Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05031988 - 2.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM JAMES A. RYDINGSWORD, DIRECTOR ^,,��, Social Service Department Contra DATE: April 18, 1987 Costa County vBJECT: Approval of Grant Application to Edna McConnell Clark Foundation to Establish Interagency Family Preservation Program ':SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & s=HX0VOUND AND JUSTIFICATION • RECOMMENDATION: That -the Board approve the Grant Application to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for $125,000 to initiate implementation of an Interagency Family Preservation Program based on Family Systems Theory and providing consistent services to children irrespective of entry point in the Mental Health, Education, Probation, or Social Service systems; and, Further, that the Board authorize the County 'Administrator, the Health Services Director and Mental Health Services Director, the Probation Officer, and the Welfare Director, incorporation With the County Superintendent *of Schools, to complete the Grant Application to the Clark Foundation and proceed with initial implementation of a County Family Preservation Program. FISCAL IMPACT: Implementation of a Family Preservation Pilot Program is estimated to cost $337,950 for the first year. This cost includes: Program Coordinator (50% time) $ 17, 500 Fringe Benefits 5, 250 Family Preservation Contract Services Supervisor 35, 000 Therapists (4 @ $30, 000/yr. ) 120, 000 Parent Aide 15, 000 Secretary (50% time) 10, 000 180, 000 Fringe Benefits 35, 000 CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES BIONATURE: 0 0- 4t-�. —_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM END O OF B ARD COM TTEE" —^ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)*. ACTION OF BOARD ON May APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS x ___ 6 R4IFd WSY CERT 1 FY THAT TH 1 S IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (.A9s£NT AND CARRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED May 3 , 1988 Health Services Director -- Mental Health Services PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Probation SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Superintendent of Schools Social Services DY ! ,(�,� � M382 '7-83 DEPUTY i A 2 Flexible Support Dollars (@ $400/family for 80 families 32 , 000 Operating Costs (space, etc. ) 6, 700 Training for Program Staff 33 , 000 Presentation/Materials 8, 500 Evaluation. 20, 000 Total $337, 950 Social Service, Health Services, and Probation Departments have committed to the following funding from existing operating budgets: Social Service $ 75, 000 Health Services 25, 000 Probation 25, 000 Total County Funds $125, 000 Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 125, 000 Revenues* $250, 000 *AB558 - Hannigan is expected to be signed by the Governor in early May, 1988. Contra Costa County is likely to be one of the three pilot counties under the Hannigan Bill. This would allow us to use up to 10% of our Foster Care monies to support the Family Preservation Pilot Program; 10% of our current Foster funds would be $1.3 million. We do not expect to utilize this entire amount during the first year of operation. But these monies will be available to offset the Pilot Program costs. BACKGROUND Too frequently, out-of-home placement is the only available resource with which the Welfare, Juvenile Justice, Mental Health, and Education systems may respond to troubled children. Yet, research on family systems shows that troubled children reflect problems the entire family is experiencing; and, removal of children from the home often does more harm than good. The development of Family Preservation Services in Contra Costa. County will maintain troubled children within their own homes at 'less government expense, and will address the problems the entire family is experiencing. With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1977, state and local fiscal policies have become restrictive and many services for children and families have been drastically reduced or eliminated. In the face of these reductions Contra Costa County has experienced rapid population growth, a tremendous increase in the number of child abuse cases reported, and drug and substance-abuse problems. In addition legislative changes have prompted an identification by the Department of Education of many emotionally disturbed children in need of treatment- These changes have resulted in a tremendous increase need for out-of-home placements for youth. Many of these children in crisis are served by more than one social agency. They are also served differentially depending on which agency intervenes with the child. The lack of interagency coordination necessary to meet these complex demands has been 'i.dentified as a major barrier to providing effective services to these children. With the chaptering into State Lav of AB 3632, in 1986, mental health and education systems face "shared responsibility" for Severely Emotionally Disturbed Children. AB 3632 requires cooperation between mental health and educational agencies for the identification and assessment and needed services of emotionally disturbed children. 