HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04021991 - IO.4 -- -- - - I.O.-4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �E
L Contra
f
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ' Costa
L
March 25, 1991 County�•`"'�' %'�``
���•:, lir
DATE: r+•c`6%��'
STATUS REPORT ON THE FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM
SUBJECT:
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND.JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS•
1 . Request the Youth Services Board, in consultation with the
County Administrator and Director of Personnel, to advise
the Board of Supervisors in writing of some of the employee
relations implications of moving toward institutionalizing
the family-centered philosophy in the Social Services (and
other) departments so the Board can consider these comments
as the County moves toward negotiations with its employee
organizations this summer.
2 . Request the Social Services Director to build into the
expansion county-wide of the Family Preservation Program a
component which will allow the Program and the
family-centered philosophy on which it is based to be
institutionalized within the Social Services Department so
that it will not always be necessary to rely on outside
contract agencies to provide the intensive level of services
which distinguish the Family Preservation Program and
discuss this matter further with our Committee before the
additional expansion to Central County takes place in
October, 1991.
3 . Request the Social Services Director to return to our
Committee on April 22, 1991 with information on the amount
of money the State Department of Social Services will be
providing the County pursuant to AB 2939 and howmuch of
that money will be available for "wrap-around" services and
what plans the Department has for the purchase of such
services.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT`eS YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ATORRECOMMENDATION OF BO RD COMMITTEE
),,,,,
APPROVE T -C/ - �
SIGNATURE(S): RODER SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD ON April , 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X _ 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. Q
CC: Social Services Director ATTESTED :f!� a
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
BACKGROUND:
On February 5, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved
recommendations from our Committee on this subject, including
requesting the Social Services Director to make a number of
reports back to our Committee.
On March 25 , 1991, our Committee met with staff from the Social
Services Department, representatives from Social Workers Union,
Local 535 and the Executive Director of the Family Stress Center.
Mr. Rydingsword and Ms. Manning reviewed with our Committee the
attached reports entitled "Interagency Family Preservation
Program" , which is the Plan submitted to the State Department of
Social Services and the report dated March 18, 1991 which
responds to the questions regarding training of staff and agency
personnel in the family-centered approach which is the focus of
the Family Preservation Program.
Our Committee is generally pleased with the training program as
it has been outlined.
In regard to the "wrap-around" services which provide ongoing
support to a family after the intensive phase of the Family
Preservation Program has been completed, Mr. Rydingsword noted
that the Department expects to hear within a few days on how much
money will be received from the State, and therefore how much is
going to be available for "wrap-around" services. We have asked
that the Department report back to our Committee next month on
this aspect of the program.
Local 535 noted their objections to the expansion of the Family
Preservation Program, using contract services. Local 535
believes that the expansion should be accomplished using County
employees and stated that the Department has qualified staff
available to perform these functions.
In response, Ms. Manning noted that what the Department' s workers
do now is case management, not therapy and that it was essential
to demonstrate a proven success with the pilot program, hence the
need to contract with Families First.
Our Committee believes that to the maximum extent possible we
should use County employees in appropriate cases rather than
routinely contracting our for services which could be provided by
County employees. We are asking the Department to take another
look at how, in the long term, it may be possible to build. in or
institutionalize the Family Preservation Program in the County
operation, using County employees and return a report to our
Committee on this subject before the final phase of expansion
occurs in October, 1991.
-2-
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County
TO Supervisor Robert Schroder DATE March 18, 1991
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
FROM, James Rydingsword, Director cc
SUBJ REPORT TO INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE REGARDING FAMILY
PRESERVATION TO BID OUT EXISTING CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES
At the January 28, 1991 meeting of the Internal Operations
Committee the Department was requested to make a report on the
status of the above subject. This item is scheduled for the March
25, 1991 10 Committee meeting and this memo will address the
training and support services identified at the January 28 meeting.
OUTLINE OF TRAINING
AND
TIMETABLE FOR TRAINING RELATED TO THE IFPP
I. TARGET AUDIENCES
Three audiences are targeted for receiving training on the
Interagency Family Preservation Program: (1) Agency
personnel; (2) Interested community persons; and (3) Community
service providers.
AGENCY PERSONNEL to be trained are those county employees who
may be referring families to IPPP - Probation, Mental Health,
Social services and Education. This will include first-line
staff, supervisors and administrators. Additionally, this
group will include other county employees who do not make
referrals but who may be actively involved as collateral
professionals with IFPP families.
COMMUNITY PERSONS include a wide range of individuals and are
best identified as those who are interested in knowing about
the IFPP and how it will be implemented in their community.
Persons in this target area are private residents, foster
parents, politicians, community leaders, civic officials,
church groups, community groups and organizations,, public
employees such as school, police and fire personnel, etc. , and
private non-profit community service agencies who do not
anticipate having a contractual relationship with IFPP to
provide follow-up services.
COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDERS are those agencies who are
interested in having a contractual relationship with IFPP to
Memo to 10 Committee Page 1 2
provide follow-up services to families who have received the
I
four to six week intensive home-based IFPP services.
Training will be designed to address the particular needs of
these three target groups. Although there will be some
overlap in all of the training for the target Igroups, our
intent is to provide a training package with specific
literature and information for the specific target group.
Additionally, the IAC has designed into each training package
a "feed-back loop" which will encourage participants to
identify further areas or questions that need to Pe addressed
and these will be included in succeeding
ucceeding trainings. The IFPP
Advisory Committee (IAC) believes, that offerihg the same
training package to each group would not meet the needs of a
. 1 .
particular group and would constitute an inefficient use of
time and personnel.
The IAC is amenable to having any target group attend any of
the specially focused trainings and it is The IAC believes that
med that a
number of persons will want to do this. I lu
having specific training packages will enable the training to
proceed with a maximum of speed and efficiency.
II. TRAINING PACKAGES
The attached chart (Attachment A) outlines the training
package for each target audience. The first thF' ee items in
each package are the same. The remainingi specialized
curriculum will address the needs of each audien6e. Handouts
will be distributed that will assist each I audience in
identifying their role and responsibility. The feed-back loop
will also include an evaluation form and room for
suggestions/criticism, etc.
III. TRAINING FACILITATORS
The initial training sessions will be facilitated by staff
from each Department who have been involved with the IFPP
Pogram -for the past year. This will include Ithe Division
Manager of the IFPP Program and members of the Interagency
Referral Committee (IRC) , first-line supervisors from Social
Services and Probation, the 3632 Mental Health Treatment
Specialist and the Special Education the
from Mt.
Diablo Unified School District and the county office of
Education. Additionally, the Associate Executivel Director and
the first-line supervisor of FamiliesFirst will participate as
trainers/facilitators.
As the training progresses, the plan is to recruit additional
staff from each Department to assist in the training.
