Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, expressed concern regarding the transition the department is making to accommodate the state-mandated computer program. Danna Fabella, Assistant Director, Social Service Department, noted that the clerical staff is a necessary component in the department and would take today's comments into consideration. Supervisor DeSaulnier invited interested parties to attend the Family and Human Services Committee meeting on Monday, October 13, 1997, at 9:00 a.m.at the Social Service Department, 40 Douglas Drive, Conference Rooms 101 and 102. THIS MATTER IS FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN Contra Costa County • Social Service Department RECORD OF CONTACTS CASE NAME CASE NUMBER WORKER NAME CONTACT DATE TYPE* Comments/Explanation of Contact, plus Initials,PCN and Date You Entered Documentation IVED OCT _ ARD AF SI IPERI CONTRA * H- Home, T-Phone Call, O-Office, C-Collateral, CT-Court Appearance Page# AH-Attempted Home Visit. . AT-Attempted Phone Call S 3 (Rev. 10/90) File: UR .«< < #' . :::: Contact Information Start Date Start Time Participant Other Participants i End Date End Time Staff Person #' 1 fflm Contact Purpose ontact z Party Type e On Behalf of Child i i Method V.Status.............. f%.Scheduled Location Attempted . :Sm PCo feted .... Narrative i E .�` �y. .c.•ti * ......... ......................... :........ ::......... ....... ,...... ......... ......... ......... ........: ......... ........: :.. :............:..::......................:::.....----„ :::.................................................:::......:::...........................................:::::::::.....:.:::::.:.:: G' is/GWS Contact Instructions: SW to document home visits/contacts while in the field. Give completed forms to supervisor next working day for entry to CWS/CMS. Worker Name: Date Submitted: PCN: Date Recorded: Case Name: Initials of Recorder: ❑ Yes, form attached. Case Number: Assoc. Srvc. or Visit? ❑ No. Start Date Start Time Participants, Other Participants (family members) End Date End Time ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Staff Person Contact Purpose Contact Party Type On Behalf of Child(ren) Check one or more Check one or more ❑ Conduct Client Evaluation ❑ Staff Person/Attorney ---------------------- ❑ Consult with Attorney ❑ Staff Person/Child D Consult with Collateral ❑ Staff Person/Collateral ---------------------- ❑ Consult with Service Provider ❑ Staff Person/Other Contact D Consult with Sub Care Provider ❑ Staff Person/Parent-Guardian ----------------------- ❑ Deliver Service to Client ❑ Staff Person/Reporter EJ Investigate Referral ❑ Staff Person/Service Provider ---------------------- ❑ Supervise,Visitation ❑ Staff Person/Sub Care Provider D Verify Residence Method Location Status Check one Check one Check one D E-Mail ❑ Court ❑ Other ❑ Scheduled Fax ❑ CWS Office ❑ Rel. Home ❑ Attempted ❑ In-Person ❑ Foster Home ❑ School ❑ Completed :1 Telephone ❑ Home Written Narrative: O Continued on Reverse Y> 0' �y � �:.:.: t1.V11� 3:*: :_:.;; i..; .. .i .......... .......:5.....:..•. ........:r.: ..... ....... .... '• ... E: :".:•,`: ::.: E: :5 :. r:•: ::. > ::...:::..:. .:..::::::::::::::...:.:.::::u::;......................:....:.::...::.: ..:"" :-. mom: . X5 .....3"' :.. ;:;:H eadm 2 s`e::: <�:Anal •�:3Y: ::.:1 d :ia?< s:;> >�:�..<;p:;: . :.• ;;'."x;Ems:i�Y >':iii:;::i.',.'��.',',: ::,::. :.....4................ .. ............ - CASE NOTESf - ; (The table below shpvld be used for the first entrX; For each additional entrXt position N the cursor on the blank line following these instructa.vns� tape news" then press F3 A .... ......... ................................................ ...... .... .... .. new narrative ent table will be enerated for au from. the. autotext.) _ DA 7E 71PE STAFF PERSON 10-7-9710:20 Ina Burne dout This could be u3ed in place of the contact note syetem, mould be a running record like ra i; our current s-3 3yeCem, and mould take no more time than theold 5-3 5y3tem. iajE :;ik ....{`fir f... tf rr.f .. { ......- Zil \`.2.} :.`.. P•{''�<.:rPr .�'.::::::::i::;2%•i•i; ;.�::....:.:�:::::::::.::•::::,..�....::::::::::::... _ :,.::::,.::::.,:::a:::::::::;r»;:;:;:::•;a<•:•::^:•:5�:::::•::::::::::::::: .:7h�S::;;.; �•�'` ��ppep� X. ;a:;•:.`i;:;:;:;:?[;:tic?}_i ''+i>' %<;<:';3:[: iF.hC{t : :::::::::::::::» i ....................; «aa::f:(;:::ii�«,:;•'� �..:'.::C;:;i Memorandum r;` RECEIVE® OCT - 71997 DATE: October 6, 1997 C�E TO: Ann Campbell, FR/FM/PP Supervisor& R,�ARD C SUPERVISORS P P NIRA COSTq CO. Representative to the Workload Committee FROM: Marja van Kleef, SCS II & FR/FM/PP SW RE: CWS/CMS Implementation &Workload Issues CC: Joyce Baird, Union Local 535 Representative& Bruce Peaslee, Union Local 535& Beth Goetting, FR/FM/PP SW& Representative to Workload Committee I have several concerns about how the CWS/CMS implementation in our county is affecting the workload and some suggestions as to how we can modify the program to minimize the impact. S3's vs. CWS/CMS Client Notebooks I am concerned about the new CWS/CMS process of documentation into numerous