3 In 1987-88, it is estimated that AFDC-FC and AFDC-FC (SED) in Contra Costa County will pay placement costs for 1,530 children outside, their own homes. These out-of-home placements will cost $13.4 million in Federal, State, and county monies. The County's Probation Department will have another 5000+ children in juvenile detention and commitment at a cost of $4+ million. Also, Mental Health Services will pay $573, 000 for residential treatment costs in addition to AFDC-FC,. for approximately 30 children. Many of these children, if not identified in the cooperative efforts of the mental health and educational agencies, will likely enter the juvenile justice system through either a child welfare or probation agency. Developing a multi-agency program is critical to responding to these troubled children. In conjunction with the Youth Services Board, in 1987 the Board formed "The Out-of-Home-Placement Study Group" to include county management and district service staff from each County department, along with community advisory board members, childrens' services and family services advocates and providers. The out-of-Home Placement Committee established the importance of "the family as central to any effective intervention strategy." Out of this effort has come: ♦ awareness and acceptance that both public and private agencies need to work together to better serve children at risk of out-of-home placement; ♦ a study of the existing out-of-home placement system in Contra Costa County which highlighted the need for coordinated services; ♦ the establishment of a Family Preservation Task Force to develop recommending a program model and potential funding for a Contra Costa County Family Preservation, and recognition of the need and identification of a coordinated continuum of services. Contra Costa's recommended Family Preservation Model proposes a coordinated intensive In Home Intervention Program including Social Service, Probation, Mental Health Services, and Education. The program is a vital component of the coordinated continuum of services. The proposal is for a 2-year pilot program to: 1) Provide immediate, complete, comprehensive, and intensive counseling and supportive services to families, at risk of out-of-home placement of children. in order to resolve a crisis, effect problem resolution, and eliminate the need for placement. 2) Demonstrate how a Family Preservation Services can reduce out-of-home :placements in the child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice, and education system. To fund this pilot program, the Social Service Department has committed to $75,000 for the first year, and Probation and Mental Health have each committed to $25,000 in the first year. Additionally, the Social Service Department has strongly advocated the passage of AB 558 which will allow three counties in California to use 10% of their 1987-88 Foster Care funds to establish a pilot family preservation services programs. Contra Costa has requested being one of the pilot counties. Further, the Social Service Department has requested, through Congressman George Miller, amendments to Federal Foster Care rules to allow use of the same 10% funding level for family preservation services. ' 4 In spite of the potential Federal, State and County funding sources we will not be able to implement the program without financial support from Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. We intend to seek financial assistance from other local foundations to meet proposed budget. LA:ed SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator DATE: 4/19/88 ATTN: Claude VanMarter FROM: James A. Ry ng w , =-IDirector CC: Executive Team BY: Louise Ai to _ _ Members, Fam. Pres. Task Force Phil Batchelor Ron Stewart Mark Finucane Gerald Buck Stuart McCullough SUBJ: BOARD ORDER - MAY 5, 1988 AGENDA FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION --------------------------------------- Attached for the May 5, 1988 Board of Supervisors' Agenda are: 1) Board Order requesting approval for the Grant Application to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for $125, 000 to initiate implementation of an Interagency Family Preservation Program; 2) The letter sent by the County Administrator, Department Heads, and County Superintendent of Schools to meet the April 20th grant application deadline; and, 3) The Grant Application. Beginning in December, 1987, a special multi-agency Family Preservation Task Force, with the support of the Out-of-Home Care Committee and the Youth Services Board, has worked to develop this proposal. That Task Force included: Rose Manning, Assistant County Welfare Director - Social Service Ed Jimison, Probation Division Director - Probation Mary Roy, Program Supervisor - Mental Health Bonita