Additionally, the IAC has requested the Division Manager of
the IFPP to meet at least quarterly with community groups in
I
order to establish strong and open lines of communication.
Memo to IO Committee - Page 3
IV. TRAINING TIMELINES
Recent discussions with the State Department of Social
Services (SDSS) have indicated that AB 2939 will be funded
starting April 1, 1991. The current plan is to start AB 2939
implementation in East County on April 1, 1991; West County in
July, 1991; and Central County in October, 1991.
The IFPP Training Timetable is as follows:
A. East County
1. Agency Personnel - week of. April 22, 1991
There will be five - two-hour sessions.
2. Community Persons - week of April 29, 1991
There will be two - two-hour sessions.
3 . Community Service Providers - week of April 29, 1991
There will be two - two-hour sessions.
In early April, letters will be sent to Community leaders and
Community organizations announcing the training. In late
March, county personnel will also receive an announcement
regarding the training and requesting staff be assigned to
specific training sessions. We anticipate an RFP will be
mailed to potential County Service Providers county-wide by
May 1, 1991. Responses will be due approximately June 1, 1991
and contracts will be effective July 1, 1991 for West County
and October, 1991 for Central County.
A. West County
1. Agency Personnel - first or second week in June.
There will be four - two-hour sessions.
2. Community Persons - second or third week in June
There will be two - two-hour sessions.
3. Community Service Providers - third week in June
There will be one - three-hour session.
B. Central County
1. Agency Personnel - second or third week in Sept.
There will be five - two -hour sessions.
2 . Community Persons - second week in Sept.
There will be two - two-hour sessions.
3 . Community Service Providers - second week in Sept.
There will be one - three-hour session.
Memo to 10 Committee Page 4
IFPP REFERRALS
The following chart indicates referrals made l to various
community agencies by the interagency Family Preservation Program
in East County. The chart captures information for the 12,4
families served since the program's inception in December, 1988.
The referrals are categorized as informal, formal and court
mandated.
Informal referrals are . those referrals ini which the
FamiliesFirst therapist suggested various resources. For example,
a parent may have asked about child care resources and was given
three agency names and phone numbers.
Formal referrals are those referrals in which the therapist
incorporated the referral into the service plan and 'assisted the
client in making the initial contact, either by phonelor by going
with the client to the first visit.
Court-mandated referrals are those referrals forlservices in
which the Juvenile Court Referee has ordered the family or
individual to follow through and participate in the services.
These Court-mandated services were at times ordered prior to
FamiliesFirst intervention and at times at FamiliesFirst
recommendation.
The referrals are also grouped according to the types of
services that are being referred - substance abuse,: parenting,
counseling, etc.
When specific Agencies are known, these agencies have been
listed under the service-type category. Please note that the
number of referrals does not mean to imply compliance or follow-
through on the part of the client or family.
It is important to note that the count in referrals is an
approximation because no tracking instrument had been established
to collect this data. Review of the past records counts only those
referrals that therapists documented at their discretion. Tools
for more accurate record-keeping for referrals are currently being
developed and will be in place for the April 1, 1991
implementation.
It is also important to note that the totals for types of
,service will not correspond exactly with the numbers listed by the
specific agencies because, at times, therapists did not specify a
particular agency and at other times, offered more than one agency
to the family as an option.
On January 16, 1991 a letter was sent to the following private
agencies: Child & Family Therapy; Family Stress Center; We Care,
Turning Point; Child Abuse Prevention Council; Northern, California
Family Therapy Center; Right Directions
Memo to IO Committee - Page 5
We requested they review their statistics and count how many
Family Preservation families they had served. Please note that
these contractors are located in Central County but also serve
other parts of the county. The assumption is once IFPP is
operational in Central County there will more referrals to them.
Family Stress and Child & Family Therapy responded to the
letter. Over the course of the IFPP, Family Stress has served
three families . in counseling services and 30 parents in Parent
Education classes. Child & Family Therapy has served four
individuals in their program.
There is the need to develop more accurate tracking
instruments for these referrals to clearly determine who is making
the referral - CPS, Probation or FamiliesFirst. The FamiliesFirst
therapist may have made the referral while it was still open to CPS
or Probation. A tracking tool for referrals will be developed for
all agencies in order to obtain accurate information.
IN I'd x to hd > zr. �t �d pd yx � � zr) � > z w
W K O :1 a a a 1)) O W tTJ a :3, a FJ LTJ O.Fes.H a (D
N• N• A N•rt 0 >p tr F� to H t, P.
sv a > d..n 0 K b' �l
(n c w F-i ct Fi. F- 1-• 0 n o m a ct 0 > o o n (A O
m w n a (D H fiG :2: Hx O a (D o (D x �r �Vo ct
K rt of ct (D 1-4 ct (DKK (D O O rt a rt
(D H sr (D (n a H- K z r F-i F'• d O
a C
op) En N• n a
'TJ r• CJ K
tl ct HCl 7d (D Q H N (D H H
tv O O 0 O Fi O fn :� K O
r• 5 a 0
1-, K - NH. a m > ((DD � b' L'! 0
F� (D t7 N O K : K O tr O
'C a x W O C z (a O
H N O (on ahd
� O
O' b b E1 ct O w rt
(D > H Fl. w O r• s✓ rt
N ft %Q Ar N :J (D
'L3 (D H F�
K po a+ sr+ I
n0 m r
(D ct •• (D
� F-• Y• C1
ct
(D (D a n C
-- w �C
H.
C
O
H
x
N N
W W F- N NONW W 1--& F-' N .PNNN W W co O
r
� ro
► O sv
(D
r
O
H
to ( .