client case notebooks and the excessive amount of time that this process takes in comparison to the old method of using S3's. We are only able to retrieve one case at a time on CWS/CMS and document contacts with a very slow system.As a worker of the day,I am unable to access what the current status of a case may be unless the worker has printed out all of the numerous contacts in the case with each contact--which increases the amount of time a worker must spend in maintaining a fairly current record of documentation of the case status and is an incredible waste of paper. The C WS/CMS client contact print-out is in very tiny print, wastes paper,and is a cumbersome system. The old S3 is still an effective record keeping tool that I believe we should continue to use, and I propose that we only enter into the computer the mandated contacts(i.e.home visits,monthly FR letters, monthly contact with FP,monthly FM home visits).The old S3's can simplify the process of documentation, save an excessive amount of time, and provide a record for a worker of the day or supervisor to be more able to ascertain the current case status. The old method of documenting contacts can be modified so that the clerks can later assist us in entering this data into the computer. The old S3's saves a significant amount of time for us in that we can jot down notes while on the telephone or out in the field,without having to later spend time entering data into numerous client case notebooks. Writing court reports is simplified when you can easily review your work in the S3's vs.having to enter and exit numerous client notebooks to seek out important data. This is a topic that has been repeatedly addressed in various meetings in Hercules and is a workload issue due to the county's application of CWS/CMS, which can be modified by the county. I propose that we continue to use the old S3's for case documentation and that we only enter into CWS/CMS the mandated contacts as required by the state. In addition, I propose that the clerks be available to assist the CPS social workers in entering onto CWS/CMS the mandated contacts since this could cost the county funds if we are found to be out of compliance or if the court makes a finding for a loss of reasonable services. r U Placements: Children's Services Transmittal vs. CWS/CMS I recently submitted to the Union a copy of the CWS/CMS Placement process with a copy of the old Children's Services Transmittal for placement(mailed on 9/18/97). We are now required to do both processes in order to enter in a placement. Prior to CWS/CMS we only needed to spend about 5 minutes completing the Children's Services Transmittal Form(an initial placement requires some additional forms),and the Technician would then process the placement in coordination with the Foster Care Eligibility Worker. The process has now been expanded and is far more time consuming, in that we must enter data into various notebooks for each child's placement and do the old procedure. We were not trained as Foster Care EW's or as Technicians, and this is a process that could easily be handled by them in order to ensure that foster care payments are being issued by merely using the Children's Transmittal Form and procedure. There are far too many variables that requires their assistance in accurately entering data onto CWS/CMS,and it is currently taking 3 workers to process one placement vs. 1 worker. I propose that the Technicians and Eligibility Foster Care Workers continue to handle the placements and that the CPS Social workers continue to utilize the Children's Transmittal Forms with the procedure that was in place prior to the implementation of CWS/CMS. This is a problem area that could cost the county a loss of funds if placements are not properly processed,and it could possibly cost us in losing foster parents who are not receiving payments--not to mention the cost of a CPS Social Worker's time to process what has traditionally been the responsibility of the Technicians and Eligibility FC Workers. FC2's vs. CWS/CMS On 9/18/97 I mailed to the union a memorandum with a copy of the old FC2 and the booklet that Kirby Surprise prepared regarding the CWS/CMS procedures. We were told by Kirby Surprise,another CPS Social Worker, in the CWS/CMS meeting in the Hercules office on 918/97 that we were now expected to process this data on the computer. He did not know who would be processing all of the FC2's that the supervisors have been holding until a process has been agreed upon by the administration. I stated in the meeting that it was my understanding that this was going to be decided on a higher level and that this was a workload issue. I expressed my concern about doing the technician's job since the only thing we need to do is change any addresses(which we must do in order to write our court reports&this data then disseminates through-out the system automatically)and the technician is listed as a secondary worker on our caseload; additional information that we included on the FC2 was the last home visit date,the next court date,and we made corrections on addresses. The technicians