Granlund, Associate Director of Program Development, Childrens Mental Health - Mental Health Robert C. Williams, Assistant Superintendent - Contra Costa County Office of Education Mel Veregge, Child Welfare and Attendance Assistant -" Mt. Diablo School District Linda Waddington, Division Manager - Social Service Ren Jaffe, Executive Director - International Child Resource Institute Rich Clarke, Guidance Consultant - Foster Youth Services, Mt. Diablo School District. Gen 9c (New 3/86) r r r r r Social Service Department Contra Pleaaereply to: 2401 Stanwell Drive,#200 dames A.RydingswordCOSta P.O.Box 5488 Director Concord,California 94524 County April 18, 1988 Peter W. Forsythe, Vice-President Edna McConnell Clark Foundation 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Mr. Forsythe: We are requesting support from the Clark Foundation to begin implementation of a unique proposal which takes a major step forward in coordinating Mental Health, Probation, Social Service Department and Education programs for families. Attached is a proposed interagency Family Preservation Program which has the strong commitment of each Department Head and the County Administrator. This matter will be on our Board of Supervisors' May 5, 1988 Agenda for action. Over the past year, a committee of public and private agencies concerned with out-of-home placement services for children has been addressing the unmet needs of these children. The committee became convinced of the need to develop a program to prevent placement. To address the needs of children irrespective of the point of entry into placement, and to provide a coordinated Family Preservation Program based on Family Systems Theory, the attached proposal was developed. We will be happy to provide any additional information you may . need. Please contact Rose Manning, Assistant County Welfare Director at (415) 427-8690 with any questions. Sincerely, Phil Batchelor County Administrator Mark inucane Director of He lth Services LC- hl L erald Buck StuartaMcgofMe County Probation Officer SSt. Dir al Hea thRo t •f �- am Ord County Superintendent of Schools ecto� l Service THE INTERAGENCY FAXILY PRESERVATION PROGRAK A Praposel Submitted to The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation .bv Contra Costa County, California April 18, 1988 i TSE INTERAGENCY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM Summary Contra CosLa County. Califorulu, is seeking two-year utart- up support Pru4 The Edna McCuunell Clark FuundaLion Lc help initiate an Interagency Faally Preservation (IFP) program to maintain troubled children Ori Lhin Lheir oar, home*. The proposal reflects s conviction by County agencies -- Social Services, Rental Health, ProbaLion. and EducaLion -- meld brand ounuortium of advocates and providers that families van be strengthened and out-or-home placemenLu of children reduced wiLh inLenuive services in the home. The IFF program is designed to show how intenscive: in-home services can be a systematic:, "institutionalised" barrier to unnecessary substitute care for all nubliuly-funded service aXa tems that place children outside of their hones. As Bruch, it representm a new level of operational interagency m rvices in Contra Costa County. We believe this test of interagency family preservation services; will also be useful to other sstaLea and localities, as we have found few, if any, family preservation programa integrated "across" c:ateaorical sysctea w in this way. The proposed plan calls for four full-time family preserva- tion therapists and a supervisor to serve 68 families in the first year frons the Bast ConLra Costa County urea. These services kill .be provided at critical points in the child welfare, probation, and earntal healthleducsaLion systems. In order to prevent unnecessary placemen L or uhildre n and youth Lu unsure targetting of mosL at-risk youth, a common ramily asu eumment to determine a family's needs Will be used by each symLe z- IFP* services will be provided under c:untract to the County by a private non-profit human nervic:ess agency, Lu be selected competitively. Families will receive intensive, iu-home services For "4-6 weeks, and follow-up mervicen will Les provided by a Parent Aide. "Flexible dollars," will be available to the therapists to help fasmilles with emergency needs. A training component will impart necessary *kill* to provider staff and will develop an on-suing trsalning c aprac:iLy within the County. In addition, Lruiniva of 90-40 sLearn in the four participating systems will be conducted as the firsL stern L'oward trainint all County staff in a Xamily-based sesr.viue spproacb durinX the next two years. An evaluation eomponenL will be developed to assess the degree to which the program reduces new enLrsants inLo ouL-or-home care, affects program costa, and leads to broader aysteas uhunae ,among the participating agencies. The baseline fur Lhis evalua- tion will be a trend analysis already underway in the Count,v .. Program design and