N o
d
b
H
tli
d
0Na � a � 0naNWp t ° H(DD aaM007 (DD
:5 0 tl E r-r•rt 0 �to'0 F' H E �r N•N• rt'd >' s✓ W �f
rt n F'-:J m H �r ::l 0 H C F'•. O U) C rt F- 0 W F'• 0
A� H F'•0 m a 0 P. M 0 0) FA 0 0 m sv m O x C
N m ''C ::1 Fes-H F_ m ',C rt ►4 rt F j '•C cry W rt
H- L4 H u+ P•H m m Fi m m m a 0
:I: Cn m 0 m H m 0 tO a (D > sr
m rt ''d 0 '"1 ;o ro w 0 O F� Fj pW H H
sv H O rt Iv En O (D rt r_ r_ :rt. y' 0 N FC O
H (DF'-P- 500) U1 Ai H w0 (D 0 E O b
rt Ul :j O F'-0 A• N 0 a O N �l U) �y H m (�
�r N rt �l F� N- Fl-rt b :3 m (n m F'• O �r O
(n 'C Ul Y• UI F-J �r �3 UI F-' (D O
rt O •• O Fl- - rt H 'TJ
ro H A) l Hm N W ro a N•
rt
F� HH
(D En Nm C 'rJ m
ac
(D PO (D •• m
N Kn � �l Fl " rt
m 0 0 :j 0 Fl-
o) kQ
J-
aw 0 r
m Fi I rt Fi
rt M C ro
(D M m Ft
Ft N O
F� W
A� A�
rt
m
H
x
r FA
NHF-INF-4 HHLJHU1 0D F' LI) FjHL.) H d 0
r
� ro
� 1-4o
FA H N N F� -1 ul 03 FA to tQ
m
r
0
0
a
z
H
1
N
0
H
11i
0
roy r» 00ZKI'd H :3: z �)l 17J M 0 oro x
( (D O 0 O H n RL rt ::l to O :x 0 A) H• O (D
H• Fi DC G K K :ro H• p rt to In (D 0 rt 7C n Io �j
C :J rt () C n 0 H- ID rt K 1 N to O
H a rt, o �rHw 0) vxO to (D '0 Ort H-
rt ::1 rt rt H- a w n a m r+, n ct rt
(D LQ O W (D H-0) �f 13 :J x 1 O x Al O
'ddC C sv O tr a n 0 H- x C O N
O (D ro :1 t-' m :5 0) x 01 FJ O (D In H H
O :r In n O 0 rt n 0 rt FJ 0 ro K 0
W to V :ro W Iv r) �)r to (D 0 (D N (D W b
(D H• 51 (D A O x O -.1 In rt M 0
rt rt0 w rt, :j O O M K (D b w O
H W NH• P- En In C O r O
H H (D O rtr- b a G a
(D In :J H- F-j H- v N rt Q N
a 0 w O rt rt H- r_ �r (D C w rt
ct (D H. W W W In a 0 M rt
::1 (D rt H rt rt to m H Ki (D
(D rt 0 " H- n W (D :3 1--' M (D
(D In O H- O K cr (D
rt :J 0 0 C to Li- � I
•• rt .. rt Ip H- O
(D Ir •• 0 r
K O (D
:j 0 N
1 O
w s✓ a
tt In H
H- (D
F-i H N.
H-H-
0) �J ca
rt Fr
(D !r
�. to
v H.
C
v
H
x
ro
H H N H H H w 0
r
ro ro
O w
HI-' NF' U1H OD HFJFlH M
(D
r 03
0
0
0
NF3
lJt 1
H
N ttj
to
(D
I
v, .•
ob
O '
(D (D P.
W R' D 0) : a O
iv rt 0 0 :% t-( � y H
rt K �C (D H- rt (D 4t K O
tri� z ::1 E( Ut O O to O
� O �
Uri C)z 00 0 � N•
(D (D O (D (D Fl- rt
t2i rt*
rt rt rpt FlfJ (D
G ?fid iD
rt 0
rr--
O
K
H
x
HHNF+ N H O
r
ro
N N t ' N F-' N kQ
(D
r w
0
O
a
H
N N i
d
H
th
C
a
w4-)
H U O
u $4> b 1104 m
H 41
m
aEi v x amiA v a' ra a v w 0 u ro m
> U a N r-I 1 > .-1 •rl a) a) H v 3.1 41
0 0 •-+ r1 3 41 O ro 0 •o w m C
m r-1 F 0 m w -n•r1 a) 14 a) a)
.,.� 0 •r1 ro0 -4 $4 0444 C > w 0 4-) w U E a)
r'1 4J k+ r-) •-a 0 0 0 E w C O C 0 l4
O C -4 0 0 4J w >, U W 0 0 — a) ro ).1 :j
0 O C >, w 0 m V a+ 044 V E >,•o-r) b
•r1 .r1 a >•, A 0 a) ••a C w 3 C 0 +1 •ri & a)
4j aJ O U 0 LI•r1 >,C•r1 0 a) >I 0 a)•11 0 U
a ro ro 10 0 C v 4J 14 r4 r•+ 00 4J A >,41•11 w V > a) 0
W � � $$44J M UU) 0)44 E aroi o OAS o a ro�� a s
Hm m 4J g ro O -q SU-1 44 U E v 3 A,0.1 1-1 U'4J U'c O
D a) a) C •r1 w m C 4J ro 0 0•r1 ,-1 C•11 a 14
O a $4 a) w 0 a) 0 w w w w C X 04) 4 m 0 0 >, a) $4 O
a U a) 0 A 0 0 0 0 -A C U C U +) +1 E 0 1 x
a I 10 >1 & +, 0 at-,, U -q a) 41 0 U
P41 >, >. >, r1 •,aroma) a) n E > C �, ro (dr40•r♦ C Id
ri r-I ra w 3 C m r1 ra ra ra C al w al m aJ $4 0 ro C 0 A
-) ri •r1 0 O .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-I a) a) ro 4J �r-1 0 V •0
04 0mwww u �m3s+ '0 0 aE - N
w w 44 1 1 H N I I 1 1 1 H I I I I U I 1 I I w
H
H H H
H H > H H
H H H H
P4
w
N 4J
(d $4
4 H Uw
C I
�
U� Oa w
w
> U U
� a
0 a4 04
C O w I b m
0 0
a C a H a m
.
04 4 • w 4 c4 ro u >
?r E 4J 4J 0 H U -H•'a
•ya+ zb
> +J
a) a) � b1 > m >, C f 1 m .+ 0
at a) C a $4 ra 4J 0 a) a) o+ a
$4 $4 (1) .A a) (d•r1 a) +1 a)
E V a a u > > $4 C 0 ++ (L)-4I ON (d x
O> >1 In w U CCrrn ri N co
10
ao 0 -4 $4 °> Uuroi
w w w U cq I 3 1 I I w
H
1"1 H H
H H
•J > ;
a)
a)
a w
w a) a rm-1
H tx m ;J r 1 w
-a w
ai H °) :j o o 4 >�
I aJ 4-)r1 U N 4J V g A
O U N a) C 0 roCm p1C
U E 0 r-4 Id a m $4-r1 .4 C w 0 m
U 4 ro U >,--1 m to LI w ro
a U U a) r.1C -, m0 mmw $404' U
0 C ro ro ra r.1•,1 0) 0 m x (V +
0 44 0 1 ) 0 b1 .�
.r4 -4 0 a) r-I 0 (d E >w .- 0)a) ar 4.r1 r-1 C
41 14 r-1 a t, W :3 8 ro 43 $4 w 0 3t 0 r1
>a Id C a .0 W w h 1-1 a) a)-4 cr @ a) > $4
Ur > 0 a -A w m a) ro r-I C w a) CN .0 r-1 a 01 a) rd m 0
?