handled processing the FC2's completely in the past and I believe that our workload could be eased significantly by allowing the Technicians to continue to complete this task,and we could simplify the process by merely sending a note regarding last HV/next court date/any address changes to the technician whenever we do a court report, so that the Technicians will not have to spend excessive amounts of time checking various client notebooks in order to access the data. This note could be attached to our court reports for the supervisor to verify and a copy kept in the case file-- in fact a very simple form could be devised for this task. I propose that we develop a simple one page form to list the last HV,Next court Date,and the Correction of Addresses to provide to the technician,that we can attach with our other attachments to the court reports for review by the supervisor. I also propose that the Technicians continue to process the FC2's with the memo of updates that we can provide as a reminder for the Technician. SSRS Data Problems I am very concerned about the upcoming conversion to writing court reports on CWS/CMS, since all of the SSRS data has transferred over incorrectly and in many instances is inaccurate. Kirby Surprise told us on 9/18/97 in the CWS/CMS meeting in the Hercules office, that the target date to begin 2 r doing court reports on CWS/CMS is for January,and this is according to the weekly implementation meetings that he has been attending. An example regarding the incorrect SSRS data, is that the SSRS system did not list all of the petition counts on each child.Another example is that I recently printed out two sample case plans, and the children's health notebooks listed them as drug addicts instead of the parents. I also have children on my caseload who are not dependents of the court. This will take an excessive amount of time to correct in every single case file that each social worker has, and it cannot be expected that we are to make these corrections plus perform our regular workload duties. I don't see how we can possibly begin writing our court reports on the computer in CWS/CMS until this data has been corrected and the cases are all properly setup. We don't even have the technical supports available to us as promised, since the county still needs to hire and train more support staff. We need technical support people to process and correct all of this incorrect data from SSRS on each of our cases. I propose that the county hire and train technical support people(similar to Kirby Surprise)to correct all of the incorrect SSRS data and set up the case files, in consultation with the assigned CPS social worker, so that we can then possibly maintain them. The Martinez foster care licensing workers received this kind of assistance and we are also in dire need since it could potentially cost the county significantly in a loss of reasonable services which affects the funding received by the county. I also propose that we do not proceed to writing court reports on CWS/CMS until this problem has been resolved. Workload Overload& CWS/CMS Workload issues of concern have been consistently raised by social workers. When I was here in 1994,a memo was written to Dana Fabella listing the workers' concerns regarding workload which addressed our fear of not being able to adequately protect the children,and a petition was attached that was signed by every CPS Social Worker(a copy sent to the Union). In 1995,another memo was written regarding the workload and a copy was sent to the union. Additional memos listing the concerns of social workers were issued in 1996 with copies sent to the union. The workload has increased due to SBI 125, due to an increase in the court's demands of social workers in CCC vs. in other counties, the shortage of social workers and uncovered caseloads,an increase in the complexity of the cases that we are assigned,and the size of the caseloads. This has consistently been a problem that workers have raised.Now we have to contend with CWS/CMS which has added significantly to the workload,and welfare reform which will likely increase our workload down the line. I am offering some proposals to help alleviate this problem but I am aware that this will not completely eliminate the problems that we are facing. It is my understanding that each of the counties has some discretion as to how they choose to implement the CWS/CMS system,and that various modifications can be applied within the county. The actual program of CWS/CMS requires major modifications if it is ever to succeed in the state and become a workable tool that can provide supports vs. impede the social worker in performing their duties. Advocacy on the state level by the administration and the union is needed to help make this a program that can actually work for the Department of Social Services and the State. I hope that other social workers and supervisors will step forward to provide proposals to help resolve this matter which is costing us in a loss of workers, in addition to the funding losses that can/are occurring as listed elsewhere in this memo. 3