evaluation are being coordinated with the State Department of Social Services' family premervnLlon effortut to ensure thaL CanLru Costa's experience ausitributes Lu the development of statewide policy in this field. The participaLinK county agencies have committed f125,000 in cash, plus in-kind resources for Lhe program's riz-m 1. year. The County in requesting $125,000 from the Clark FoundaLion +and intends to supplement this with additional funds from local foundations to meet the first year budgeL of approximately asss.00v. I. Origins of Contra Costa County's Family preservation Effort Like many other communities aotoun the country, Contra Cos Les County has witnessed mounting problems swung troubled children and families over the pssL decade, while support resources have diminished. Passage at CalifurniOve Proposi Lion 13 In 1977 reduced many services .for children and families drauLlually and prevented development aced expansion of utherv. AL Lhes some Line:, Contra CusLa County experienced rapid populaLiun growth, and wiLh it, a< tremendous increase in reports of child abuse and neglec;L, drug and alcohol abuse problems, and incidence of status offense,a and delinquency. Moreover, emotionallydirturbed children are being identified and treated in greater numbers since passage of California's AD 3832, which places authority for identifying, assessing, 'and treating these children with the Department of Mental Heal Lh. Taken together, Lhese changes have resulted in growing numbers and higher costs for out-of-home placements of youth in Contra Coss& County. 2 In 1987-88, the County astinaLes Lhat: ea Social Sesrvicrs will pay placeemenL cost* for 1.530 ,rahildrers outside their own home*. at a LuLul cuaL to the federal. state, and county governaeuLs of $13.4 million. The Social Services DeparLwunL reports eAo part or the pianning for IFP.. Con tree Cos La Cour,Ly imams begun an analysis of trendu in its out-of-hove placement of children. This analyxix wiil be completed in June 1988. However, preliminary data indicate that placement rates will continue to increase unless: family preemervaLiun services are- available as the number of families in the County Rrows 'aud children's and families' problems broume: ever more severe. 1 r that many or Ax referrals are rur more severely disturbed children and sure dvefuncsLiuual families; than in years post. e The Alcohol/Drug Abusae/Hantal HeralLh Divibiun ur the Couuty'a Bealth Services DeparLment U111 pay- an additional 45TZ,S39 for residepLial LreaLmwnL cuaLn fur mome SO joiners. Many of these children are placed outside the home when a -cba.0 Llc:, dyarunc:Liurucl Family caannut provide a healthy- and astable envirunmenL needed ror the child to uvereome his/her emuLiunal difficulties. e The County Probation Deyartment will maintain smother 5,000+ children in juvenile detention and commitment faciliLie:s at a cost of over 84 million. Many or these children are placed In detention tavilitiess bec:aune of criminal or delinquent autivitie x t,haL stem from drug abuse or the parent's inability or unwillingness to control the child's behavior. Each of these three agencies, plus the education syb Lem, rec:ugnizess that many or these children are placard outside their homes .because of rumily problems, at leas L ,+Lune or which could be alleviuLed with intensive in-hone mervices. Further, Lbe agencies know that while the children they serve: are often similar -- or even the same children -- Lhey may receive drbsYaLi- Lally different asististtanue depending an the categorical "label" placed upon the child. In view of rinsing piaacemenLs, rising ouutsa, and inszurficient in-home mervieeas, CuunLy sa.genuiew are committed to addressing children'e and families,' needs In as -new way that eut2 across the separate service aymLemm. This will yield a more intensive collaborative responsaw fur tsamiliesb. Contra Costa CuunLy'at comaiLuent to address children's needs on an interagency bassist began when the County Board of Supervisors es:Lablisshed a Youth Servic:em Board tYSB ) . Comprised 2 of the County Administrator, the Welfare Direc:Lor (who its responsible for Social Services) , the Mental KesalLh Services Direc:Lor, the County Probation Officer, and Lhe County Suy*rLa- tendent of Schools, the Ruard has worked uver the past several years to plan coordinated services for children sad youth. The County's planning of in-home werviuem was auueslerra►Led. however, when in 1987 a proposal was made Lu ereeaLes a new 125 bead facility for troubled youth. Reacting strongly adai-aaL Ualm proposal, •ari ad hoc study group (consisting of ate•ncy sLaff, providers, and advoc:atesl •re;eommended to the YZE tbaL Lhe County instead develop alternatives to stem the riming number of nut-ut- hone olacemento: • It emphasized the importance of "the gNmily ua ueuLral to any effective intervention." and recommended that this principle underlie public and private services; • It released a ,study of the exisLing