)•1 rl ro 01 O - w C .0 w.0 -rl N r-I aJ .0 0 C .0 U
W a) ;J r1.r1 m C d) V 4J 1.1 0 r-1 ;.) 0 C .1., 0 N O w-r-Im a
Er) (v 10 3) . 9 m C 0 x-4•r1 a) $4 r1 Z•r1 3 w m (1) 1-1 C 41 a) 0 a)
(L) > a) a) a) m a) 0 m 3 3 w+ a a) $4 4 a C 4J 0.r1 (1) C ;J 1 r-I
�i 11 W >4 V -r1 U-r1•-I >r a) E U V .IJ 0�, 0 aJ x-,a)•ra w 3 •r1 04
a a) a) -A ;J $a 4-) (d0 aU C C W ?I•r1 m.r4 r-4 4J-,.1 m ra E -4 0 0 C 0
m ;J s, - W-4.rl 0 0 0 w aJ 0 $4 3 ro C aJ ra - (d a) a ri a) 0
>I a) q U C 41 a ;J r-I a)•rl-r+ a).rl 1-m •rl w a) C m ).4 aJ E W r-1 > a
ra 4 a) C ro 0100VVma) 444Jr-10! Ed) >1 4.1 () C.r1w 00
•r1 a U 1-1 m a) 14 a>,rd m 0 a) C 9 U 0 U r-1 aJ m > S-1 9 V•r1 4J w rJ x
1 ro •r1 C ro U w 0 014 a) m U a) 0 0 0 0 w 0 ro (d 0 ;J a) U
•gr) a W U Uav (d o 'AV E)r-I ar v >4 r-I •r-,.�e w tnx c (dw •.a -4 a) C8 d) -4 •r
•rl-40 m l0Cro
0mC0 a) 000 9--1r4
•rV
a) a) 3 rt 4 H V V U I I I E U 0 U4Hto � U U 4 U 04 3 3 a)
H w w Ix 1 1 a I I 1 I I 1 fwd I I 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 I a I 1 w
G • H
H • H H
H H H H 'J ; > H
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County
TO Supervisor Robert Schroder DATE February 15, 1991
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
I
FROM Rose Mato_ cc Claude Van Marter
SUBJ Interagency Family Preservation Plan
Attached is a copy of Contra Costa County's Interagency Family Preservation Plan
which was submitted to the State Department of Social Services today. The plan
was requested by the Internal Operations Committee in preparation for their
meeting on February 25, 1991.
If you have any questions about the material prior to the February 25th meeting,
please feel free to contact me at 646-5611.
RM:ds
Attachment Contra Costa County
RECEIVED
FPP.rm
o-disk 2 FEB I 1991
Office of
County Admirlist"O"
FAHILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM PLAN
Name of County. Contra Costa County
Date
Program Contact Person Rose Manning; Bill Weidinger
Address 2401 Stanwell Drive, #200 Concord CA 94520
Phone _(415) 646-5611
Fiscal Contact Person Jim Takahashi
Address 2441 Stanwell Drive, #200 Concord CA 94520
Phone (415) 646-5189
Implementation Preference (check one)
L _] January 1, 1991 - 1st Choice
EilApril 1, 1991 - 2nd Choice
Interagency Family Preservaticn Proc--am - .Contra Costa County
I. Describe how existing County services will be
expanded/altered to avoid or limit out-cif-home placement,
(e.g. ) will new staff be hired?) .
Contra Costa County's Department of Social Services plans to
expand the Interagency Family Preservation Program Services
from our current pilot program in East County serving
approximately 80 families per year, to both West and Central
County and serve approximately 198 families per year when
the program is fully operational. The plan is to enlarge
our existing contract with FamiliesFirst, Inc. , who are
currently employing one supervisor and four therapists to
hiring a total of two supervisors and it therapists.
If ten percent of our AFDC-FC claim will equal roughly
$1,000,000, the plan is to spend approximately $263,000/yr
on the following categories:
Division Manager - $104,000
Secretary - 54,000
Computer (1 time only) - 5,000
Follow up Services - 100,000
$263,000
Expanded contract with FamiliesFirst
(non-profit provider) $737,000
Total: $1,000,000
The identified cost for the Division Manager and the
Secretary include full administrative costs and benefits.
The computer is necessary to enter, store and correlate data
in order to track children referred to the program. Our
pilot program currently enjoys a very helpful data base that
enables-us to track a host of information. The program
currently used is a data base application written in R:Base
for DOS. Unfortunately, our current computer, IBM XT, is
unable to assimilate the information that will be required
in our expanded program. The equipment needed for this
expanded IFPP is as follows:
IBM PS/2 Model 55SX - 60 MB hard disc - $3032.00
Zenith ZCM/1492 Color Monitor - 656. 00
Printer - HP Laser Jet - Model IIP - 1000.00
Follow-up services are estimated to be approximately
$25,000/quarter. Follow-up services include the various
referrals that the FamiliesFirst Therapist snakes to the
local community service age=ncies. For example, many of our
families require ongoing counseling, day care services, etc.
Interagency Family Preservation Program - Contra Costa County
To date, the local community agencies have absorbed these
additional referrals at minimal to no cost. With the
passage of AB 2939, which will result in an increase in the
number of referrals, both the community services agencies
and The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors have
expressed their desire that funds be allocated- to the
agencies that serve our families after the termination of
the intensive Family Preservation services.
At the request of the Internal Operations Committee of the
Board of Supervisors a review of the Family Preservation
families is being undertaken to track the number of .
referrals that were made to the local community agencies.
The agencies are providing a cost analysis for serving our
families.
All involved assume that the importance of ongoing services
is vital to the families served and play a large role in
keeping families together.' The Contra Costa program will
include this referral data in our evaluation as we expand
the program. It is our hope that tracking and analyzing
this data will add significant knowledge to the field and
also provide a realistic picture of the cost of funding the
program.
The remaining $737,000 will be the yearly contract with
FamiliesFirst, 'a private, non-profit agency with its main
office in Davis, - California.
The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation awarded us a two-year
grant in 1988 to start the Interagency Family Preservation
Program. Contra Costa County's Department of Social
Services recently applied for and received $55,000 from the
Clark Foundation to fund the cost of serving Mental Health
referrals since AB 2939 does not cover this cost.
-3-
Interagency Family Preservation Program - Contra Costa. County
II. what new and innovative prevention services will the County
implement for the family preservation program, e.g. ,
therapeutic intervention or substance abuse programs?
The highly successful model used in thE. eastern part of
Contra Costa County for the past two years will be the model
employed in both West and Central County. Referrals to the
program will identify only minors at imminent risk of
placement. The operationalization of imminent risk of
placement is that a petition has been filed in Juvenile
Court on behalf of the minor(s) and the next step for said
minor(s) is out-of-home placement. (In fact, some of the
referrals to the program have been when the minor has been
removed and IFPP services are offered prior to long-term
placement.)