out-or-home care system in Contra Costa County which highlighted the need for coordinated services that cut across the traditional c uLegurical program boundaries; • Finally, the study group recommended the development of a continuum of c ommuniLy-based services that could prevent unnecessary placement and begin to shirt resources from out-of-home care Lo In-home: ware. Based on these reoomme:ndaLiot,s. a Farm-ly Pre awkvaLlun Task Force was area Led In late 1987, with representatives Pruw CuunLy Social Services, •Ke'ntal Health, PrubeaLiun, and EducaLiun. W!Lh strong support from they CuunLy AdmininLraLur as well as Lhe fuur county agency directors , the Tarek Force haus helped make, Family Preservation the County's highest human services priori Ly. Further. the County serer interagency family preservation as a 8 ate p toward further interaR. encs warvic:e delivery, am described in $ec:Lion III below. In summary, the IFP emerged from a recognition of the value of t.reaLing the whule family as well as a uvmaei LwenL Lo use for joint resources of all relevanL marvice systems on behalf of • troubled children and families. IFP goes beyond rhetorical collaboration by putting in place an interagency service response through which families Will be assessed and served in a eammun manner, regardless of which agency door they happen to enter. Ultimately, the County hopes to use the Interagency Family Preservation Program to lead to greater "synt,ema change" that will yield a more effective service system for vulnerable children and families. II. The Goals of thig Ir i LiaLiv To strengthen families to crisis in CouLra CoaLea County and reduce the rate of incre=ase In out-of-homer plac:emenLs, the Interaerncy Family PreservaLiun prugram has Lhe fulluwing specific: goals: 1. During the first program year, to provide Intensives, in-home services to 80 families in which a child In at imminent risk of out-or-hose placement* and to prevent such placement for a minimum of 76 percent of those families. Families at risk will be referred from the child welfare, Juvenile Justice, and setital health/ education systems. 2. To ensure follow-up serviuem La Camiliess participating in the service in order to assure tbaL, of the families completing the intensive, In-hose: program without placement of the child, a minimum of 80 perces„L experience no later plac:ermenLs within one year of Lhe service. 4 1 3. To demonstrate a model training program for the implemenLation of family preservation services across multiple service systems. In the first program year, approximately 00 staff w1ll be trained, iueluding direct providers of family preservation services as well -as staff from the uhild welfare, mental heal Lb, juvenile ,justice, and •duration systems who arc involved in the family assersssenL and referral for Lhe program. 4. To use the 'croon-agency" implementation or ramily preservation services as the lirut step toward furLher integration of these systems, specifically through (at the development of.ramily assessmenL and service plan materials that, could be used by all of Lhe partici- pating county agencies, and (b) Lhe development or "family-bawad" training for all appropriate &Larr or the child welfare, mental healLh, education, arid juvenile justice syssteay. 5. To evaluate the impact of this service on Lhe rale: of entrance into, duration or, and cos Ls of ouL-or-humv care in Contra Costa County. (TargeL goals for Haub or these variables will be -set after cumpleLiun of a trend analysis In June, 1888. 1 III. Program Degeription Contra Costa County's IFP program has been designed to provide Intensive, in-home services to prevent out-of-home placement for the County's obild welfare, probation, ne:nLal health, and special education mystems. The lona-term goal is to have IFP serve as a uniform "barrier" Co placcoesiL ror all appro- priate familles .moving through these sysLewa. This would ensure: thaL families -- regardless of whiuh system Lhesy entered -- would have access to the intensive services required to keep Lheeir ehlldren at home. Conversely, declulans to place uhildren -- regardless of which system Stade this decision -- would be made 0 only when substitute care was Indeed the most appropriate care setting for the child and family. A. The Serviag Model. To move toward Lhlsa goal, Contra Costa County proposes to begin impleaentatluu or racily preser- vation in FY 1988-89. The four partic=ipating agencies would "pool" funds and jointly contract with a private: non-profa agency for administration of the family preservation services. After reviewing a number of program mudels around the country, the agencies have established the basic specifications for 'the service: ee Intens.ive services would be provided in the home; e Service duration would be from 4-6 -weeks, with an average of 5 weeks; • Caseloads would be limited to 'two families per family preservation worker at any one time; • Flexible dollars would be available moo per ramify ) to purchase needed specialized service* or to meet t basic needs; e A parent aide would be a part or "Lhe ranily preserva- tion .e.nit to provide follow-up support services ror those families Who do not have a casae manager assigned after completion of the program. Additionally, the parent aide could assist. the therapisL -in. some cases. In the first year, the IFP would begin wiLh one family preserva- tion unit to supervisor, four family preservation workers, and an aide) . Services would be targeted to the East County areae where resources are particularly scarce, and would be further LargeLed to families With children -7-14, since this age croup represents a high -and growing number of placements. 