The referrals to the Interagency Family Preservation Program
will be screened by the Interagency Referral Committee
(IRC)., which is composed of a line supervisor or middle
manager from Education, Mental Health, Probation, Social
Service, the Y.I.A.C.T. (Youth Interagency Assessment,
Consultation and Treatment) Team's Education Specialist,
FamiliesFirst Unit Supervisor and the Division Manager as a
minimum_
The IRC's function is to: establish priorities among
referrals for slots; review appropriateness of crisis
referrals and contractor's acceptance of crisis cases;
ensure fair access to slots, refine intake procedures or
policies as needed; problem solve with contractor regarding
individual cases as needed.
Each Agency Representative's function is to: act as liaison
between contractor and referring staff from own agency
(example: clarifies expectations, facilitates communication
as needed) ; pre-review planned access cases (of own agency)
with the Committee and advocates for that case in allocation
of slots; educate their own agency about the IFPP and
referral criteria; reinforce adherence to interagency county
agreement provision with own agency, advocating on behalf of
a client family as needed. Each uses the,Committee as a
vehicle to do the same with other participating agencies.
The model is based on four weeks of intensive, home-based
services. The characteristics of our model include: timinct
(families are seen when they are in crisis, when one of
their children is at imminent risk of out-of-home
placement) ; location (families are seen in their own homes
where the problems are occurring) ; accessibility (therapists
meet with families at any time of the day or night) ;
flexibility (therapists are trained to provide a wide range
of services from helping clients meet basic needs to the
most sophisticated therapeutic: techniques) ; accountability
-4-
Interagency Family Preservation Program - contra Costal County
(evaluation is an on-going basis; clients and therapists
measure weekly progress towards their goals) .
The first week is spent in active listening and forming
relationships with the family. The second week is spent in
determining goals and problem definitions. The second and
third week are a period of time when the new techniques are
tried out in the family. setting with help -from therapist who
is observing. The fourth week is termination. Although
these weeks are differentiated on paper, the process is
fairly fluid.
Additionally, experience in our pilot project has shown that
the referring agency and the family referred often have
differing viewpoints as to what the "problem" is and what
the solutions should be. It is clear that whoever defines
the problem is the person-who.wields the power and
influences the case outcome. An important part of the
FamiliesFirst Therapist's role is to bring the referent and
family together in order to jointly agree on the problem
definition and goals to resolving the problem. This type of
intervention has increased the opportunities of keeping
families together. .
This has also led to the development of a "Pilot Interagency
Assessment Form". Currently, this form is being used by the
,FamiliesFirst staff and plans are underway for referrants to
use it and possibly have this form used across agencies.
Another key innovation occurring in Contra Costa County with
the implementation of AB 2939 is a change in the service-
delivery system of the public agencies serving children and .
families. The Departments of Education, Mental Health,
Probation and Social Services are working to implement a
more family-centered approach in each of their service-
delivery systems. .After numerous discussions with
interagency staff and more than several revisions, Contra
Costa County is using the following as a definition of a
"Family-Centered Approach":
The family-centered approach in the delivery of
children's services, whether through Mental
Health, Social Services, Probation, or schools,
considers each person in the context of his or her
family. The safety of both the child and the
community are of primary concern in this approach
and complies with legal mandates to assure the
safety of the minor within his or her family
whenever possible. The family-centered approach
is based upon the assumption that people are who
they are in the context of their families, be it
their biological, extended, adoptive or foster
family. That despite hardship, loss, abandonment,
and abuse, people are members of families and they
-5-
Interagency Family Preservation Program - Contra Costa County
are loyal to their families; and that attempts to
work with people without taking their families
into consideration are bound to fail. An
xr understanding of the roles of family members and
of involved agencies, not only.► in creating and :
maintaining problems, but in solving problems is
critical to- this approach. A family-centered
approach uses the family's innate strength and
ability to grow and change as a foundation for
building stronger and healthier relationships.
Families, not individuals, become the focus of
services, agencies do not function in isolation
but in support and coordination with each other;
and family members become not only clients but
also equal participants in the problem-solving
process.
The Board of Supervisors is requiring agencies receiving
funds from AB 1733 and AB 2994 also adopt this Family-
Centered Approach in their work with clients. The intention
is to provide a consistent philosophical approach in the
delivery of services to Contra Costa families.
Training plans are already being drawn up to train
approximately 200 interagency staff in the philosophy of the
family-centered approach. This ,will include -staff taking
this approach back to their departments and making
recommendations as to how to implement this in their
particular work. Probation has ,already suggested that the
whole family be involved in the treatment plan - not just
the minor. In late January, 1991, our first two-day
training was held on the Family-Centered Approach. We were
fortunate to utilize the services of two persons from The
Child Welfare League of America, who facilitated the
training to 30 interagency staff persons.
Interagency Family . Preservation Program - Contra Costa County`
III. Describe the County's family preservation program start-up
activities and provide a timetable for these activities.
The following chart details the tasks involved in
implementing AB 2939 and anticipated start-up and completion
dates. Although we are fortunate 'to be contracting with an
experienced agency, some delays are expected in finding
competent therapists. Experience has shown that recruitment
of bilingual and bicultural Master's level therapists is at
times a difficult and time-consuming process. The county
will enlist the aid of our indigenous community agencies in
this recruitment process and also seek input from SDSS.
-7-
O• an P t'e N
C
7
O .+ c9 C3t• O
< 7 iQ
C7 O i L 01 - n \ bn+
0 — N "7 0 O o 'O
< < . N + af? A
('S
mcn
.'. a' c0 A A < )c- L (O M N n L "I L O b L
a � Q L � �p f � 7 M
aO s K " s 7 a
40 A 3 < dr P. O q :� �. V
A 3 'ypy 4 '7 .Ci O O• `* L A Q m L
.e C y�Vb t1 �' SN v D Q a ^ m as
S N O N
O s N N 7 's
q p� m N '� ^1. O d.
40
.Y 7 fp
Cf
a C A d K O 3 D0 7 p 3 -< O
~n 0 A 0 N C0 to r M
Go a 10
fi Q rp O sY C et Vt •�
T A
•••1 f/l
\ \ \ \ \ \ i O N .•�
Ki W •O •O •O •O •O •O 'O O O
W V.
•O •p
W N N N L4 O. N N W W N -+ C) m
tN N N N N •O N N N Vl N j r+
�O •f? `O •O +O 19 n
O d
P 7
I-
C,2
\ C)
ev
co C
•O fD r-
O
7
•e O AO AOC'f0 O �f +. O O O MO '912
D
SOF N � N � iA � N N 3 3 � N N to 4n y � N
C a o v v v
3 3 N N Cl N O Q
.-- r. .•� H Oi.