6 1 A . I A B. Target Povula&jga sEd Referral Arrangessents. In designing the IFP, extensive deliberations beavee occurred among County agencies 'to ensure that the programs would, in fact, be able to prevent placement for each of the participating agencies. These discussions proved uuerul in (themselves because they revealed how differently placement was defined and handled by each of the adeniees. A major task in program design was determining which types ur referrals from each agency would be made to IFP, and the relative proportion of IFP's caseload LhuL would come from each agency. The initial decisions are outlined below, with the recognition that these will be altered if program experience indicates that a differeat mix of referrals would be more appropriate programmatically or more cost-effective. 0 Social Servigps referrals will constitute approximately 50 percent of IFP referrals, as this represents the largest source of substitute care placement*. Families referred will be those in which abuse or neglect has occurred. Referrals will be made by the emergency response (protective services) worker at the time abuse or neglect is confirmed and placement seems imminent. Access to .IFP services will be on an as-available basis and no waiting list established. When IFP services are not available, placement will proceed. • Pf2h&tJSM1Juvenile -Justice referrals will occur from one of two sources. !teeny youth are temporarily- removed from their hoose and placed in detention, after which a plan is developed for placement in a residential (non- correctional$ facility. Reereerrals to IPP may be made for these youth, prior to residential placement. we recognize: that this dirrers from the usual use of family preservaLion services, but believe the re rerral from detention is essential if IFP is to be of immediate significance for .touth in the juvenile Justice system, is to prove its effectiveness to local judges* and is to prevent costly residential placements. 7 In addition, some juvenile justice referrals .will be made for youth prior to placement in detention or other out-of-home placement. This will require negotiation with the police and the courts to allow IFP referral Instead of detention or other placement. It is expected that probation referrals will represent another 53-30 percent of all referrals. • Dental health/svecial,iuyation referrals will be made through the IBP process, in which a child is assessed for educational and related service needs, after a determination is made 'that these needs can only be met by placement outside the home. These are expected to constitute few referralsp but the Family Preservation Planning Committee believes it is important 'to test IFP's utility with these referrals, as they often represent seriously emotionally disturbed children as well as some of the County's most expensive placements. To establish priorities among placements and to ensure that all referrals are appropriate and at imminent risk of substitute care, a Placement Committee will be established. •Membership will consist of liaison staff from each of the four participating agencies, the IFP Coordinator and the Program Supervisor. This body will also assure Lhat each agency -is receiving fair access to IFP, since this is critical to continued Interagency support and investment In the program. In addition] Written "emoranduas of Understanding will be developed -between participating agencies to clarify relationships and procedures. To further ensure that all agency referral■ meet agreed-upon criteria, an interagency IFP assessment and referral furs will be developed prior to program implementation and will be used by all agencies. This form will be developed by staff -from participating agencies. 8 It is likely that in some instances, participating agenc=ies will not be able to agree on the appropriateness of a referral, . or about Which agency has first priori Ly for an IFP opening. Every effort will be made to have such disputes resolved by tAe Placement Committee: If this group cannot resolve it, the matter will be referred to the Youth Services Board for resolution.. Participation in the program is voluntary. However, based on the experience of other really preservation programs, the Initial criteria will define some families am inappropriate for' IFP services. These include: families involved in substance souse who are not willing to participate In a treatment program; families where active psychosis or severe mental retardation of the parent(s) would prevent them from benefiting from services; and those situations where safety of staff or a family member cannot be insured. During the eourse. of 'treatment, the Case -Manager for each referred family will come from the referring agency flee. , Social Service, Probation, Man"I Health, Schools) . The Case !Manager will fulfill any court-mandated .aetivities .and will coordinate these with the IFP therapist. C._ $teym Toward 'Additional Interagency ImyCgvemggts Planning of IFP has led the participating county agencies to consider additional changes leading to even greater consistency among the County's children and family -services. These include the development of a common family assessmanL instrument that would be used by all agencies, as well an the pumulbility of 6 f common family-based training for all agency staff. • In addition, the joint planning which bas led to IFP will continue for the further development of the County's continuum of care. Additional planning (and identification of necessary resourees) .by the four agencies will be necessary before final commitments are made about these activities. However. they illustrate+ the type of further syste:as change that the county expects to occur from IFP implementatione The difficulties of implementing IPP in a way that serves all of these participating systems should not be underestimated. Different mandates, diverse professional perspectives, dissimilar client flows, and varying degrees of court involvement have had to be reconciled just in the IFP planning to date. As IFF is implemented. these issues will need to be continually revisited and further adaptations made in order to assure effective placement prevention. However, we believe it is this dimension of IFP that makes it a potential national model. IV. Administration and Trajoing Administration of the IFP initiative will be overseen by a PLUram Coordinatort esplofed by one of the participating County Departments. .but selected .by all four agencies. The coordinator will be responsible for assuring that the four participating systems work together effectively in the laplesentation of IPP; that IFP referrala represent the highest priority oases of each agency; and that participation in IFP leads to. c:ontinued exaaination of ways in which the three placement systems can be 10 i i ,7 • better integrated. Requirements for this posiL-ion will include a -Master's degree in social welfares clinical prryvholody, aounseliag, or a closely related behavioral science, plus .four .years of work experience in a human service agency or educational system providing health or social services to families similar to the target population for this effort. The employee oust be experienced in program design and development* contract develop- went and monitoring, and interagency coordination, as well as having direct service experience. A private non-profit s;eney .will be selected to provide the intensive in-home services under the program. The County will distribute a Bequest for Proposal and a committee comprised of representatives of the four participating -systems will select the .best qualified organization. It is 'expected that the contract agency will have Lhe following personnel: • •A Program Supervisor Who must have the -same educational qualifications as those cited for the Program Coordinator, plus four years of work experience, at least two of Which were in a supervisory capacity. • Four Family ThegaRisty-, who must either ( 1) possess a Master's degree (in the fields listed above) plus two years of full time work experience or its equivalent -in ' a human service agency ins defined above) ; or (2') possess a Bachelor's degree plus three years of full time work experience as defined above. A key aspect of this proposal fs a training program for the IFP direct service personnel as well as for other starr from the participating agencies who will .be makind referrals to this Il I r , program or providing follow-up came management for some fusilies. The County will contract with one or more private organisations to develop and conduct the training which will include compouenLs on family systems theory, family preservation services, and the referral process in Contra Costa *County. The urganisaLion selected will have Well-established experience conducting training for family preservation workers-- The training program will be designed to provide on-going skills developoent. snd consultation during the first program year. It will include; • Initial four-day training for the IFP program staff at the outset of the program; e Quarterly follow-up training sessions for the above staff; m Training at the time of "start-up" for approximately 90-40 staff from the four participating agencies Who Will be making referrals to the program; and • On-going program c:onmuitation to staff, as needed. ke anticipate expanding training in family-based service methodologies to a such Wider range of stuff from the four partielpating agencies during the second year of Lhis effort. Tbls training will be dealgned during the first year. lie• also intend to hold orientation sessions for all agency st&ff, during the first year. since the program will be of interest to;other agencies. 