K N ! N
T T T
n a �
.z
N N
Gm
N N
O A O n
4CIO 430A 'Y 7 ^ �
7 c9 rt
A 4 '7 f7 Z ^C r. -.. eAz b •C/ A A
w .. 8-
on,
e -�
�
Q
as � .+
N N o � � • 6 V � Q B O O '<
0 0 1 N O N o O 0 < K 7 t0 m 4 C Q
O 7 O .O-. < O 7 ^ 7 O y
U C b O �D m n 0
O
N N O X L O O
N O
-CR 7 .-e N L .+ N 7 N
T .7. m = = ado
m 3 0 7 Oo 3
R.
t O
7 O R V 7 7 O og W ^
7a � o 3 p^
m 7 m 7 j
o n 0
10,
, 0 •C N 1 0 ..
of 1 m m eT
L -� ^ 'OC Q In 7P K d
O r
O
O S '07 70. T O O n
d O
P
re
O 7 7
r4 ri
j 7 7
O- W W. \ W A m
d O O p O to \ Q ^
o O o C
7 P 7
l v
O
l7 4n
^
� C
O
O
O
7
maa o v v o v v � cl
m
C N N 4n �0 N N CA O
In.�.
O ^ �
T T
7 = m m T o C
C
T �1
N m
O e o 7 O O
O c ^ O -w n ^ �.
(1 O
o T ^ O R ^ 7 d
0 7 0 7 3 O '
0 C r. m O O O ^ O 3 O O m 9 m 7 P+ m —
N l^
o o a
Interagency Family Preservation Program Contra Costa county
IV. If the County plans to contract with another agency for
family preservation services, explain the rationale for
contracting. Describe the services to be puzchased -and
estimate the costs.
The rationale for contracting with FamiliesFirst, Inc. is
twofold: 1) FamiliesFirst has provided quality, successful
services for the past two years; and 2) this is the most
cost effective manner to meet the requiremen--s of AB 2939.
The working relationship that has been developed with
FamiliesFirst in the last two years has been quite
successful. In the IFPP, 75% of the families referred from
Probation, Social Services and Mental Health have avoided
out-of-home placement and remained safely together for a
year following termination of services.
The County believes that the State is also familiar with the
successful track record FamiliesFirst has with the AB 558
project in Solano County.
The cost of employing a FamiliesFirst therapist is
significantly less than employing County stiff. The
estimated cost difference between personnel from the
private, non-profit sector and personnel fron the County
sector is $26,000 per staff person. By contracting with
FamiliesFirst, the budget will allow the County to serve
more families and thus realize more savings by preventing
more out-of-home placements.
The County also has both a moral and legal commitment to
contract with FamiliesFirst for the implementation of AB
2939. The original RFP for the IFPP, stated that the chosen
contractor would provide services for the expansion of the
program. Although there were some concerns expressed by
local community agencies regarding the County's intent to
contract with -FamiliesFirst for the expansion, the Board of
Supervisors agreed with the Social Service Department's
recommendation that the County proceed with Fald I iesFirst.
Exploring the possibility of hiring County staff prompted
review of the current HOU between Local 535 and the County
which specifies that social workers in this -anion are paid
according to the overtime provisions in this MOU. This
overtime provision requires on-call pay of cne hour for
every four hours on-call and a minimum of tivro hours overtime
every time the worker is called out. The ccst to do this
would be prohibitive and could possibly prevent enough
families from being served to make AB 2939 cost effective.
Additionally, hiring social- workers would a--so mean hiring a
County social work supervisor and this could put the program
over budget.
_1G_
Interagency Family Preservation Program - Contra Cosa County
The County will also be entering into contracts wi-h local
community agencies to provide follow-up •services to families
who have completed the intensive part of the Family
Preservation Program. The Board of Supervisors, tae County
° and the local community agencies believe that the ongoing
services provided to Family Preservation families by local
community agencies are necessary to the success of the
program. The referrals to the local agencies will be
tracked and monitored and a payment scale will be devised to
reimburse these agencies for their services. The County
estimates that the initial cost of reimbursement for these
follow-up services will be $25,000 per quarter.
The cost estimate for services provided by FamiliesFirst is
$737,000 per year once the program. is fully operational.
These costs include the part-time services of the Associate
Executive Director and the full-time services of two
supervisors, eleven therapists and two clerical support
positions. All additional costs, such as benefits, mileage,
office equipment, mailing, etc. , are included in the
$737,000.
The County anticipates that each therapist will work with an
average of 18 families per year. This means that 198
families will be served and, if each family meets the
national Family Preservation average of 1. 6 children per
family, then approximately 316 children will receive
service.
The following chart indicates what cost savings may be
realized if the avoided placements are at 50%, 60% and 75%.
Sixty-five percent of our referrals will be from Social
Services; 34% from Probation (column 1) . Foster Eames means
that the majority of Social Services placements are with
Foster Homes; Group Homes means that the majority of
Probation placements are in Group Homes. Eleven therapists
can work with .195 families and 312 minors a year (column 2) .
The average monthly cost of Foster Home and Group Home is
indicated (column 3) . The average length of stay in these
placements is shown (column 4) and the cost of staying in
these settings (column 5) is figured by multiplying column 3
x column 4. $5500 per month is the full cost for one
FamiliesFirs.t therapist. Since they will be working with
two families per month, the cost will be $2750 per month per
family. The cost to work with a ninor is $1719 pit--r- month.
This figure is arrived at by dividing $2750 per mcnth by
1.6. The average number of minors at risk in Family
Preservation families, according to national figures, is
1.6Monthly costs for one FamiliesFirst therapist is $5500
per month. They will actually be working with twc families
per month - the cost for one family is calculated -z�o be
$2750 per month.
-11-
' S
Interagency-"Family Preservation Program - Contra Costa County
The difference between working with a family and placement
costs (subtract column 6 from column 5) is shown in column
7. The amount of savings based upon different percentages
of avoided placements is indicated in columns 8,9 & 10.
This cost is shown as it relates to families (F) and as it
relates to minors (M) .
P
-12-
r o. ..
r
73
9�
r�
m
S� '
r
1
P
7N
yI !J
i N
O �
m �
r
a A S
S
-,ft
ca
N .n
ID
a .w
r A �
a ! o Z
! o {on
C N 7
O
r' O
c
r
O
C� <
,p r
J d
r J -0 ✓
r r op t..
s o � G i ✓ � �� G
!
fl;
o
O G
G
N G
d C
O G
4
Interagency Family Preservation Program Contra Costa County
V. Describe how the family preservation program will be
monitored and what measures will be employed to evaluate the
success of each service.
The Interagency Family Preservation Program will be
monitored primarily by the Children's Services Bureau
Division Manager. Contra Costa County is looking forward to
working with the State Department of Social Services to
employ any and all meaningful evaluation instruments that
the State believes is appropriate. The county is optimistic
that the work the State has done with the AB 558 pilot
counties will enable Contra Costa to .thoroughly monitor and
evaluate AB 2939's implementation.
For the past two years, the pilot project in Eastern Contra
Costa County has been monitored by the Division Manager. He
attended the weekly clinical conferences of FamiliesFirst;
made several home visits with the therapists to families
served; and sent satisfaction surveys to both referring
workers and families served.