1Z w r I Y.. Evaluation The IFP .trill be evaluated to determine !Ls -impact on the County's out-of-home placements, to document bow the program was implemented by the multiple seencies, and to assess whether the coordinated development of IFP is leading to other methods of better integrating the servfaes of the participating agencies. The baseline for such of the evaluation will be provided by A trends analysis which is underway in Contra Costa County. This analysis is examining the change in entrants into out-of-home care from each of the service systems for the past 3-4 years, as well as examining trend data in duration of substitute care and cost of care. This analysis uses the model developed by the Vermont Coalition of Runaway -Services, and assistance is being provided by the Center for the Study of -Social policy, Washington, D.C..) This analysis will be completed in June 1888. Specifically, the evaluation will examine: • The impact of IFP on the rate of new placements from the child welfare, probation, and septal health/ education systems; • A Comparison of the rate of new placements after IFP implementation with projections of new placements if IFP had not been Implemented; • A similar comparison of the costs of substitute care following UP's implementation; • Analysis of IFF's success in preventing placement among the families served, both immediately after the period of service and for a one year follow-up period; • An analysis of the implementation of IFP by the multiple County agencies, in order to describe the varying ways in which placement prevention services must be adopted to fit the particular seeds of the 13 child welfare, probation. and mental health/educatlun systems; • A documentation of other steps taken by the multiple pariiclpsting agencies to 'aa3ake services sure responsive to fxmilles '"acrusu" aijenQlev, such an Lhe development of common family assessment tools, common training, and/or common vase management Lerchniqueers. The budxet. includes $20,000 for evaluation touts. An individual or agency contractor will be selec Led to conduct t Lhe necessary work, based on specifications set for the evaluation by the ' Family Preservation Planning Committee, after eompletiun of Lbe trend analysis. Vi. Program Funding and Budget A proposed budget for the first year of IFP is attached. Total expenditures are expected to be 9337.950 for each of the first two years. Contra CouLa county is requesting support from *the Clark Foundation to help develop this program as an inLerragency program • that equally meets the needs or familiev rerrrred From the •participating service systems. Additional funding 18125.000 in cash) is, being provided by the participating County agencies. These funds are being redeployed from existing budgets. It is noteworthy that no special appropriation hay .yet been made for this program by the County supervisors. 'and thus agencies are ohanging other priorities in order to begin family preservation. Finally, to complete the funding package for the first veer, we expect to request 390,OD0 from the states Department or social Services and the remainder from local foundations. 24 In -addition to these sources of financial support, the County Hoeial Services Department has requested that ConLra Costa be one of four counties to receive a waiver under pending California legislation (AD 658) . alluwing use of up to 30 percent of their 198788 looter care allocation to establish ranily preservation services. If this bill is emoted, and If Coptra Costa is designated, this Would provide funding for replacement of the ftu»dation's funding at the eud of two years, and possibly dollars for program expansion. 15 BUDGET INTENSIVE IN-ROME INTERVENTION PROGRAM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Annual Amount ReoueaLed Personnel Program Coordinator if 50% Time) 5 179500 Fri g,benefits R 30% 5.250 Contract: Intensivg, In-Home Be Supervisor 8 35.000 Therapists 44 O $30.000/year) 120,000 Parent Aide 15,000 Secretary/Typiht 10 50%) iO.aQa 41eo,ovv Fringe Benefits tg 20%) 36,000 Flexible .Dollars ($400/rumily for 80 famflles) 32.000 Operating Costs$ Espeue, furniture, office supplies, telephone, silwage, ate. ) 6 5 .700 Sub-Total: Contract Costs 6253,700 �',Fainin�t Training for Program Staff s 33.000 Conference/Presentations ($1 ,000/year x 6 staff) 6,000 -Materials/Dissemination of Information z1 DOD 6 41,800 Bva;luation •1 8 TOTAL 1337,850 *Space, desks, eLc. will be an in-bind co=iLrihution from County DsparLments wounting to aL least 48,000. 16