An additional monitoring element that has added to the
project's success has been the work of both the Interagency
Advisory and Referral Committees. The Advisory Committee is
charged with policy decisions and the members of this
committee are the decision makers in each of the
participating agencies. This group meets monthly. The
Referral Committee meets every other week and this group
reviews referrals, determines if each referral meets the
criteria•- especially the risk of imminent placement status,
and both address and attempt to remedy barriers to service
delivery. Both of these committees also monitor program
quality and frequently make suggestions for improvement.
These two committees have had a consistent group of
personnel, with very little turnover, for the past two
years.
Feedback from community agencies will also be obtained on a
regular basis. Plans are now being made to meet monthly
with the various community agencies. Additionally,
referrals from the IFPP will be tracked and an evaluation
instrument developed so that data can be collected on the
referral continuum and outcomes.
The measures employed to evaluate the success of each family
served will be done by long-tern monitoring of the case for
a period of two years. Ways to readily identify an IFPP
case will be developed for each department and community
service agencies. The data collection instrument that has
been used for the past two years in the IFPP will also be
used to track information with the expansion of AB 2939,
provided this meets with SUSS approval. A copy of this
instrument is attached and referred to as Attachment A.
-14-
Interagency Family Preservation Program - Contra Costa County
A control group will also be used to evaluate the overall
effectiveness of the program. Those families referred to
the Referral Committee that are not accepted for services
because of no openings in the program will become the
'r control group. These cases will also be mcnitored for two
years to ascertain their outcome.
At this point, there have been preliminary conversations
with Walter MacDonald and Associates. These discussions
have explored the possibility of Walter MacDonald and
Associates evaluating our program and these discussions will
continue.
-15-
Interagency-Family Preservation Program - Contra Costa County
vI. Provide an estimate of the amount of funds the County
anticipates expending during the first program year.
The estimate of funds the County anticipates spending during
rr the first program year, and this is based upon the calendar
year, is as follows:
(Quarters) 1 2 3 4 Total
Division Manager S 26,000 z 26,000 S 26,000 S 26,000 S 104,000
Secretary 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 54,000
Computer 5,000 --- --- --- .. 5,000
Follow up Services 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
FamiliesFirst Staff
Assoc.Exec.Director
Supv. #1 - (eff. 1/91)
Supv. #2 (eff. 5/91)
Therapist
1 (eff. 1/91) 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 66,000
2 (eff. 1/91) 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 66,000
3 (eff. 1/91) 16,50e 16,500 16,500 16,500 66,000
4 (eff. 4/91) -- 16,500 16,500 16,500 49,500
5 (eff. 4/91) -- 16,530 16,500 16,500 49,500
6 (eff. 5/91) -- 11,0.V 16,500 16,500 44,000
7 (eff. 5/91) - 11,000 16,500 16,500 44,000
8 (eff. 6/91) -- 5,500 16,500 16,500 38,500
9 (eff. 6/91) -- 5,500 16,500 16,500 38,500
10 (eff. 7/91) -- -- 16,500 16,500 33,000
11 (eff. 7/91) -- -- 16,500 16,500 33,000
TOTALS 5119,050 5180,000 5246,000 5246,000 791,000
The estimate costs for the second fuel year, based upon the calendar
year are as follows:
(Quarters) 1 2 3 G Total
Division Manager S 26,500 S 26,500 S 26,500 S 26,500 S 106,000
Secretary 13,800 13,800 13,800 13,8017 55,200
Follow-up Services 25,OG; 25,0.1 25,000 25,OCC S 100,000
FamiliesFirst
Assoc. Ex. Director
Supervisor #1
Supervisor #2
Eleven Therapists 181,500 181,500 181,500 181,500 S 726,000
7_46,800 T�46,000 5246,800 $246,800 S 987,200
Interagency '.Family..Preservation Program - Contra Costa County
Second year estimate is based upon continuing with eleven therapists.
Depending upon the amount of- cost savings realized in the first year,
the County may choose to have additional therapists or increase
amounts for follow-up services or do both.
ry _
-17-
* ATTACHMENT A
Case No Referral Dept.
1_
Maternal Figure Paternal Figure
Name
DOB
Ethnicity
Education
Occupation
Employment Status
Living Situation
Income
II. Potential Removal(s)
2 3 4
Name
DOB
Seg
Ethnicity
School Grade
Special Education (y n)
Sib. Position
Rlx. to Maternal Figures
Rlx. to Paternal Figure
Living Situation
at Referral `^
III. Others in Home
A. Children 1 2 3 4 -
Name
DOB
Sex
Ethnicity
Grade
Special Education (y r)
Rik. to P.R.
Sib. Position
Rlx_ to Maternal Figure
R3.x. to Paternal Figure
See Codes on Reverse
Interagency Family Preservation Program Data Sheet Page ,-2
III. Others in Home (Cont'd)
B. Adults. 1 2 3 4
r' Name
DOB
Sex
Ethnicity
Education
Occupation
Employment Status
Income
Rlx to P.R. * - See Person Codes
C. Are there any other Biological childre= of either the
maternal/paternal figures currently in any type of placement?
Yes- No If yes, please complete the following:
I 2 3 4
Name
DOB
Sex
Ethnicity
Type of Placement
.Date Placed
Exp. Date Retn. Home
# of times ran from plcemnt_
IV. Placement History
Were any of the minors (PR's and/or sibs) in this family system
ever in any type of out o= home placement? Yes No
If yes, please coaplete:
1 2 3 4
Name
Type of Placement
Date Placed
Date Retn'd Home
# of times ran frog pleemnt_
1! of times ran from horse
prior to pleennt
41 of times ran frog hone
after plcemenr
Ste-E Codes on •-everse
Interagencyr.Family, Preservation Program Data Sheet Page 3
V. Have any member(s) (minors or adults) of this family system ever
been involved with the following agencies?
1) Mental Health 2) Special Ed 3) Probation 4) Sociail Services
# Yes No If yes, please complete
Name Involved Agencies Dates of Involvement
(list any/all by #) (Corresp. with #)
1
2
3
4
S
VI. Referral Information
A. Referral. Source
Date Given to Liaison
Date Presented to IRC
Date Rejected by IRC
Date Accepted by FFl
Date of First 11ome Visit
Assessment Only Date
Presenting Problems (all that apply) Please see codes listed on
reverse - some codes apply to the family; others to the individual.
Please be specific. Note: if there-'are more than one PR, please
specify which PR, i.e. , #1,#2, etc.
B. In referring worker's opinion, what type of placement could be
recommended for the PR(s) if there were no IFPP intervention?
C. In referring Worker's opinion, what would the expected length of
placement be?
VII. Longitudinal Follow-up
A. When were follow ups made?
B. Who initiated follow up?
C. Type of follow up
D. Length of follow up
*See Codes on Reverse
. Interagency Family. Preservation Program
-,Data 5neei
VIII.Goals/Services:
A. Goals set by therapist & family
1. Anger Management
2. Alcohol Issues
3. Budgeting
4. Communication
5. Compliance
6. Coping Skills
7. Depression/Suicide
8. Drug Issues
9. Engaging
10. Hand Services
11. Health/Medical Issues
12. Home Management
13. Jobs
14. Nutrition
15. Parenting Skills
16. Placement
17. Running
18. Scheduling
19. Schools
20. Self Esteem
21. Sexual Abuse
22. Stealing
23. Stress Management
24. Support
25. Other
...LiMeragency rcU1tA--L.Y
VIII. Goals/Services; (Cont'd)
B. What Services Were Provided?
Child Management/PET S. HiBeell�.cous Clinical:
a - use of reinforcement a - use ct journal
b Tracking Behaviors b Liszoning
c - Enviornmental. controls c - Enccrzraging hope
d Natural/logical consequences d - Monitoring client
e Time out * e Bui.14ing hope
f Active listening skills f Relationship building
9 1 statements g Family Council
h No lose problem solving hSetting treat,*nt goals/objectives
i Problem ownership i providing reinforcers
Other j Counseling referral
k Trezzment plans
Emotion Managenumt: De-escalating
vales clarification
aAnger Management n - support/understanding
b - t>epression Management o - Clazifying family roles
c Anxiety/confusion managment p Pr ss change
4 - -self-criticism reduction q Chitd/adolescentdevel*pment
e - Building self-esteem r social Skills
f - Handling frustration , clarifying problem behaviors
9- 1,pulse management t re!using crises
h Use of crisis card u Refraining
i R-E.T- concepts v i st=_cture/routim
j R.E.T- techniques Gasifying family rules
k Pleasant events x Tr�zk i nc/chart inq behavior
I Relaxation Fc playing
m Tracking emotions za prc-iding litera.ure
-
n Other paz._r pencil tests
bb MI-1--tiPle Impact I-"eraPy
3. interpersonal Skill-s:
6. Advoc-IcY-
a - Conversational/social skills .-a! to counseling
b Problem Solving a - -fsrr
c - ReNegotiation Skills b _ Referral to social services
d - Giving/accepting feedback c - , ultation _
e Appropriate sexual behavior d _ Utility companies
f Accepting "no" e _ Ed::cational SYst'"I
9 Improving Compliance f - S":;al service providers
h Other Cocrz hearings
O-er
4. Assertiveness:
7- Ortber:
aTerritoriality concepts
b - Fair fighting Mzr-ey -.anagemenz
cGeneral concepts/skills b Te management
d - ix
Other C Lersure activities
d jcc hunting/inte--vi-eving
e x,,ademic skills
f J=formal support systems
g R,,--cognizing potential 'suicide
h P70tective skills
i C--her
CONCRETE SERVICXS:
C- Service Cateoory"
a Provide or help client get transp"--:--,r-i,,
b Provide or help client get food
,c Provide or help client obtain fina-Lcial assiszzzr:e
d Provide.or help client obtain chi=,:zre/babysizzfng
e Provide or help client obtain clo--"na
f Help client obtain legal aid
c Move or help client obtain housing
h Help client obtain utility benefits or services
Do house-ork/cleandng or help client obtain
horn-makerservices
J Help client obtain medical/cental i--rvices
Provide or help client get a job
Proviee furniture or other co-ads
or help client obtain furniture c-- !.casehold
Prov-;<!e toys or recreationz-'
11rovice;arrange recreationz-'
c Arrraricc for
interagency Family Preservation Program Data Sheet '-PageG
VIII-Goals/Services (Cont'd)
C. What services Were planned but not provided and why?
Repeat services 1-8.
r�
Why?
_ a. service does not exist _ b. waiting list
c. service too far away _ d. family did not follow through
_ e. service costs too much - f. other, specify
D. Services Linked to:
{ ) 1. Alcohol Counseling
( ) 2. Drug Counseling
( ) 3. Marital Counseling
( ) 4. Family Counseling
( ) 5. Day Care
{ ) 6. Summer Rec. Programs
( ) 7. Parent Ed classes
{ } 8. Health Services
( ) 9. Adult Education
( ) 10. Job Training
( ) 11. AFDC
( ) 12. Regional Center
( ) 13. Housing
( ) 14, Informal support groups
( ) 15. School services
( } 16. Legal Aid
{ } 17. Other, specify
IX. Family Involvement
A. Motivation
B. Capacity
C. Satisfaction
1. Referrants
a-
b.
C_
2. Family's
a.
b_
. Interagency Family Preservation Program Mata biieeurdyc
X. Case Closing
A. Date Closed
B. Length of time therapist worked with the family
C. If services were extended past 4 weeks (28 days), why?
( ) 1. Death in family
( ) 2. Adults married
( ) 3. PR in out of home placements for at least five days
( ) 4. PR at summer camp
( ) 5. Family initially difficult to engage
( ) 6. Additional goals, key to case resolution, were developed
( } 7. Therapist went on vacation
( ) H. Referrant, family, therapist agreed to work longer on key goals
( } 9. Family requested additional time
( )10. Referrant requested additional time
( )11. Placement was imminent
( )12. Other - specify:
D. If case was assessment only, why?
( } 1. Contrary to referrant, family never wanted service
( ) 2. Family did not keep appointments with therapist
{ } 3_ PR did not keep appointments with therapist
( } 4. Minor(s)' safety could not be assured
( ) S. Therapist's safety could not be assured
( } 6. Molest discovered
( ) 7. Drug abuse precluded engagement
( ) 8. Alcohol abuse precluded engagement
( } 9. Mat/Pat figure was incarcerated
( )10. Mat/Pat figure was hospitalized
( )11. Other - specify:
E. Reason case was closed (check all that apply)
( ) 1. Service closed, complete
( ) a_ PR(s) remainted at home
( ) 2. Service closed, incomplete
( ) a. PR(s) placed out of home
( ) 3. Service closed, incomplete
( } a. PR(s) still at home, but not all goals accomplished
{ ) 4. Service closed, other counseling recommended to family
{ ) a. Referred
{ ) b. Engaged
( } 5. Service closed, other services recommended to fanil
( } a. Referred
( ) b. Engaized
( ) 6. Other, specify
1 I1Le1'dc�eI1C:17 rd U-L'1L-y l a u.a-4-vta4..1-vaa
XI. Family Resource Worker
A. Was the Family_Resource Worker assigned to this family?
yes no
B. How long did the FR worker work with the family?
C. Did the PR(s) remain at home while the FR worker was involved?
yes no
D. Did the FR worker assist the family in solidifying gains made in
the intensive services? yes no
BW:jap
WEIDINGER8.DATASHET»IFP